AOC seems to agree that “eating babies” will save the planet.

splashuum

In a bizarre video an AOC fan suggests that people need to start eating babies to tackle climate change. AOC seems to nod in agreement with this deranged person at the meeting. Freightening stuff.

https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1179908480322289664?s=21

Black Swan

Should this be taken as a Juvenalian satirical expression similar to the Modest Proposal of Jonathan Swift?

mzungu

To be fair, I would say any kind of nod might have been to defuse the situation as opposed to agreeing with what the protestor was saying.

Black Swan

mzungu wrote: »

To be fair, I would say any kind of nod might have been to defuse the situation as opposed to agreeing with what the protestor was saying.

Point of view, as well as interpretation of physical gestures, is qualitative and subject to associated limitations and errors. Content and context may substantially alter meaning, as you have noted above mzungu. Furthermore, AOC is a case of one from a research standpoint, and making generalisations from a case is problematic.

It should also be noted that AOC has been subject to an ad hominem smear campaign by her political opponents, in their attempt to attack her personally, rather than to address the content of her political positions. This fits with the highly absurd claim that AOC was advocating eating babies. Get real!

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

It should also be noted that AOC has been subject to an ad hominem smear campaign by her political opponents, in their attempt to attack her personally, rather than to address the content of her political positions. This fits with the highly absurd claim that AOC was advocating eating babies. Get real!

Typical nonsense smear campaign. No substance. No merit. Too silly to believe. Good for Seph Meyers closer look satire.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Point of view, as well as interpretation of physical gestures, is qualitative and subject to associated limitations and errors. Content and context may substantially alter meaning, as you have noted above mzungu. Furthermore, AOC is a case of one from a research standpoint, and making generalisations from a case is problematic.

It should also be noted that AOC has been subject to an ad hominem smear campaign by her political opponents, in their attempt to attack her personally, rather than to address the content of her political positions. This fits with the highly absurd claim that AOC was advocating eating babies. Get real!

An unfortunate sign of the times we live in. It seems to be that headline grabbing and getting clicks are the main focus now, whilst the facts are casually tossed aside.

Black Swan

During a US House investigation AOC questioned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg regarding whether they fact-checked potential disinformation campaigns paid and hosted on FB during 2016 and forthcoming 2020 general elections.

Fathom

AOC departs from junior congressperson sit back and be quiet protocols.

Black Swan

Anecdotally discussed AOC with Republicans I know in coffeeshop today and they reacted with the talking points against her often found in social media.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Anecdotally discussed AOC with Republicans I know in coffeeshop today and they reacted with the talking points against her often found in social media.

An unfortunate byproduct of the times, perhaps? "News" increasingly comes from social media, whereas more reliable traditional outlets are left lagging behind.

Black Swan

mzungu wrote: »

An unfortunate byproduct of the times, perhaps? "News" increasingly comes from social media, whereas more reliable traditional outlets are left lagging behind.

The news media is under constant attack with fake news and alternative facts.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

The news media is under constant attack with fake news and alternative facts.

An already existing situation amplified by digital communications, or an entire new phenomenon?

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

An already existing situation amplified by digital communications, or an entire new phenomenon?

Technological evolution.

Black Swan

If silly attempts to smear the youngest member of Congress with a reference such as this is all her opposition has, then she will easily keep her seat in 2020.

Wanderer78

I'm up for it, it would be interesting to chat to aoc over a meal

Black Swan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm up for it, it would be interesting to chat to aoc over a meal

I would modestly propose to invite Jonathan Swift to dine with ye to offer a bit of satire to your meal.

Wanderer78

Black Swan wrote:

I would modestly propose to invite Jonathan Swift to dine with ye.

I've no idea who that is, but I'd eat anything

Black Swan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've no idea who that is...

You're kidding? You have never read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal or Gulliver's Travels? Probably one of Eire's most famous authors and satirist?

s7ryf3925pivug

He used to attack people who entered his room unannounced and walk for aaaages every day. Apparently.

AOC of course handled crazy person/troll with gentle aplomb.

Wanderer78

Black Swan wrote: »

You're kidding? You have never read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal or Gulliver's Travels? Probably one of Eire's most famous authors and satirist?

im aware of the books, but unfortunately ive issues reading, wish i could to be honest, i even have issues with audiobooks

Black Swan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im aware of the books, but unfortunately ive issues reading, wish i could to be honest, i even have issues with audiobooks

Hundreds of years ago Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal that satirically suggested harvesting Irish babies to satisfy British Royal tastes. Swift was poking fun at the Royals, who got quite angry. When this silly "eating babies" reference was made to smear AOC, I was reminded of our historic Irish hero Swift.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Technological evolution.

Happening at a fast pace and this causes problems.

MoashoaM

Unless AOC explicitly says "We should eat babies to solve climate change", or anything like as much, then she has not promoted, or endorsed, this idea or policy.

Black Swan

It was a silly low level smear attempt that no one would take seriously, but never-the-less typical of the childish name calling of her opposition.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

It was a silly low level smear attempt that no one would take seriously, but never-the-less typical of the childish name calling of her opposition.

An unfortunate sign of the times. The wild west internet allows these silly fabrications the light of day.

Black Swan

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the youngest congresswoman in US history, who failed to observe the old congressional protocols to act like a "junior" member, and be seen, but not heard. Her rather provocative congressional actions have made her a household name across the country, much to the chagrin of both long established Republicans, as well as long standing members of her own party. She symbolises the Me-too movement across the pond, signalling potential changes in women's role expectations, which can be threatening to those accustomed to the generally second class status of women in recorded history. Confident and self-actualized men need not worry, and may find her an attractive alternative to the age old status quo, while those feeling insecure may engage in childish men's locker room smears like the topic of this thread.

Ipso

Maybe being heard isn't good enough on its own.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/statements/by/

s7ryf3925pivug

I liked knock down the house on netflix. Just her bits really, started fast-forwarding through a lot of the other segments after a while. She's very genuine, very good at what she does and a good person imo.

Black Swan

Ipso wrote: »

Maybe being heard isn't good enough on its own.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/statements/by/

This Politifact page 1 of 1 is titled "All statements by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Are we to believe that AOC has only made a total of 8 statements between Friday, July 6, 2018 through June 21, 2019? At the least, this single page 1 of 1 title and 8 item list was terribly misleading; or worse, a "Pants on fire!" statement by Politifact themselves. These 8 statements did not in the slightest represent the population of "All statements" by AOC during the time period specified by Politifact.

How were these 8 statements selected by Politifact out of hundreds, perhaps thousands of statements made by AOC during this time period? An n=8 would fail statistical size calculations for her population of statements, as well as to be so small in number as to be statistically meaningless, and not representative of that population of statements. Consequently, no valid or reliable generalisations can be made from this tiny n=8 for AOC. Rather, this very specific selection of 8 statements out of the population appears to be a convenience sample, and such nonrandom and non-representative samples must be viewed with great caution, and having a great potential for selection bias, abnormal skewedness, and distortions of reported results.

This page 1 of 1 with only 8 statements appears to be GIGO; i.e., Garbage In, Garbage Out.

s7ryf3925pivug

Black Swan wrote: »

This Politifact page 1 of 1 is titled "All statements by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Are we to believe that AOC has only made a total of 8 statements between Friday, July 6, 2018 through June 21, 2019? At the least, this single page 1 of 1 title and 8 item list was terribly misleading; or worse, a "Pants on fire!" statement by Politifact themselves. These 8 statements did not in the slightest represent the population of "All statements" by AOC during the time period specified by Politifact.

How were these 8 statements selected by Politifact out of hundreds, perhaps thousands of statements made by AOC during this time period? An n=8 would fail statistical size calculations for her population of statements, as well as to be so small in number as to be statistically meaningless, and not representative of that population of statements. Consequently, no valid or reliable generalisations can be made from this tiny n=8 for AOC. Rather, this very specific selection of 8 statements out of the population appears to be a convenience sample, and such nonrandom and non-representative samples must be viewed with great caution, and having a great potential for selection bias, abnormal skewedness, and distortions of reported results.

This page 1 of 1 with only 8 statements appears to be GIGO; i.e., Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Politifact states that its process for selecting claims to fact check include considering whether the statement seems misleading or like it might be wrong. So having eight claims checked isn't intended to suggest that is representative of everything AOC has said. It's just there were only eight claims that they thought sounded questionable.

So having few claims on it relative to your profile is a good thing.

Black Swan

Laurie Modern Statue wrote: »

Politifact states that its process for selecting claims to fact check include considering whether the statement seems misleading or like it might be wrong.

Then those 8 statements on page 1 of 1 represented a purposive sample; i.e., statements selected for a specific purpose and not intended to be representative of the population of AOC statements during the year time period. Caution should therefore be exercised for potential selection bias.

Laurie Modern Statue wrote: »

So having eight claims checked isn't intended to suggest that is representative of everything AOC has said. It's just there were only eight claims that they thought sounded questionable.

So having few claims on it relative to your profile is a good thing.

Unfortunately, there are persons who will cite this one page as evidence that AOC was not a credible person, as may be the case in an earlier post on this thread.

Fathom

Ipso wrote: »

Maybe being heard isn't good enough on its own. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/statements/by/

Not representative. Meaningless.

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Not representative. Meaningless.

Point made several times in this thread. But this was but an early warning of what will come during the 2020 general election across the pond. Complete and total nonsense will be the new and pervasive normal.

Fathom

So said Dr Fiona Hill at Trump impeachment hearings. ^^

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Point made several times in this thread. But this was but an early warning of what will come during the 2020 general election across the pond. Complete and total nonsense will be the new and pervasive normal.

In a lot of ways it always was, the difference now being that it has moved position to be acknowledged and accepted in public as opposed to being acknowledged and accepted in private.

Eg. George Bush and his "No more taxes", Fianna Fail and their "The IMF are not in Ireland" spiel, to name but two. But really there are many more countless examples that could be picked.

Black Swan

mzungu wrote: »

In a lot of ways it always was, the difference now being that it has moved position to be acknowledged and accepted in public as opposed to being acknowledged and accepted in private.

The new normal has been exemplified by this twitter nonsense furiously posted by Trump, along with his apologists claiming that he's the first president that tells-it-like-it-is (e.g., when Trump bullies 16 year olds on Time covers, or posts something completely ridiculous like raking forests to prevent forest fires or telling the EPA to examine water pressure for 10 to 15 flushes per issue).

Mrcaramelchoc

No no no.if anything is to be eaten it should be the homeless.it would solve a lot of problems.

Black Swan

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

No no no.if anything is to be eaten it should be the homeless.it would solve a lot of problems.

A Modest Proposal II by Jonathan Swift to meet the tastes of the US 3% upper class?

s7ryf3925pivug

Black Swan wrote: »

A Modest Proposal II by Jonathan Swift to meet the tastes of the US 3% upper class?

Common enough for the same references and points to be repeated once a thread is over a couple of pages. But not usually by the same person

Smiles35

The Paris agreement has gone through even if Trump didn't sign.

Fathom

Laurie Modern Statue wrote: »

Common enough for the same references and points to be repeated once a thread is over a couple of pages. But not usually by the same person

Repetitious affirmation?

s7ryf3925pivug

Fathom wrote: »

Repetitious affirmation?

Common enough for the same references and points to be repeated once a thread is over a couple of pages. But not usually by the same person

Black Swan

Why America loves — and hates — outspoken young women. Interesting article from Vox that relates to the OP.

Fathom

"The Squad." Disquieting to opposition. And Trump. Childish smears result.

Black Swan

No satire allowed?

A fringe activist group, the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, took credit for the stunt on Twitter, saying, “It was us,” and “sometimes, only satire works.”

Followed by a Trump and AOC exchange:

On Thursday night, President Trump pointed his Twitter followers to the exchange and called the congresswoman “a Wack Job!” She replied, “Better than being a criminal who betrays our country.”

Fathom

Anticipates 2020 childish election campaign smears by Trump.

mzungu

Fathom wrote:

Anticipates 2020 childish election campaign smears by Trump.

Aye, the campaign trail for 2020 is shaping up to be a nasty affair.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

Aye, the campaign trail for 2020 is shaping up to be a nasty affair.

2016: The sequel.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

2016: The sequel.

Black Swan

Makes me wonder to what extent this "baby eating" slur denotes a change in American culture? Does it exemplify a lasting structural shift, or just a mere Trumpian blip that will disappear when Trump does?