Kamala Harris

[Sister Havana]

That's actually not what the sentence is saying. Look at it in context: the previous sentence is about the number of members of AKA. "With a total membership approaching 1 million, is a parenthetical. "All working informally in their communities" refers to "other members" at the beginning of the sentence, not the entire membership of the Divine Nine. The next paragraph is a quote from someone who is a member of another D9 group.

And so what if the reporter was formerly a sportswriter?
People in media change beats ALL THE TIME. Team beat writers (which she was for the Nationals for several years) are as in-depth on those beats as political writers, business writers, etc. are on their beats. Nice info cherry-picking.

[Ronaldo9]

Originally Posted by Sister Havana

And so what if the reporter was formerly a sportswriter?
People in media change beats ALL THE TIME.

Of course, that's fine.

But, someone whose journalistic experience was - until four months ago - compiling box scores for MLB.com does not have the sophistication or experience to engage in broad-based statistical analysis of political organizing trends.

Since her claim was made without evidence (such as quoting a subject matter expert or providing citable data points), we are left to rely on her personal expertise.

I personally choose not to rely on personal expertise for a statement on the sociology of political organizing when said expertise is limited to compiling box scores for San Diego Padres games.

Others may do so, if you choose. No problem!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo9

Of course, that's fine.

But, someone whose journalistic experience was - until four months ago - compiling box scores for MLB.com does not have the sophistication or experience to engage in broad-based statistical analysis of political organizing trends.

Since her claim was made without evidence (such as quoting a subject matter expert or providing citable data points), we are left to rely on her personal expertise.

I personally choose not to rely on personal expertise for a statement on the sociology of political organizing when said expertise is limited to compiling box scores for San Diego Padres games.

Others may do so, if you choose. No problem!

This is like saying that just because you work at McDonald’s you don’t know how to cook escargots. Your job is not the sum total of your knowledge.

[Ronaldo9]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This is like saying that just because you work at McDonald’s you don’t know how to cook escargots.

Almost. It's more like saying just because you work at McDonald's you don't know how to calibrate the accelerometer and gyroscope on an inertial measurement unit.

You might be able to, but I'm not willing to assume so in the absence of evidence.

Others are free to make that assumption, however.

[Sister Havana]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo9

Of course, that's fine.

But, someone whose journalistic experience was - until four months ago - compiling box scores for MLB.com does not have the sophistication or experience to engage in broad-based statistical analysis of political organizing trends.

Perhaps you missed the part of her bio where it says she was the Post's Washington Nationals beat reporter from 2014-2018. (Or, more likely, chose to ignore it.)

Is this a bit? Please tell me you're just doing a bit.

[Ronaldo9]

Originally Posted by Sister Havana

Perhaps you missed the part of her bio where it says she was the Post's Washington Nationals beat reporter from 2014-2018.

The Washington Nationals ... as in the baseball team?

Like I said, I don't agree reporting on baseball games qualifies one to undertake original analysis on the sociology of political organizing, to build a particle accelerator, or to design a naval frigate.

• If this were Bob Woodward, Christiane Amanpour, or Hannah Arendt, I would accept her making an assertion like this without presenting any evidence (e.g. a quote from an academic or the citation of a data set) because of a demonstrated background and pedigree in political journalism that makes them a SME on the topic.
  
• If it's Perez Hilton, Samantha Ponder, or Chelsea Janes, I'm inclined to skepticism in the total absence of any evidence (e.g. a quote from an academic or the citation of a data set).

The basis of media literacy is critical evaluation of information presented.

Like I said, others are absolutely free to disagree. I love that we're able to share a rainbow of perspectives in this marketplace of ideas! Thanks, Sister Havana!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Sister Havana

Is this a bit? Please tell me you're just doing a bit.

Bits are entertaining. Whatever this is, is not.

[Ronaldo9]

Anyway, enough of punctuation, and back to our discussion of Kamala!

FactCheck at the Annenberg Public Policy Center has put up a pretty good page cataloging many of Harris' lies, misstatements, and omissions:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/fa...kamala-harris/

Politifact also has a page dedicated to Kamala Harris' falsehoods I found interesting to read:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...=kamala-harris

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo9

Anyway, enough of punctuation, and back to our discussion of Kamala!

FactCheck at the Annenberg Public Policy Center has put up a pretty good page cataloging many of Harris' lies, misstatements, and omissions:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/fa...kamala-harris/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/fa...ential-debate/

Politifact also has a page dedicated to Kamala Harris' falsehoods I found interesting to read:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...=kamala-harris

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ker=mike-pence

[Ronaldo9]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/fa...ential-debate/



https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ker=mike-pence

Absolutely. I didn't post Mike Pence's page here, though, because the title of this thread is "Kamala Harris" so it seemed a bit off-topic to discuss people not named Kamala Harris. But I digress.

[Sister Havana]

Dude. Go back and reread what I wrote about the sentence.

Originally Posted by Sister Havana

That's actually not what the sentence is saying. Look at it in context: the previous sentence is about the number of members of AKA. "With a total membership approaching 1 million” is a parenthetical. "All working informally in their communities" refers to "other members" at the beginning of the sentence, not the entire membership of the Divine Nine. The next paragraph is a quote from someone who is a member of another D9 group.

She is not making a claim about the entire membership of the Divine Nine, despite your choosing to read it that way.