AOC: the men behind her curtain.


Hitchcock

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
9,750
Just giving my impression.

I could ask you to google "AoC stupid" ??

Fox News is ripping her and her policies to shreds on a daily basis. But what would you expect, I hear you say.

Trump is saying he hopes the Dems give her prime billing. He comes out and says it because he believes the Dems are not going to take her seriously.

True enough, even the Dems are not very supportive of her.

Here is a reasonably well balanced article on her: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

What is your impression of AoC ?
Fox News aren't capable of any objective analysis - the guy they had on delaing with the issue around the payment to her staffers made a fool of himslef.

The establishment democtrats clearly don't support her but that's hardly a surprise - there's clearly a battle going on among many of the more conervative democrats and a new cohort of more left newcomers that have been inspirded by Bernie Saunders and the campaign he ran.

I think AOC is good and she is a very welcome voice in US politics - she has been poor on the current US imperial manouevers in Venezuela as has Saunders but at least they're raising important economic and environemntal issues.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
I'm sorry for labeling you as an intersectionalist, its difficult for me to see nuance when I'm being piled on for my opinions, but this is a poor excuse and does not mitigate my apology, which is sincere.
Well thank you for the apology, but the thing is that you are still doing it. You attribute beliefs to others, including nasty personal cracks like speculation about their personal choices mixed in with silliness about dyes and cats and then you wonder why people "pile on" to you for your opinions. What do you expect when you're so nasty to or about people? And based on nothing but your own beliefs about them?

For instance in this particular case, do you know any more about AOC's beliefs or personal life than you do about mine, when you made those assumptions? Never mind those of her supporters whom you so clearly visualise it seems. But since she, and they, are not here, they're not going to point this out to you. Thus validating your beliefs about them.

To be blunt, it seems like your whole mindset is about attributing straw man beliefs to others, rather than defending your own views. I can see that it's probably easier though.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
Well thank you for the apology, but the thing is that you are still doing it. You attribute beliefs to others, including nasty personal cracks like speculation about their personal choices mixed in with silliness about dyes and cats and then you wonder why people "pile on" to you for your opinions. What do you expect when you're so nasty to or about people? And based on nothing but your own beliefs about them?

For instance in this particular case, do you know any more about AOC's beliefs or personal life than you do about mine, when you made those assumptions? Never mind those of her supporters whom you so clearly visualise it seems. But since she, and they, are not here, they're not going to point this out to you. Thus validating your beliefs about them.

To be blunt, it seems like your whole mindset is about attributing straw man beliefs to others, rather than defending your own views. I can see that it's probably easier though.
I don't think its an assumption to label AOC an intersectional feminist, I have read the green new deal. Do you believe that climate change "intersects" with the oppression of races genders and sexual orientations?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
I have no clue what you mean, and TBH even less interest.

Why don't you put up your own opinions, instead of telling us what other people's are and why they're wrong?

Or at least quote them first FFS. With links. As it is, it looks like more of your usual strawmanning.
Of which you have a record, as I say.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
I have no clue what you mean, and TBH even less interest.

Why don't you put up your own opinions, instead of telling us what other people's are and why they're wrong?

Or at least quote them first FFS. With links. As it is, it looks like more of your usual strawmanning.
Of which you have a record, as I say.
AOC is further politicizing climate change with her intersectional feminism,

"It is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal ... to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth,"
AOC: Green New Deal Must Repair 'Historic Oppression' of Indigenous People

She calls it climate justice.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
So she's a feminist who cares about the climate. Is that a problem? She's only allowed to be interested in a single issue? What is your point here?

And she's a politician. By definition her involvement "politicises" an issue. What could or should she do that would not be "politicising" climate change? Ignore it?

Why don't you just tell us what you think is wrong with her proposals, if there are any?
Do you actually know what she wants to do, or is this all just knee jerk dislike from you?
 
Last edited:

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
So she's a feminist who cares about the climate. Is that a problem? She's only allowed to be interested in a single issue? What is your point here?

And she's a politician. By definition her involvement "politicises" an issue. What could or should she do that would not be "politicising" climate change? Ignore it?
So she's a feminist who cares about the climate. Is that a problem? She's only allowed to be interested in a single issue? What is your point here?

And she's a politician. By definition her involvement "politicises" an issue. What could or should she do that would not be "politicising" climate change? Ignore it?

Why don't you just tell us what you think is wrong with her proposals, if there are any?
Do you actually know what she wants to do, or is this all just knee jerk dislike from you?
You accused me of strawmanning her as an intersectional feminist,

Or at least quote them first FFS. With links. As it is, it looks like more of your usual strawmanning
I'm just proving that I didn't, the green new deal proves that she is as I labeled her.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
If you repeat that term often enough someone here might be fooled into believing that you know what you are talking about........................

:)
Aww you got a wee dig in, feel better now?

And a pat on the head from moderator petaljam, what does a man have to do around here to get his handbagging approved by a moderator?
 
Last edited:

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
You accused me of strawmanning her as an intersectional feminist,



I'm just proving that I didn't, the green new deal proves that she is as I labeled her.
Unless intersectionalist means a politician who is interested in more than one issue, it really really doesn't.

Is the reason why you refuse to engage with the substantive issues and prefer to scream abuse from the sidelines because you don't actually know anything about them?

For instance, is it likely that, say, indigenous peoples are more vulnerable to climate instability and issues like pollution than wealthier subsections of the American population?

Are you aware for example that a significant proportion of native Americans don't have access to clean water?
Many of them live in conditions closer to third world countries than to what would be expected in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Or maybe you do know that, but you think it's just an unfortunate coincidence and nothing at all to do with them being from indigenous groups who were often transported there by force?

And I don't know much about Australian Aborigenes, yet I'd be prepared to put a sizeable bet that a higher proportion of them live in places vulnerable to climate change and other such issues than the average Australian. How much are you good for that they aren't more vulnerable than the average Ozzie?

(Am I back to being an intersectionalist again?)
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
Aww you got a wee dig in, feel better now?

And a pat on the head from moderator petaljam, what does a man have to do around here to get his handbagging approved by a moderator?
Why don't you report it if you have a problem. You could be right. Let someone else decide.
I'll let you know if I get a rap on the knuckles. :)
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,694
Mr. Reagan interviewed about his million views video:

[17,424]​
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
Unless intersectionalist means a politician who is interested in more than one issue, it really really doesn't.

Is the reason why you refuse to engage with the substantive issues and prefer to scream abuse from the sidelines because you don't actually know anything about them?

For instance, is it likely that, say, indigenous peoples are more vulnerable to climate instability and issues like pollution than wealthier subsections of the American population?

Are you aware for example that a significant proportion of native Americans don't have access to clean water?
Many of them live in conditions closer to third world countries than to what would be expected in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Or maybe you do know that, but you think it's just an unfortunate coincidence and nothing at all to do with them being from indigenous groups who were often transported there by force?

And I don't know much about Australian Aborigenes, yet I'd be prepared to put a sizeable bet that a higher proportion of them live in places vulnerable to climate change and other such issues than the average Australian. How much are you good for that they aren't more vulnerable than the average Ozzie?

(Am I back to being an intersectionalist again?)
I'm afraid you are, the fact is many Americans are more vulnerable to climate instability than their wealthier countrymen and many have no access to clean water, but framing the problem as belonging to a particular identity plainly discriminates against others who face the same problems but don't belong to a minority.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
Why don't you report it if you have a problem. You could be right. Let someone else decide.
I'll let you know if I get a rap on the knuckles. :)
Nah, not my style, big believer in free speech.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
Nah, not my style, big believer in free speech.
From where I'm standing that's not what I see. I see someone who prefers to whinge, off topic and almost constantly, about perceived injustices against them than follow the procedures that are put in place to rectify actual issues.

Seems to me like a silent acknowledgment that you're aware that the allegations are unfounded. Or else it's a particularly stunning example of the sort of victim mentality that those accursed left wingers are supposed to display. Why do anything when you can enjoy a good whinge about it instead, eh? :rolleyes:

Anyway, on topic :
Remember the point about indigenous peoples being more vulnerable to climate change than wealthier communities? Well, unsurprisingly (to me anyway), Ms Acasio-Cortes is right: Science Direct: "Indigenous peoples are going to be disproportionately affected by climate change"

But hey, much better to sneer at a young woman who's got up off her backside to try and do something, right?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
I'm afraid you are, the fact is many Americans are more vulnerable to climate instability than their wealthier countrymen and many have no access to clean water, but framing the problem as belonging to a particular identity plainly discriminates against others who face the same problems but don't belong to a minority.
This is more fact free opinion. It doesn't "plainly discriminate" at all, unless she says nobody else is concerned or has a problem. Which I assume she doesn't. Breaking problems down into their different components is not discrimination.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
This is more fact free opinion. It doesn't "plainly discriminate" at all, unless she says nobody else is concerned or has a problem. Which I assume she doesn't. Breaking problems down into their different components is not discrimination.
What? You don't think there are people who suffer the same deprivations as indigenous communities, you think that's just my opinion?
And she is not breaking down problems into their different components she is breaking problems down to how they impact identities.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,293
From where I'm standing that's not what I see. I see someone who prefers to whinge, off topic and almost constantly, about perceived injustices against them than follow the procedures that are put in place to rectify actual issues.

Seems to me like a silent acknowledgment that you're aware that the allegations are unfounded. Or else it's a particularly stunning example of the sort of victim mentality that those accursed left wingers are supposed to display. Why do anything when you can enjoy a good whinge about it instead, eh? :rolleyes:

Anyway, on topic :
Remember the point about indigenous peoples being more vulnerable to climate change than wealthier communities? Well, unsurprisingly (to me anyway), Ms Acasio-Cortes is right: Science Direct: "Indigenous peoples are going to be disproportionately affected by climate change"

But hey, much better to sneer at a young woman who's got up off her backside to try and do something, right?
I'm not pointing out perceived injustices, I'm pointing out a bias.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,575
What? You don't think there are people who suffer the same deprivations as indigenous communities, you think that's just my opinion?
No that's not what I said.

But thanks for demonstrating yet again how completely unreliable are your descriptions of what you think someone else's opinion is.

And she is not breaking down problems into their different components she is breaking problems down to how they impact identities.
In your opinion. And as I say, you've just shown again how foolish it would be for me to take that as being worth anything.
 
Top