2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: 500+ at multicultural Bernie event in San Diego [View all]BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 02:18 AM - Edit history (1)
I will dispense with the humor and be direct. You invented a title of the article that distorted its meaning. The point of an article is not buried in the last sentence. Journalists always lead with their main point because they know many people do not read every word, particularly on the internet. That is a blog after all. You sought to promote an agenda and got called on it. Rather than acknowledging what you had done, you chose to insult people. I owe you no apology. I called you on a clear distortion. You took it very badly.
Now, naturally the peanut gallery supports you. The failure to support Sanders, treat him with absolute reverence, makes us inferior beings. That point has been communicated all too often. The idea that teasing you should reflect badly on Clinton is absurd. People here despise her more than virtually any other human being on the planet. It would not be possible to generate more antipathy than has already been carefully cultivated. No Clinton supporter in this thread dreams any of you will vote for her in the primary. Your reaction also shows a full-scale inability to take criticism and a complete absence of a sense of humor.
Now it is possible for a crowd with a few people who are not Anglo-looking to be considered relatively diverse in some places. It does not in my community. I can't go to the corner store, drug store, or supermarket without seeing people from a wide variety of ethnic, religious, and national origins. I see dozens of East African women in hijabs every day, in addition to many African Americans, tribal peoples, Mexican and Central American immigrants, Southeast Asian immigrants, Hispanics, on and on. That is the community I live in. Some who live in more homogeneous areas will perceive diversity differently. However, the Democratic Party is far, far more diverse than that photo. That difference in perspective might serve as an excuse if the article had actually been about multiculturalism or diversity. One sentence at the end does not change the point of the article, which was the content of Sanders speech and the reactions of some of his supporters. The title you created sought to promote a perception you thought would benefit Sanders, and that is what you got called on.
Next time you intend to promote an agenda, coordinate with your "objective" Sanders supporting journalist in advance. You don't have any right to write misleading titles without catching criticism. Deal with it.