*advancing her career
https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3ldhxclo4wk2c
This is about AOC losing her bid for the Oversight committee to a geriatric Dem lifer. Sure she has systematically shredded any last bit of credibility with her triangulation, but hey, at least all the 5D polítical chess is paying off! She's changing the system from the inside! It's working this time!
Girl, you abandoned any pretense of doing working-class mass politics when you decided to do insider politics! Why are you tweeting like Bernie Sanders circa 2012? There's no we! There's no mass movement behind you! It's just NYC DSA and some Warren libs (but I repeat myself)
I shit on people in hateful, murdering parties, that is correct
yeah thats why no likes you. even when a individual mostly aligns with your views you shit on them. oops. you have plenty of far shittier targets in the DNC to go after than AOC. spend your efforts on them. once AOC becomes the worst of the bunch then maybe people will take you seriously.
HOLY FUCK WHERE IS YOUR SELF-AWARENESS. "No one likes you because you shit on hateful murderers" DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF YOU SETTLER WINDBAG
My god your posts get worse and worse the further down this thread I go
enjoy =)
This is the funniest thing I've seen yet today
I'm getting the impression that you're quite young, probably school-age, if you think this is some kind of banger
Sorry sweaty, you're not allowed to oppose Hitler because Oskar Dirlewanger is currently the worst of the bunch
Also you can stop typing "people" when you just mean yourself, that kind of transparent "I speak for normal people" wishcasting doesn't work when nobody agrees with you and you're breathlessly defending a genocidiare.
The views of social democrats and the views of communists are not at all comparable. The point of social democrats is to provide an off ramp to leftist radicalization and create the appearance of change. Read State and Revolution to understand this effect more. There's a reason why we say social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism.
And you're arguing with a strawman idea of me. First, all views are comparable. thats literally how you're making a distinction between social democrats and communists.
And I never said you had to like AOC, I'm saying shes literally one of the best you have in a very small group. if you want to move the window towards your world view you need to support people like her in order to acclimate the population your views. AKA: normalize shooting of CEOs.
Now once you do that and elect more and more in her region of the idea sphere, which we both know is closer to your wants than basically every other rep. Then undermining her is a great idea. Instead you shit on her and her positions which are demonstrably better than basically every other politician in play atm.
Sadly your too much of a ideologue to recognize the facets of human nature you need to leverage to actually get the outcome you desire.
I mean this earnestly when I say that part of the problem you're having here, and will continue to have, is that you (like most liberals) have adopted a sort of gnosticism around politics and your theory of change that deals in intent, vague notions of 'overton windows', 'marketplaces of ideas', and even "her region of the idea sphere". It's abstraction that (conveniently for the systems that push it) can't be properly identified, quantified, and tested.
Meanwhile, you're trying to talk in these terms to a group of people who primarily come out of a discipline of materialist analysis. And because you so steadfastly refuse to point to concrete examples (facts, history, statistics, case studies, demonstrable social dynamics etc) even when repeatedly asked for them, it comes across as either deliberately evasive and bad faith, or like a mystic waving their arms in the air spouting rhetorical woo-woo claiming the opposite of demonstrable reality.
Does that make any sense to you? And if not, why not?
another scalpel of a comment that will be ignored by this high school debate wizard
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. But what you're all missing is the non-material aspects and thinking I'm a liberal is coloring your responses. Let me try to spell it out to you in a different way:
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. She's also fairly talented in the political world regardless of how you feel about her positions. its why she gets so much flak, and personally like bernie I'd like to keep her around as long as possible even though I disagree with her on things.
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 shes done. Yes, I've repeatedly pointed out the false narrative you're all spinning about her. We just fundamentally don't agree here on the same information.
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.
But for those of you here what she did is an absolute betrayal. we. just. don't. agree.
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. While I've done a few examples here I havent bothered writing you all a dissertation because frankly your opinions of my opinions (and vis versa) don't matter and the data is readily available and we've probably all looked at it. Why waste the time over nonsense numbers that are almost certainly doctored in various ways. Your responses? 'you changed the definition of the term! CIA doctored the information!' etc. See? waste of time to argue the numbers. they're essentially meaningless when you're going to waste time of the definition of the term 'literacy' I was literally using the most generous term and accepting china's numbers essentially at face value. I did pick the value from the WHO as at least thats marginally independent source.
The primary difference is i'm happy to lampoon both capitalists and communists systems; both systems have historical and modern examples absolutely atrocious outcomes for people due to their tendency to collapse into centralized power structures leading to monocultures which always collapse. These are facts of nature and systems. While you can argue with me all you want about it, history has proven this result over and over and over across every centralized governance model, and all centralized systems suffer the same fate in basically every domain, technological, physical, biological, political.
The simple fact is I don't have to prove these things to you, it will literally just happen. I suspect neither country will last the remainder of the century given current trajectories. Nor do I particular care if this group collectively pulls their heads out of their asses and recognizes a generally decent person when they see one. I'm simply enjoying my afternoon watching your entire community have a field day thinking 'ah ha! another one! got em!' plus you know, its nice to see that no new information has been missed due to my own information silos.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
A debate clubber is introduced to the debate club
Thanks!
Old reflexes die hard. And sometimes it's worth dusting them off (especially when the insomnia hits) to deconstruct reactionary lib nonsense in a format they prefer - as much for anyone else reading as for them.
See, here's where we get into a problem and why you've gotten so many responses treating you as either acting in bad faith or being fundamentally unserious.
Are the numbers meaningless or not?
It seems like you state assertions as being based on fact, people press you for examples or evidence, and you ignore or sidestep it. Then you do engage on a very select topic, that you even set the parameters for, and produce something in defense of your assertion. But when confronted with a statistical counterpoint you immediately retreated into western chauvinism and declared the evidence that contradicted your arguement as invalid on the basis of those countries being official enemies.
Of course, others then pointed out that many of the statistics and research for the various points they were refuting there and elsewhere also actually come from organisations actively hostile to these states (the CIA world factbook for example). At which point you seem to declare that all numbers are doctored, meaningless, and discussing the facts is pointless.
As for the accusations that everyone here claimed the same thing in reverse - "CIA doctored the information!" - the only user I've seen did that explicitly to point out how ridiculous you sounded reflexively stating that any supposedly 'pro-China or Russia' numbers are inherently fictitious. They also made that very clear, which means either you didn't properly read their reply or you're deliberately mischaracterising it in a poor bad faith attempt at deflection.
First of all, this isn't some sort of centrist comedy jam. And even if it was, if you think communists don't take the piss out of communist states or practices or tendancies then you've clearly spent close to zero time with communists or engaged most popular media they've produced from classic literature to contemporary video games.
More importantly, pointing to two diametrically opposed systems with radically different conditions and challenges and saying 'both sides bad' isn't any kind of material analysis. It's also, most here would argue, another convenient excuse to sidestep the issue entirely, because an honest analysis would demonstrate the fact that despite individual failures, the two systems produced drastically different material outcomes for their people.
As for your assertions about "all centralised systems", would you care to define that or give some examples? What are these vaguely gestured at "facts of nature and systems"?
I'd also point out that it's historically been the case that all societal systems go through phases of collapse and evolution. (Do you have any examples of 'decentralised' ones that don't?) The importance is in how and why these structures collapse, rebuild, and evolve. Something that given your next point, and your lack of engagement elsewhere, you oddly don't seem very interested in.
Wow, that's an awfully convenient bit of the gnostic belief I began this discussion by pointing out.
That would be an appropriate book end I suppose but...
That's a pretty bold prediction, that could be interesting if you presented some sort of material reasoning for it.
Aaaaand we're back to insults and weird parasocial, immaterial fandom stuff again.
How would you know, given that you've pretty much refused to engage with any reading or simple material evidence provided to you?
You've essentially walked in, called everyone idiots, and on the only points you've even been willing to define immediately stated that all the evidence provided is lies and nonsense, before crossing your arms and going
See, just as I thought, everyone here is an idiot.
ignorant condescension from someone so politically illiterate they confuse social democracy with socialism
LiberalSocialist banned 2023, Jatone thread-spanning smug lib posting 2024
Welcome back LiberalSocialist
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
too bad I can't respect you, liberal
You are quite literally the strawman personified. Do you have any idea how many times each one of us has seen and had to interact with your arguments? theres a lot more liberals like you than there are communists of us. We were born from your arguments, for many of us, these were our exact talking points. Many of us were once you, we just changed when we realized it was all evil.
If I wasn't so lazy, I'd create a database of every lib talking point with a rebuttal to each one and a counter for every time it gets brought up. IIRC there was someone doing something similar for libertarians a few years ago. I think the guy working on it died or something though, never found out.
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
Oh I'm aware. I shit on the liberals all the time too. go through my post history. I'm probably more fuck the DNC are than you twits. the difference is I also recognize communism as the shit system that it is. What is it the atheists say.... oh right.... I just believe in one less shitty god than you do. take it to heart when you think about your preferred system.
"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
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.
Comparable doesn't mean similar you dolt
Yes it's actually the people who know things who are blinded by ideology, not the subservient genocide apologists like you who are blind to their ideology
What's human nature?
Cool. She's one of the 'best' in a nazi government. Now what? In what way does that make her our ally when all she does is fight against us?
And you have what evidence to back up this claim, exactly?
Notably, the shooting of one CEO did much more to normalise that than everything that AOC has done.
You are making a lot of evidence-less claims.
"hEr ReGiOn oF tHe iDeA sPhErE"
lmao. the ideology expert has logged on
Imagine thinking that people who actively support the genocide of Palestinians 'mostly align with [our] views'.
imagine thinking AOC supports genocide. woosh.
She does. She has - as a politician - supported action to declareanti-genocide speech as 'antisemitism'.
didn't have to imagine it since she demonstrably has, so I had extra imagination left over for this:
I didn't actually make it but I did imagine posting it
I still don't get what she's supposed to be doing in that second picture
It looks like :frothing-fash: to me
To me it looks like she is holding a hairdryer in front of her mouth to blow air into it. I did that when I was a kid, fun times. Maybe there's a concentration camp guard on the other side of the fence with an air cannon.
She literally went to bat for Joe Biden. Imagine thinking a person has to say the words "I support genocide" to support an ongoing genocide.
Yes. and? it was literally win/win for her.
first if biden/harris lost she can point out their shitty policies as the reason. if they won she can claim she helped bring the critical left vote.
for her and her role it was the correct call. my role was to fuck over harris in biden. which I happily did. see situation 1.
But you see that requires being able to understand cause, effect, and complex interactions within dynamic environments.
yes, she and bernie endorsed him. they also were critical of the admin's israel policies the entire time. I dont have a problem with this.
Unless of course your advocating the she should have supported trump, or literally any of the useful idiots with zero chance of winning. that literally would have been a waste of political capital. I was happy to support jill over harris because that was my role in the situation took all of 5 minutes to check a few box. oi the burden!
one can only wonder if the "iDeA sPhErE" is as smooth as your brain
You can't claim to be critical of a policy then vote in favor of that policy with no conditions lmao
"Yea so I disagree with eating babies and we shouldn't eat babies, but here's $293,774,009,123,976 trillion zillion in baby eating subsidies."
And she went to bat for a genocidal warmongering unionbreaking racist misogynist, which I think is bad and should be critiqued. I don't see what it is you don't understand.
I thought the dems couldn't be pushed left? Then this argument doesn't matter.
It's really sad when you just repeat an insult back at the insulter. At least have some originiality.
:doubt: I know your types think words have meaning, but they don't when the actions don't line up. However the words were still very much in favor of genocide. She was ride or die for Biden.
"There's only two possibilities! Only two things to do! She was completely powerless and also what she does doesn't matter and she has no pull so doing anything wouldn't have mattered, but she also couldn't have done anything else." You're constantly moving your position throughout this thread buddy. If she has no pull and nothing she does really has any significance, then she could have chosen to support the uncommitted movement, and that's at the very least.
Oh my god paradox gamers are the thickest goons around. Those games and their consequences are just... Such a shame really.
Liberals and thinking voting is activism, name a more iconic duo.
I drew a picture of you
still falling for the 'rotating villain' routine, amazing
Telling on yourself lol. Good thing I don't want hateful murderers to like me
And you have much more productive things to do than argue with leftists online about how we should be nicer to AOC, yet here you are. Why is it that your criteria for "better targets" only goes one way? Why do you think this is acceptable, when you have far shittier sites to visit and far worse people to argue with, but our critique of
is somehow... wrong? In some way I can't even grasp.
Yes, your critique of AOC is wrong, essentially because its not based on reality. but hey. who am I to tell you what reality is. you do you. =)
"Not based on reality" in that I am pointing to actual things she has done, and your defensive is based in reality in that you can't mention anything she's done? Great stuff.
Yes, things you think shes done. I understand why you think that, you're a idealist. your ideals are flawed but I get it. I've also pointed out the literal things she done that point to that she doesn't support the positions you assert she does. she literally voted against aid for israel and then voted for aid that helped the ukraine and taiwan and israel. those are two very different situations. she absolutely critiqued biden for his border policies. policies she can't change.
Thats living in reality, understanding why she did things. just saying 'OH NO SHE VOTED FOR A BILL WITH AID TO ISRAEL!!! SHE BAD' isnt. its not recognizing the context shes operating in. instead of going after literally the 400 other people who did the exact same thing you're wasting breath on one of the few people in congress who stands for literally 80% of what you want. worker owned production, better social systems, etc.
If you can't recognize that well thats a you problem. Notice how you guys are stuck here on your little island shes out there bringing the ideas you supposedly want to the masses in a nice package and you're pissed over compromise bills and lack of pointless agitation? I mean fuck child, you have so many other people to be upset about and you focus the purity tests on the only one remotely in your sphere? lol. no wonder you cant accomplish anything.
Let the girl do her thing in peace. go shoot some ceos or something.
Liberals will say "shooting a CEO pales in comparison to my strategy: Winning an election" and then not win an election
This is hilarious
I don't think the word means what you think it means. Me being an idealist would have no relation to me experiencing material reality. People have cited your own sources back at you, yet for some weird reason you haven't responded to it. Hmmm.
"Genocide is bad" is a flawed ideal and other deranged statements bade by democrats
And people have pointed out the literal things she has done that does support the positions I assert she does. You don't engage with them because you're a big baby.
Yeah. She did those things because she's a liberal like the rest of them.
No actually saying "oh no she supported genocide that's bad" is a pretty consistent ideological stance to have.
It is though. It's just not the conclusion you'd like it to be because you're still at the stage in life where you think the DNC can save us or be saved or fixed or whatever. I was like that when I was a teenager too. I remember thinking Al Gore was good. Ah, those were the days, just a smooth brain.
Why would I waste my time discussing a bunch of people that aren't AOC in a thread about AOC? Why would I waste my time critiquing [far right loon] on a leftist forum? There's nothing to be gained or learned from that discussion. Yeah MTG is wacky, great. She's not a sheepdog for the left. You keep arguing that this is not productive and then complain that we don't do something even less productive. On top of that you behave as if this thread is the entirety of the site. Just go to one of the threads where we shitpost about Trump being moist or whatever if that's what you'd rather want.
Furthermore you've still failed to point to one concrete example of AOC working towards any of those things you claim she's working towards.
You're here too, so I don't really understand your point. Yeah this is just for fun, that's what social media is? Good job? :congratulations: Other people have already gone through your inconsistency with "pointless" and "compromise" and you've ignored them every time, so I won't waste my energy there. Her "bringing the ideas we want" is also something that has been explained a bunch, so I'll just repeat myself: Genocide, border camps, union breaking, sheepdogging and so on are not things I want more of, therefore AOC is not working in my interests.
Again I ask you (again you will fail to answer) do you think we can only critique one person? Is that how your mind works, you only have mental capacity for one person to be disliked? "Purity tests" = "Not supporting genocide" lol. Yeah real high bar to clear there. I actually accomplish not committing a genocide every single day of my life and I intend to continue accomplishing that.
Also I thought you said she wasn't effective? So she has no effective accomplishments? They're all pointless? But I thought you were against pointless agitation? Which is it?
Apparently, literally pointing to concrete things that she did is 'not based on reality', but hyping up her supposed 'achievements' while being unable to mention any is somehow not.
when you're willfully ignoring how shes literally on the record as not supporting those things and the context of which those bills were passed, then yes, you're ignoring reality. Supporting biden for reelection vs trump is not supporting his border policies. Supporting aid to the ukraine and Taiwan is not supporting genocide done by israel. not wasting every day bitching about bidens border policies on children is not the same as supporting it. As for the rail strike I disagree with her on that one but if her statement is true, then she was literally doing what she was elected to do, represent her constituents.
so whats left for me to fact check for you? yes, AOC is not a communist, but she sure hell is orders of magnitudes better than what we have and if you can't recognize that well.... thats a you problem.
So, your argument is that she said that she doesn't support those things? Hahaha. By your logic, when I am accused of something, I can just say that I didn't do that, and that will somehow become the actual truth.
Nobody should care what she says on record or thinks. What is important is what she does. And she has literally taken part in the genocide. That is supported by the article that you linked earlier.
Firstly, it's not just the bills.
Secondly, what context justifies this sort of participation in a genocide?
Yeah, it is.
She has literally made effort to specifically facilitate the genocide of the Palestinian people.
Also: Supporting 'aid' to Ukraine is supporting a war that NATO caused, and where Ukraine is not on the correct side, at least on account of trying to become a NATO outpost.
Supporting 'aid' the province of Taiwan just means that she is in favour of NATO keeping its glorified military outpost and chip factory.
Both of those things are bad on their own.
Not taking any action against those while having promised to do so and while supporting the people who carry out those policies is very much supporting those policies.
Going to apply the standards that you have applied to the PRC and other socialist projects: she's a Burgerlander. They always lie. We can't trust them.
Also, even without that silliness, she has shown herself to be a massive liar.
Cool. You support her doing bad things because she was elected to do them.
And we are supposed to support her? Lol.
You are yet to point to any of her accomplishments, you are yet to point to any issues of communist projects, you have been demonstrated to have no knowledge of history, economics, etc., etc., etc. Hell, you didn't know about the education efforts until I pointed them out to you.
In what way? You haven't named any of her achievements that you claim her to have made. What are her actions that are supposed to be laudable?
'If you don't know about her achievements that I claim she has made but can't actually name any, then it's your problem' says the person who is learning about the actual achievements of actual working-class movements in real time.
So she hasn't defended Biden, helped break a strike, stopped agitating for the children thrown in cages, defended harsher border policies and so much more? Wow I guess I can't trust the wikipedia article you linked anymore. Damn.
hey man dunno about you but I don't spend every day bitching about shit. got things to do. And no she hasnt, she just doesn't waste time on shit she can't change beyond pointing it out. just because you're intractable doesn't mean everyone is.
Liberals and casual misogyny, name a more iconic duo
the more iconic duo
Liberals and lack of all introspection
Buddy you are literally arguing with a bunch of people online that they aren't sufficiently appreciative of AOC. You've spent hours writing pages of responses. I do not believe you at all.
I find that hard to believe too.
Fantastic retort, argh I am debunked.
She's not going to write you back pal.
If it were me I wouldn't have been ride or die for biden, voted for genocide, used immigrant camps as a photo op, shamed people for wanting action on palestine, voted for giving more aid to Israel, stopped agitating against border camps, but I'm just built different.
For someone who acts so smug and condescending, you're really bad at exhibiting any valid reason for that attitude. You're pretty obviously an ideological coward who flees when tasked with any interrogation of their own worldview.
I could go on, but I won't.
You are deficient.
lol, my inbox blew up. I'm not wasting my time on all of you. get a clue. and frankly I dont need to. I've had my fun for the afternoon while coding and waiting on changes to propagate.
And no, I havent said your not sufficiently appreciative of AOC, I've said you're all assholes to a person who literally is probably the best rep you're going to see that aligns with your core wants on worker owned means of production and strong safety nets as far as the US goes and not a single one of you has a realistic view of what shes done or why. But yes, tell me more about how she personally broke the strike and how its a violation of all things holy or how she personally is responsible for bidens child policy because she didn't say 'wtf' every day for four years. or how shes pro genocide despite literally not being pro genocide.
You're literally just toxic fucks as a group. I just don't mind stirring the nest on occasion to remind you of this fact. enjoy your evening. and no, I'm not introducing you twats to system dynamics, distributed systems, and its intersection with political theory. dear god thats literally a fucking seminar worth of work. plenty of people have already written about the mathematical weaknesses in both communism and capitalism I dont need to rehash it for people who cant even handle someone telling them 'yo stop being shit stains to a person who has literally done you no harm'
"lol my inbox blew up" which is why you decided to start new arguments, yeah right buddy.
Who said you had to? For someone who likes to talk of reading comprehension you could really do with some yourself. I am using these people to exemplify how you're really just a scared little guy, who can't interrogate his own worldview.
Have you seen anyone argue against this? The best rep is still absolute dogshit and I'm not gonna praise a turd no matter how much you polish it.
Reading comprehension again. I did not say she personally did it. If you wish to do this smug routine, you really need to be able to relate to what was actually written. Otherwise you come off as being incompetent.
So we can both agree you've put in "personally" because you're just unwilling to admit she's complicit, right?
OH NO SOMEBODY RESPONDS TO YOU IN KIND HOW HORRIBLE! We're one of the most trans inclusive, ND inclusive, POC inclusive spaces online buddy. Our demographics show how this is actually a safe space for minorities of all kinds. We raise funds for people in need, we help each other organize and we have a pretty good vibe going. That vibe comes in part from not catering to redditors like you.
Back at the "Oh I'm being obnoxious and wrong on purpose" I see. Yes you're very not mad, we are all proud of you.
Because you can't, it's okay. I liked to throw big words around when I was a small child as well, wanted to feel grown up. Nobody has asked you to explain them, in fact you've been introduced to several people who already understand those concepts and wish to discuss them with you, which you have failed to do. That was why I included some of those people in the omnipost which you are replying to. You know this of course, you are just making a sad attempt at deflection here.
Making a basic explanation is really not that, but I guess one could think it was if one is still in high school.
Name three works you've read.
Is that what you're pretending your argument is now? Damn we started out at a completely different place, but this is what you want to pretend you're saying now? Okie dokie, she has done me harm. She has supported border camps, crushed strikes and supported an ongoing genocide. These things have harmed me personally. Also calling someone out for being shitty is actually not "being a shit stain", but I guess it could feel that way if you're a spoiled child not used to being told no.
You just seem to be laundering human nature arguments through oh-so-complicated-and-intelligent "systems theory", which is the opposite of what systems theory is cuz systems theory actually wants to explain the behavior of systems based on their real internal or external relationships rather than appealing to some metaphysical concept. The sad thing is I actually believe that you may have picked this up from time at some kind of educational institution like you seem to be implying or, idk, maybe you just read a few Wikipedia pages like you keep posting at us lol
Which people are you referring to? Cuz even your references to distributed mathematical systems dynamics or whatever are so substanceless I have no idea what you're talking about
Another case of STEM brain, folks, what a shame
incoherent whining instead of addressing any of the dozen cogent questions you have been given
retreat, retreat, retreat. loser
Yeah ok. but have you considered
(wait for it)
Starting up the "I'm a very busy important person" routine six hours into getting dunked on in a niche forum is so incredibly funny lmao
Maybe you could use the rest of the afternoon to discover some new, non-misogynistic insults to try out next time you want to embarrass yourself on the internet.
First of all, we don't go for that sort of casual misogynistic language round here.
Secondly, your dedication to dozens of replies, saying nothing, calling people names, and refusing to engage on any particular point would seem to indicate otherwise.
If she can't change it, while having to actively support (in money, votes, PR, volunteer time etc) a collosal amount of destructive, regressive, and downright evil policy, what exactly is her worth?
Why is it that liberals always frame 'everything that could be done' so narrowly that it's actually 'everything that could be done without the possibility of them recieving any kind of consequence or hinderence their advancement in that very system'? Why are your expectations so low that the possibility of damage to politicians continual professional success and ladder climbing (in a system you say is corrupt and they can't effect change in) is somehow beyond the bounds of what's possible? Why do you place a politician's career progression beyond the important of the policies you supposedly believe in?
Thirdly, "man" to [pup/pup's, null/void]
That was directed at my comment and I don't mind it because I assume it wasn't meant as a "you are a man" but in the way some people will say, for example, "maaaan, I don't know about that."
I don't know enough about linguistics to say for certain wether that excuses it or not, but I didn't take it as being gendered. Had they previously used "dude" as well, then I would assume they were gendering me.
I missed that, but yes, also not on and very shitty.
=) = I'm not mad