• [Video] Ocasio-Cortez is the Left-Wing Trump
    90 replies, posted
To be honest, it's kind of a dumb term and often misused term.
that's literally what she meant by it. if you pretend people using words are using your personal definition to change what they're saying, it isn't their fault. get over yourself.
Why do you get angry at things that you refuse to actually understand
Because diving into defenses like that is not what is needed for attacks like that. The tweets content itself is LITERALLY BULLSHIT, "not in a city" but "suburb", nice. The right wing asshats are not attacking her on a factual level, it is LITERALLY the madeup position of authority and power ( "I make the best deals!") they are using to promote their shit, she has to defend that before she can get factual since the audience of tweets like that doesn't give a wet fart about facts.
tas still exists?
he has been around since forever and pretty much only a fatal disease or solar flare would stop him from making videos at this point
Great - my argument still stands. What am I refusing to understand, exactly?
Man TJ Kirk, just can't decide if he's left wing or right wing, he such a confusing character.
How is she lying about her upbringing?
It's increasingly obvious that all he cares about is being edgy.
Left wing politics are usually part of a brand of sorts for anti-SJWs when they come into play. They might want you to think they're liberal or at least moderate but when it's time to take a stand most are only interested in whatever harms their enemy. I don't think TJ is as bad about this as some other people (mind you I don't actually know him very well), but it's relevant nonetheless.
"I'm still Alex from the Bronx" ""It was scrubbing those households' toilets w/ my mother that I saw and breathed income inequality." Maybe it's a stretch to say that she's directly lying about what exactly she had to go through, I apologize. But these are her words. The narrative of her campaign is that he grew up in the Bronx, and that she knows the struggle of the people in poverty that she's supposed to be representing. It's plastered all over her campaign bio and she preaches about it every time she gets up on a stage. I have a really hard time believing that she's "one of them". I had a hard time believing that this isn't another politician fishing for voter appeal. And so did many other people, hence the twitter war that ensued when people confronted her about it. The real issue was her response to people calling bullshit on her own privileges. She's dodged all questions about it, so again, I have a really hard to believing that her campaign is built on problems that she can actually relate to. Her responses to any confrontation I've seen so far are beyond appropriate IMO.
the reason they are the same is because both Trump and OC have supporters that discount the other sides' views? That's the only warrant in this video and its pretty fallacious reasoning "Hitler wore pants, so do you..." OC isn't a serial liar who expresses a public distaste for democracy, so whats the comparison??
congrats, you're falling for the right wing propaganda
What is the clash here exactly? Are you saying people from the Bronx can't be impoverished? Because almost a third of them are.
My issue is an elected official loosely accusing others of "mansplaining" and "catcalling" as a response to political criticism. Not so much the story, but those tweets she replied with make me seriously question her judgment (or lack of).
"but but but she wore a marginally suit that time " Come on @polarbear , you haven't actually proven how you think she's lying about her upbringing, you've provided nothing to substantiate that claim other than "well i just think she was tho". What exactly is she lying about? Where is the proof that she has no idea what the people in the Bronx suffering in poverty lived? Otherwise, awww diddums did she say a word you don't like? Aww I'm sorry to hear that. It's almost like the cocklord she was replying to was doing precisely what that words describe "haha now now you uppity female, you never lived that and I'm telling you that so it must be true!".
How to not think for yourself, and follow republican talking points 101.
Fair enough. I won't argue any further regarding her upbringing. Mansplaining is not the word to use. Others here are downplaying it and I'm not. I don't think "That's not what she meant" and "It's not that bad" are valid arguments because she repeats the same behaviour; her response to someone asking her for a policy debate was "Stop catcalling me". This isn't a one-off thing - If this is her attitude in response to criticism, then I seriously question her judgment as a politician, and especially as someone who is supposedly advocating against bigotry.
if you're just going to repeat yourself I'm not sure what you're doing. The people she said were "Catcalling" were acting as if she owed them a response, the same way people who catcall feel they're owed a response. The use of "catcalling" here is a euphemism to explain the behaviour that in any other context would be wrong, is wrong in this context too. No one has criticized her policy in a way that isn't just childish, similar to "catcalling" or just flat out derogatory. If politicians on the right "Criticized" her policy in a way that actually qualified as "Criticism of the policy" then you might have a leg to stand on. As it is at the moment, there is almost no one talking about her policy without talking about her as a person. You don't get to have it both ways. Also Ben Shapiro is paid by the Koch brothers to spin news and should never be trusted. He is an intellectually dishonest person who has repeatedly chased after debunked points because they so neatly fit within his outrage spectrum.
He looks like an atheist
Why on earth would you even bring up the word catcalling in the response? If that was the case, why would you not just say "I don't owe you a response"? This isn't just a euphemism - in both those tweets, she clearly goes further to explain how the person she's replying to was "catcalling" or "mansplaining". Why the hell would you think it's appropriate to denounce your opponent to acting in a misogynistic manner, when they aren't, especially as a response to valid criticism? Talk about "policial atmospheres that allow for such abhorrent versions of political gas lighting to exist". People actually see this and cheer it on. It's not a intelligent response, it is a dishonest attempt to label degrade them by loosely throwing around sexist terms. It's completely inappropriate, and I stand by that. I don't know why you would continue to downplay this is anything else when she's standing by this awful tactic, and then repeating to do it. How is this childish? Ben Shapiro is far-right. That doesn't make him incapable of good criticism on economic policy. I get that you don't like him, but seriously, is that your best defense against saying he's invalid? As opposed to what, exactly? And you're telling me left-wing news outlets don't have tons of funding from political ideologues, either? The exact same defense that you say makes him racist towards arabs can be flipped right around to say that supporting arab countries makes you antisemitic and racist. Which, by the way, Ben literally says that.
Because it's an example of the way the republican right views women and issues? Excuse me, what is "Valid criticism" about telling someone how they grew up without any first hand knowledge? How is that valid criticism she needs to respond to in anyway that satisfies you? How is that not mysoginistic? They're re-writing her history so they can discredit her, when they have no evidence or reasoning to do this? How the fuck are you falling for this? So you see people cheering it on, and you fail to wrap your head around the logic many others understand, and rather than discuss this, you'd just call those people "Wrong" and offer no compelling reasoning? Why should I, or anyone, just capitulate on this view if you can't offer a valid argument to oppose it? AGAIN. Republican men told a woman they DON'T KNOW "This is the YOUR STORY". She refuted that. You're more mad at HOW she refuted that, and not that scum buckets can try and trot out false narratives? Priorities pal. Forest for the trees fella. You can't see it, and it's baffling. They degrade her, you have nothing to say. She replies, you're filled with rage. Well if you're going to fail to condemn people creating false histories for their political targets, then how can you possibly be coming at this from some "moral highground" like this? An open invitation to debate an intellectually dishonest charlatan? How do I explain why that's childish for him to do? No. He's moderate right. He's just patently full of bullshit and is a paid spin doctor. Never said he wasn't capable of it. Respond to the things I said, not what you imagine I said so you can best a strawman. No. My best defense against him is he's paid to do what he does and spin news stories by the fucking Koch Brothers. Ignore this at your own peril dude. Argue with what I said, not what you imagine I said so you can best a strawman. Can you respond to shit I said rather than funneling words into my mouth or is that just asking all together too much from you?
Ok Shakespeare, what word should she have used?
And you'll never hear those same people get mad at the condescending assholes who set a precedent for that word being popular and meaningful. By all means call it out when its misused, but don't get triggered anytime its ever used and blatantly ignore that its responding to a social dynamic at play and when used appropriately, is an apt shorthand for a regular phenomenon.
I mean you could at least complain about how he once begged for money on a livestream I don't see whats so bad about shoving a banana up an ass, probably feels great
I don't even know where to begin with your insane ideology that a man that a man is instantly misogynistic for having a political debate with a woman. And apparently being republican or right-wing makes this even more inherently misogynistic? How IS this misogynistic? They are literally showing people the area that she grew up in, and are asking her "Did you really live the same way that all the impoverished people in the Bronx did?" Inviting someone in a completely respectful manner to talk about their proposed changes to the economy? Where are they "shoving words in her mouth"?? You are trying to equate this confrontation to being a freaking misogynist. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113002/ebef8acb-f464-4346-8920-245e75672807/Untitled.png Where do you see the misogyny in this post? Can you please explain this to me? Please elaborate on your response: She didn't refute that. They dug up evidence that supports the contrary and asked for her response. She did not answer. Also - why does it matter if a Republican or Democrat is asking her? I can understand political bias, but are you saying a republican asking is more somehow more misogynistic? So, again - even if they were trying to smear her (there is evidence and reasoning; I don't know why you're discounting the entire conversation that went on in that twitter thread), where is the evidence that it is done in terms of being prejudice towards her gender, exactly? You do realize the magnitude of accusing someone of being prejudice towards another gender, right? "Ignore this at your own peril dude" So... Your best defense is a conspiracy theory that he's controlled by the Koch brothers? What does his corroboration with the Koch Brothers have to do with debating economic policy? I'm saying he's funded by right-wing groups for having a right-wing podcast. I don't see why this is any different from any other political news outlet, ever. I don't understand why you're being so disrespectful. I'm offering my reasoning, and you're dismissing it as "no compelling reasoning", yet you're discrediting a journalist for being funded by a group that shares their economic views, and somehow trying to equate genuine attempts for debate to misogyny? I'm reading your responses, and I'm asking questions to try to understand your point of view on how those tweets are prejudice towards women, or why it's completely invalid for someone to debate her on economic policy. But hey, thanks for admitting that he's capable of it. You're accusing me of strawman debating while simultaneously doing the exact same thing to me? "Calling people wrong, you'd rather not discuss this" - I am literally here to discuss this. What are you talking about? You're the one telling me "You don't have a leg to stand on" and telling me I'm "filled with rage"? Stop it, dude. I'm happy to discuss this, and I'm genuinely curious as to where you're perceiving misogyny in their responses.
Are you going to bring up a substantive criticism of her policy at any point in this mindless drivel? You've been having a stroke over a couple of totally benign tweets for two threads and at least two dozen posts. I already explained to you in the other thread very clearly why Ben Shapiro is a hack and no one should take him seriously, and for you to ignore this and continue hammering away at the same bullshit points tells me you're not an honest person, either.
I like Ocasio and all but honestly I have to agree that using "mansplaining" was a poor decision. It's just never a good look using that word and I feel like doing so potentially drives people off more than any good it can do. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the guy she was responding to was clearly being misogynist but even then the word has such a cringy history of idiots behind it that it never fails to make my eyes roll whenever I see it used unironically. It's not a huge deal or anything, I'd just rather not get that short burst of second-hand embarrassment from someone I like and a little less ammo thrown into the pile.
You know I just think its funny how often conservatives accuse liberals of putting their feelings over facts when it seems like 90% of the conservatives I see online do exactly that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.