Ah gotcha. That would be a good bit

though it feels like the bar for what qualifies as a scratch gets lower by the second

bet you anything our friendly visitor self-IDs as a feminist

No it seems you are. She is a member of the DNC and did all she could to get the Democratic candidate elected. On top of that she defended Joe Biden and his regimes ongoing genocide. The way things work is that actions are linked to consequences, I know this is difficult to understand if your brain hasn't developed fully yet.

You mean 'too' not 'to' there. Don't be a condescending prick about reading comprehension if you can't spell.

do I need to spoon feed you to?

HAHAHAHA.
Imagine linking a Wikipedia article as an argument.

But sure, let's go ahead and look inside.

Other concerns included her support for a resolution that characterized denial of Israel's right to exist as antisemitism and her support of the Iron Dome defense system.^{[127][128][129]}

Oh. She literally acts in support of a genocide.

So go ahead list yours then we'll compare to AOC

I have not taken part in a genocide, for example.
Notably, you have not listed any of her supposed achievements.

Ohohohoho, twice you have blundered

*You too

Considering that I am a due-paying member of a union and AOC helped Biden crush a strike, I'll say I've done at least 2x the amount of labour rights accomplishments that she has

I'm saying shes the least harmful rep we have.

"I'm saying we should support the least harmful nazi we have" lmfao

confuse terms like 'accomplishments' and 'effectiveness

You really are a liberal if you think you can point to accomplishments that are not effective. Words are more important than actions, right?

I'm saying shes the least harmful rep we have. very different statements.

We understand that's what you're saying. We're saying "she's still absolute shit". Seems like you should wipe your own ass before you call out the stink in the room.

Its not my fault you lack basic read comprehension and confuse terms like 'accomplishments' and 'effectiveness'. First, effectiveness requires a benchmark and we won't agree on the benchmark metric so there is no point.

It's not our fault you struggle with basic communication. I don't know if this works in your high school debate club, but continually insisting that basic terms aren't comprehensible to you because you normally have a slightly different interpretation of them, so as to not have to engage in the actual argument, isn't really a good rhetorical strategy. It just makes you come off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
You were asked what change she has effected - ie. What has she accomplished?

secondly I'm not the one making claims about her that need refuting

You haven't really made any claims apart from her being effective and accomplishing stuff, not bein supportive of a genocider and a lot of other claims, that's true. I guess if you require specificity you can say you haven't made any claims, but that's why you're being asked to be specific, so you can have an actual discussion.

She doesn't

You keep trying to tie this down to one single act for some reason, despite users referencing her entire tenure. I know being wrong can feel terrible, but it's actually a great opportunity to learn something! It might also improve your grades in high school, since changing your attitude about learning to something less defensive would probably make your teachers despise you less.

the omnibill version is not a vote for supporting genocide.

So it doesn't give money to Israel? Huh.

https://www.shanghaidisneyresort.com/en/attractions/adventures-winnie-pooh/

this must mean some sort of animatronic bear based in Shanghai holds executive power in China

Libs and casual racism, name a more iconic duo

It took you this long to think of this response? SAD

I fear we might overburden their mind. They already struggle to respond

What do you think math is?

No, both are fucking horrible systems

'Both the system that massively improves people's standards of living (including by providing them with guaranteed housing, universal healthcare, elimination of illiteracy, 60% improvements in life expectancy within the first 30 years, etc.) even without a complete achievement of its goals, and the system that enslaves and near-enslaves the vast majority of people, both at home and elsewhere are equally bad'.

Yeah, nah. You are just being silly. You can't even provide any concrete criticism of communism and/or communist states. Just regurgitating baseless memes that your education in history began and ended with.

Show me this math

Lmao you cannot be older than 15

mathematically

communists -->

Alright bears i think this one's tapped. Straight-up repeating themselves now, booooooo.

Everyone fill out their libby-bingo cards? DM me if you need more time otherwise I'm callin this 'd king in for the moderation they so desperately desire

Eddie: i was so, so wrong

Don't worry I well know about various systems. So I guess it's a you thing to think everything is bad and there's no good solution? Mathematically we can either have evil oligarchy or evil authority? Or do you have a secret third option that mathematically is freedom or something?

I do agree it's trivial to see the issues in capitalism mathematically or otherwise. Profit cannot grow forever. It will burn the world down.

authoritarianism

Sorry that's not a real thing. We don't believe in CIA propaganda around here https://jacobin.com/author/marcie-smith

Medieval grindset

JOKES ON YOU I'M INTO BEING TAKEN AWAY

Show

The VOLCEL POLICE are on the scene! PLEASE KEEP YOUR VITAL ESSENCES TO YOURSELVES AT ALL TIMES.

نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.

and now they've responded, again completely obliquely while failing to engage with the points made

Sure, I can even respect the empirical aspects of the conversation.

I'm not entirely sure you do, but ok, benefit of the doubt... Does it not strike you as strange that in a discussion around material political action and outcome it's a stretch for you to "even consider" empirical evidence? Why does demonstrable material analysis play second fiddle these ill-defined and vibes based rhetorical ideas for you? I'm not even making a criticism here, I'm genuinely asking.

But what you're all missing is the non-material aspects and thinking I'm a liberal is coloring your responses.

We're not missing them (although people here are not a monolith), we've tried to explain that we do not see any value in them and why that is. Plenty of users have also tried to engage you on why these things matter, usually to a response of petulant insults.

As for thinking you're a liberal; however you choose to define yourself is immaterial here. My point is that you're trying to counter materialist analysis with rhetorical devices that both derived from and are relied upon by an ahistorical, immaterial strain of liberal idealism in order to defend a liberal politician in a liberal political party. You could call yourself a Stalinist for all I care; your frame of analysis, arguement, and purpose is entrenched in liberalism.

I'm saying you're all assholes to a person who literally is very similar to you ideologically (worker owned means of production, strong safety net).

First of all, as brief aside, why is that you seem to continually run to insults, belittling people, misogyny, and misgendering people? Even when they're not being hostile, as I'm not. Is it a defense mechanism? Or if you genuinely think we're all idiots, assholes, and children then why are you so invested in this? But anyway, I digress...

The main point here is that you assert that our positions are very similar. They are fundamentally not. AOC is a capitalist politician who works to uphold and defend one of the most rampantly capitalist and reactionary states on the planet. She occasionally gestures in the direction of social democracy which, as others have attempted to explain to you and provided reading and sources for, is not socialism and is a release valve designed for the capital class to maintain the exploitative status quo against the threat of actual socialism / communism.

I suspect that your confusion around these definitions comes from simply absorbing the rhetoric of the American political two party spectrum rather than political theory.

and just trying to make her way in the world and is very likely a genuinely decent human being.

Once again, people here aren't interested in her intent (even if we all believed the way she's presented). It's simply not of any material concern. Doubly so for the idea that she's "just making her way in the world". Even ignoring the fact that everyone is doing that, and not usually as a member of the government of a massive global superpower, why is that relevant? As I asked in another comment, I'm not sure why we should be concerned with the continued career prospects of a capitalist, liberal politician in general, never mind doing so above and beyond the material effects of her actions, which often lead to appalling outcomes, mass death, and the strengthening of a status quo and political system that we see as entirely illegitimate and needs to be destroyed.

It's this sort of stuff that makes many of your responses seem like simple 'I like her and you're all delusional assholes because you don't' parasocial stuff.

dear god is she better than most, including many in this community

You don't know anyone in this community, have no idea what actions they've taken in life, and as many have pointed out, no, on the basis of harm caused by her actions, she's not. This, again, just feels like odd parasocial stan culture stuff so let's move on shall we?

She's also fairly talented in the political world regardless of how you feel about her positions.

First of all, it would appear not given her inability to extract meaningful change, secure the positions she aspires to, and the fact that you yourself have used her inability to do these things as a defense of her throughout this thread.

Secondly, given that we have established that AOC does not share my values, politics, or worldview, why exactly would I want her to be politically talented anyway? Why would I want an agent of a system I oppose to be good at it?

As for facts.... there are likely no 'facts' we'll agree on as clearly demonstrated on the rampant disregard for what AOC has actually done vs what you're all claiming she's done. Yes, I've repeatedly pointed out the false narrative you're all spinning about her.

That's a very convenient way to sidestep the material concerns people have brought up all over this thread. People have repeatedly asked you in this thread for examples of the sort of positive achievements that you're insisting we should recognise as beneficial to our political viewpoint and you've continually dodged, hedged, and ignored them. You do at least bring up the rail strike as an example here though, and I give you credit for that, so we'll get to that in a moment.

Could you give any examples of what you mean by people here spinning false narratives or the things we're "all claiming she's done" which she has not? I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to here.

Lets take the rail strike for example, I'll gladly lampoon biden for that because he had agency in that vote, he had a duty to represent the country, and part of that is ensuring workers have agency and an environment in which to strike. AOC per her own reports (which I'm happy to admit are biased) was acting on literally behalf of the workers in her constituency. she literally did her job she was elected to do. represent her constituents. do I agree with her vote? no. but if they did ask her to vote yes, I cant fault her for doing so. Its not like they asked her to vote no on passing a national paid sick leave policy. Would I gladly work with her to solve my countries problems? abso fucking lutely. do I fault her for working to build common ground with liberals? kinda, but I get it, shes outnumbered and marginalized and in those situations you compromise and get as much as you can.

I'm going to try and take all of this together because I think it's another example talking at completely cross purposes.

As a communist I fundamentally don't care if she accurately or admirably represented her constituents or even the interests of a particular union. Why would I? She doesn't share my politics, and many of them won't either. Similarly to the way I don't care if some Texan evangelical accurately represents his constituents. You could argue there's a difference of degrees there, sure, but they're both working to uphold the same political system which is one I fundamentally oppose.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the point that has been made again and again by people here is that she has done more material harm than good. A handful of minor concessions gained, that also strengthen an illegitimate system, simply do not outweigh the impact of the her other actions.

As for hypothetical about whether I'd work with her to solve America's problems, that's completely immaterial because; a) I'd never be in a position to do so for a multitude of reasons, and b) America's construction as a state and by extension her role in it is the problem.

But for those of you here what she did is an absolute betrayal. we. just. don't. agree.

I'm not sure it is. I don't think most people here have this sort of parasocial attachment to AOC either way. Most of us understand that she acts in accordance with the fact that she's a liberal capitalist working to uphold the American system. We criticise her for that, because we oppose it, it's against our material interests and political philosophy.

If there are people here who take that emotional tack of betrayal, it's probably either because they were once a liberal who supported her positions before they became socialists.

For others I expect it's not betrayal, but disgust at liberal cooption of traditionally leftist language in order to hypocritaclly uphold the reactionary, oppressive system.

You want hard 'numbers' for metrics? I've literally cited sources for a couple of these and compared to china to highlight the absurdity. at the scale these countries operate you're talking about marginal differences based on priorities of the ruling classes.

I tend to prefer empirical evidence and material analysis yes.

I assume you're referring to your discussion, such as it was, over literacy rates here? I'm not going to retread everything other commenters have said, instead I'd encourage you to engage further with them, but there too you either missed or deliberately sidestepped some important details.

Firstly, marginal differences matter, especially when you're talking about talking about a country with a population of almost 1.5 billion people.

Secondly, the relative starting positions and speed at which these gains happened is also relevant to the discussion if you're trying to contrast the relative merit of the two systems.

Thirdly, the direction of travel and progress also matters beyond just the snapshot of the numbers today. There's plenty of evidence that US literacy rates are declining and will likely continue to do so as the state deprioritises education and cuts funding. Meanwhile, literacy rates in China continue to climb and are expected to continue to do so.

(Continued in next comment)

strong safety net

ignorant condescension from someone so politically illiterate they confuse social democracy with socialism

AOC per her own reports (which I'm happy to admit are biased) was acting on literally behalf of the workers in her constituency.

LiberalSocialist banned 2023, Jatone thread-spanning smug lib posting 2024

Welcome back LiberalSocialist

I'm saying you're all assholes to a person who literally is very similar to you ideologically (worker owned means of production, strong safety net) and just trying to make her way in the world and is very likely a genuinely decent human being. One of the few we have. no one is perfect but dear god is she better than most, including many in this community.

This is what @MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net was getting at. You're judging her (or at least you think we should judge her? Idk I just got here lol) based on the ideas she says she has in her head (assuming she ever said the words "worker-owned means of production" lol) and we are judging her based on her actual position and actions within the political system of the American empire, where she is tolerated by that system (until she's no longer convenient ofc) mainly cuz, like Bernie, she is incredible at getting libs like you to literally idolize her in your head and continue to engage with that system despite the fact that..... where have her principles and convictions been during anything that fucking mattered? Sure, she can introduce PROGRESSIVE bills into the US Congress that have 0 change of actually getting passed but she can't take even a rhetorical/vote-based stand against genocide or crushing rail strikes? I know her (and yours) argument if it ever even comes up is "political pragmatism" ("she couldn't vote like that because of the darn evil DNC which she has no power over whatsoever!!") but all pragmatism and no politics or exercising power is just opportunism lol. If you care at all about shit actually getting better I am begging you to raise your standards lol, otherwise if you're just here to tone-police us about hypocrisy or something uhhhh keep doing your civic duty and vote! But also shut the fuck up

Sure, I can even respect the empirical aspects of the conversation.

too bad I can't respect you, liberal

We have a few of those threads. I personally keep some articles bookmarked. You can start an effort to make a more comprehensive thread here on hexbear as well. It doesn't have to be an individual operation. heres a thread for inspiration

"I'm a skeptic and a free thinker, that's why I agree with the world superpower reigning in my part of the world about anything potentially rivaling its power."

Lmao, why did you even leave reddit in the first place, that hellsite was literally made for you

I'm probably more fuck the DNC are than you twits

You are currently defending their members and strategies. You can't try to defend whatever semblance of progressivism you have while simultaneously spouting reactionary drivel.

You sound the most 15 years old anybody has ever sounded right now

Please educate yourself. Read a book, even Harry Potter would make you better.

I didn't actually make it but I did imagine posting it

It looks like :frothing-fash: to me

libs trying to make sense of politics while having never read a single page of theory