Author Topic: AOC thread  (Read 4854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30022
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #280 on: May 23, 2019, 10:04:14 AM »
Which is cool because I'm not selling it. Some people would certainly care. Some of what she says would even be newsworthy. I'm just saying that she's jerkoff fodder for conservatives who want to rag on the silly liberal, and that's the reason we hear about her as much as we do. That wouldn't bother me so much if they'd just own up to it. You might well be right that she invites it herself, but as I keep saying, who's worse, the loudmouth or the people who hang on to the loudmouth's every word? She's like the god damned rock and roll hall of fame.

Tough call, but who here hangs on to her every word? I certainly do not. I only knew about the overtly sexist thing because bosk1 alluded to it, and I assumed he meant the GoT thing when I googled her name out of mere curiosity. If he was talking about something else, then he'd have to clarify that.

I think that's partly right. She's certainly destructive, but she's not the typical divider, per se. You take somebody like Trump and his objective is to exploit the divide for the benefit of his own side. Liberals will be the ruin of all. Vote Trump. Democrats do the same thing. In the meantime people don't notice that both sides are fucking them. The far left gets it. I don't see who she's looking to divide, honestly. I do see two parties she's looking to burn down, though, and that's not such a bad thing. If somebody you liked were doing it you'd probably agree, wouldn't you?

And here's something you might consider. The people on the far left think they have nothing left to lose. I don't think we're there yet, but I see why they do, and I think that point will definitely come. They're seeing a system that is fucking them and their kids will have it worse. Why shouldn't they want to burn the thing to the ground?

Mostly, yes. but while I am not a fan, I would not go so far as to say I dislike her; I simply do not agree with many of the positions she takes, and think she sticks her foot in her mouth too much. 

As for the left having nothing to lose, I can get on board with that, but I still take the position that centrist, moderate stances are the best way to get things done, but between d-nozzles like Mitch McConnell refusing to work with the Democrats and far lefties like AOC not wanting to budge an inch, it makes for a situation where not a lot will get done.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6688
  • I like terrible things
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #281 on: May 23, 2019, 11:00:53 AM »
Which is cool because I'm not selling it. Some people would certainly care. Some of what she says would even be newsworthy. I'm just saying that she's jerkoff fodder for conservatives who want to rag on the silly liberal, and that's the reason we hear about her as much as we do. That wouldn't bother me so much if they'd just own up to it. You might well be right that she invites it herself, but as I keep saying, who's worse, the loudmouth or the people who hang on to the loudmouth's every word? She's like the god damned rock and roll hall of fame.

Tough call, but who here hangs on to her every word? I certainly do not. I only knew about the overtly sexist thing because bosk1 alluded to it, and I assumed he meant the GoT thing when I googled her name out of mere curiosity. If he was talking about something else, then he'd have to clarify that.

Seemed like it was at the top of pretty much EVERY news feed on EVERY site I visited that day.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #282 on: May 23, 2019, 11:04:54 AM »
As for the left having nothing to lose, I can get on board with that, but I still take the position that centrist, moderate stances are the best way to get things done, but between d-nozzles like Mitch McConnell refusing to work with the Democrats and far lefties like AOC not wanting to budge an inch, it makes for a situation where not a lot will get done.
They would say, and of this I think they're absolutely correct with this, that it's centrist policies that got us to where we are. As much as we like to blame extremists on the other side, what we have now is the result of compromise and concession.

Final
   1   2   3   4   T
KC   7   16   7   21   51
LAR   13   10   17   14   54

A whole lot of people thought this was the greatest game they'd ever seen (I did not). Both teams traded small victories the entire time, but neither ever led by very much for very long. The game started with both teams tied and 105 points later ended with one team up by 3. This is what's been happening with the democrats and republicans for 75 years. The Rams won because they only get to play for 60 minutes. Our democracy goes on and on and on while neither side ever really gets to make much of a difference for very long, leaving us +/- a few points here or there. In the meantime we're in a state of decline, so perpetuating this with concession and compromise is essentially arguing about what color to paint the walls while the house burns down with you in it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #283 on: May 23, 2019, 11:38:10 AM »
Shirley you understand that there's a major difference between the amount of coverage a presidential candidate and a junior congressman get. Do you think the media should cover Trump to the same extent it covers the mayor of Poughkeepsie? One is newsworthy to every single citizen in the united states. AOC matters to 400k Queens residents. Robert G. Rolison will remain unknown no matter how much foolishness he tweets to his 25 (seriously) followers. Their dipshit opinions are normally going to see coverage commensurate to their standing.

But while the general idea is sound, the application is a little suspect.  She's NOT just of importance to 400k Queens residents.  Calling for government - the FEDERAL government - to assume ownership stakes in businesses (no qualifications, or limitations, on that; I've posted about this before) is not limited to "Queens".   And when she's actively one of the voices that is adamently going against the general caucus by outright calling for impeachment (though her boss is on record as recently as today as saying "NYET" to that noise), or when two Presidential candidates (namely Warren and Sanders) are actively, openly and explicitly jockeying for her public endorsement in their campaigns, we're not at all talking about the "Mayor of Poughkeepsie".

And don't call me Shirley. 

Quote
Quote
Game of Thrones was a show where the men were considered far more important than women in everyday life, yet women really thrived.  Dany and Cersei were both told whom to marry, yet both thrived and achieved great power in spite of that.  The Stark women (Catelyn, Sansa, Arya) all kicked ass at various points.  Olenna Tyrell had tons of power during her tenure as well.  A show like that should have been empowering for women, like "wow, did the many female leads do well despite always being considered 3rd class citizens."  But, no, just because a man got the crown at the end, which seemed like a mere formality anyway since the real story was about the others, it was somehow a fail for women?  No way.  See my posts about how the Stark family were really the overall winners of the Game of Thrones, with the final sequence focusing on three people, two women and a man.  To pitch a fit because a male got the crown, while ignoring how much many women overcame incredible odds at many points in the show in getting from a to z, is to ignore the story itself. 
So I really don't have a horse in the race. I'm generally on your side about forced inclusion, and I've only seen two scenes ever of GoT, ever. This does not help your cause, though, buddy.  I'll let one of our more liberal neighbors write a treatise on it, but even I thought it came off as pretty sexist.  :lol

But so what if it was?  Isn't the role of art to reflect and cause us to reflect?   If the response from the Warren's/Ocasio-Cortez's of the world was more measured and interested in dialogue (as to how, not the what) it would be more meaningful.  I don't argue with the "pitching a fit" descriptor, because it didn't take an educated look at things, it took a reactionary, rejectionary look at things, based solely on the outcome.   "She's crazy"?  Fucking men.   "A woman not on the throne"?   Fucking men.  Why not dig in, and point to similarities between the finale and, say, the 2016 election?  Or point to how the best laid plans can go awry for reasons that don't involve gender or sex?  Or perhaps show how gender/sex plays a role even when it doesn't?  There were so many places to go that don't revolve around simply measuring everything based on outcome.

(And by the by, a part of me is almost secretly in favor of the "outcome" approach, because ultimately, the backlash will be resounding.  If you DO look to "outcome only", then as the dust settles after the uproar, it becomes a math problem.   As time goes on, then in any given instance, Jews should have roughly 4% of whatever positions we're talking about.  African Americans, 13%.   Whites, 60%.  Homosexuals, 4%.   Women, 50.5%.  That's not going to play well when making your identity politics pitches to the electorate.  Yet again, another example of the narrow thinking of inexperience and youth, putting all the eggs in the basket of hyperbole with no forethought as to the ramifications of action.)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #284 on: May 23, 2019, 12:33:11 PM »
But so what if it was? 
You're asking me? Fuck, I'm mostly on his side here.  :lol
Quote
Isn't the role of art to reflect and cause us to reflect?   If the response from the Warren's/Ocasio-Cortez's of the world was more measured and interested in dialogue (as to how, not the what) it would be more meaningful.  I don't argue with the "pitching a fit" descriptor, because it didn't take an educated look at things, it took a reactionary, rejectionary look at things, based solely on the outcome.   "She's crazy"?  Fucking men.   "A woman not on the throne"?   Fucking men.  Why not dig in, and point to similarities between the finale and, say, the 2016 election?  Or point to how the best laid plans can go awry for reasons that don't involve gender or sex?  Or perhaps show how gender/sex plays a role even when it doesn't?  There were so many places to go that don't revolve around simply measuring everything based on outcome.
As for the why nots, why not read Dostoevsky to 3rd graders? Surely they'd benefit from his wisdom and insight, right? This is akin to Gilibrand using Roe as shorthand for all abortion arguments. Speech is tailored to the intended audience. YOu skip 550 brutal pages of Russian text and use metaphors, similes and the like to give them an important lesson and hope that one day they'll be able to suffer through the whole damn thing. Like you, I'd love to live in a democracy where the electorate is informed enough and capable of understanding a more thoughtful discussion, but alas, here we are. And where do they stop? Does KG phrase her remarks on the legal aspect so that only you and Bosk can understand them, leaving me out? Does she work it to my level? Or does she deliver it to where the most people can get the flavor of it? Does AOC need to spend 3 hours on 74 tweets righting a detailed analysis of sexism in Westeros? As I said, I suspect KG and ACO are both capable of having a far more accurate and meaningful discussion of what they speak about (at least one I'm sure of). They both know how to target their audience of dolts.

By the way, I'm typing up a post regarding opportunity vs outcome goals. It's something I want to spend a bit more time on than my typical flyby replies.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30022
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #285 on: May 23, 2019, 04:18:56 PM »
. Our democracy goes on and on and on while neither side ever really gets to make much of a difference for very long, leaving us +/- a few points here or there. In the meantime we're in a state of decline, so perpetuating this with concession and compromise is essentially arguing about what color to paint the walls while the house burns down with you in it.

Okay, but what is the solution?  Neither side is going to let the other completely have their way, so it sounds like we are screwed no matter what. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #286 on: May 23, 2019, 05:16:54 PM »
. Our democracy goes on and on and on while neither side ever really gets to make much of a difference for very long, leaving us +/- a few points here or there. In the meantime we're in a state of decline, so perpetuating this with concession and compromise is essentially arguing about what color to paint the walls while the house burns down with you in it.

Okay, but what is the solution?  Neither side is going to let the other completely have their way, so it sounds like we are screwed no matter what.
That's my take, yeah. I'm perfectly happy to let the new left make a bunch of noise and maybe shake a few things up, though. I really don't buy into the pipedreams they throw out, but if nothing else they understand the problem and most of them actually seem to care. Neither mainstream republicans nor democrats to fit that bill. I don't know as AOC actually cares, either. I think Bernie does, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #287 on: May 24, 2019, 09:01:03 AM »
But so what if it was? 
You're asking me? Fuck, I'm mostly on his side here.  :lol
Quote
Isn't the role of art to reflect and cause us to reflect?   If the response from the Warren's/Ocasio-Cortez's of the world was more measured and interested in dialogue (as to how, not the what) it would be more meaningful.  I don't argue with the "pitching a fit" descriptor, because it didn't take an educated look at things, it took a reactionary, rejectionary look at things, based solely on the outcome.   "She's crazy"?  Fucking men.   "A woman not on the throne"?   Fucking men.  Why not dig in, and point to similarities between the finale and, say, the 2016 election?  Or point to how the best laid plans can go awry for reasons that don't involve gender or sex?  Or perhaps show how gender/sex plays a role even when it doesn't?  There were so many places to go that don't revolve around simply measuring everything based on outcome.
As for the why nots, why not read Dostoevsky to 3rd graders? Surely they'd benefit from his wisdom and insight, right? This is akin to Gilibrand using Roe as shorthand for all abortion arguments. Speech is tailored to the intended audience. YOu skip 550 brutal pages of Russian text and use metaphors, similes and the like to give them an important lesson and hope that one day they'll be able to suffer through the whole damn thing. Like you, I'd love to live in a democracy where the electorate is informed enough and capable of understanding a more thoughtful discussion, but alas, here we are. And where do they stop? Does KG phrase her remarks on the legal aspect so that only you and Bosk can understand them, leaving me out? Does she work it to my level? Or does she deliver it to where the most people can get the flavor of it? Does AOC need to spend 3 hours on 74 tweets righting a detailed analysis of sexism in Westeros? As I said, I suspect KG and ACO are both capable of having a far more accurate and meaningful discussion of what they speak about (at least one I'm sure of). They both know how to target their audience of dolts.

But all due respect, it's not an appropriate analogy.    The "Dostoevsky to 3rd graders" is part of a bigger program.  Math is a better example; we don't teach multivariable calculus to third graders either, but the curriculum of K through 12 assumes a progression, and what you learn in 3rd grade will be revisited in ever-increasing complexity at least three times before 12th grade.   That's not the case with Gillebrand.  She's throwing it out there to accumulate votes and fuck 'em if they never learn, they voted for me!  And if they didn't, they're deplorable!   (I say that as a sign that this is all related and all a continuum.)  At least the teacher of Dostoevsky will likely at some point say "well, it's more complicated than this, but here's the gist."   Or "for those of you feeling adventurous, you could contemplate the symbolism of St. Petersburg, though that won't be on the test."  That's not the case with Gillebrand.    She's doubling down with other, related messages that are equally as specious, and if you don't agree?  You are engaged in a war on women (read: "you're deplorable", or if you don't like the heavihandedness of that, then "you're immoral").   

The teacher is leading the student.  Gillebrand, et al. is bullying the "student" (the voter).

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #288 on: May 31, 2019, 01:47:59 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/aoc-ted-cruz-lobbying

Well would ya look at that. Some bipartisanship.