AOC cruises to primary win, looks set to waltz to reelection

Post Reply New Topic

Holy projection, Batman!


Of course you do. After all, it was I who said



Followed by



Proceeding from there into



Moving swiftly onwards to:



and finally



Moving through the whole gamut of language policing to thought policing to telepathy and finally a demand for repentance. No wait, YOU did that.





Why would you expect there to be? I know you have bizarre ideas about gender, but here's the magic insight: men and women are different. Something like 98% of bricklayers are men, is that because there's a conspiracy among bricklayers to keep all those women wanting to get in on the bricklaying out? How about nursing? Sewer technicians? Engineers? How about Childcare? Do all these areas of employment have conspiracies to keep as much of one gender out as possible? Or is it that, as in the Norwegian Gender Paradox, when a society is truly free the gender distribution becomes more uneven, not less. Because people are free to pursue their interests with no inhibiting factors. Add to that that women typically vote more than men do, meaning that they actually make up about 60% of the actual vote. So if the number of women interested in getting into high level politics is low, and the number of women making up the votes cast is high, then I don't see that you have a case for low representation because most people don't demand representation based on matching genitalia.





Your brand of wokeness relies so heavily on undisprovable assertions being accepted a priori (patriarchy "theory", subconcious bias), original sin (privilege), revealed truth ("lived experience"), the condemnation of heretics and infidels (the various -ists), that it's more of a secular religion masquerading as political theory than anything else, and should be treated accordingly.

Bricklayers being mostly men works only in terms of many average having a higher muscle mass and thus more likely suited to the job. I have no idea of any traits inherent to men, women or non-binary people that would make them more suited to being voted in as politicians. I don't think the argument of women voting more than men do is substantiated by any evidence that I am aware of, especially since my country has mandatory voting for everyone, and I regardless do not understand how that would impact women being interested in high level politics.

My argument will be that there has been a long history of women not being welcome into high level politics, that has kept it a bit of a boys club, and that people have the misconception that this means that men are more suited to high level politics. I would love to hear other explanations though.




Woah woah woah, you can't go calling me woke, that is like the same as saying I am sexist, isn't it. You are inferring my beliefs and putting a label on it as a means to label me as something I can't defend against to control my speech just because my opinions differ from yours. I assure you that I am taking part in political theory and I take great offense to it being called a religion like it is not influenced by facts and studies.

I will ask for an apology for this unfounded slander in calling my opinions religious just because they may differ from yours. I already apologised for how I acted before, and would ask to restrain from further accusations like I have been judgemental since I never meant to put them towards any members and will thus retract all of them that may have caused a missunderstanding as I was wrong for how I worded them. If there is an alternative path for how I can make up for these that will make people happy, I am willing to take suggestions.

How about the willingness of people to hold them accountable without fear of being accused of bigotry?




Also known as the boilerplate SocJus/Feminist explanation, which looks at a few details and condemns the whole thing. Bet you didn't know that the first women who voted in the US did so in the 1700's? That's one of them inconvenient little truths that don't come up much when you're trying to spin the "historic oppression"-narrative. Women have always been influential in politics for as long as there have been politics.

And the mandatory voting is not a standard thing, and so should not be treated as such.





No. I'm calling you "woke" based on the ideas you put forward, the terminology you use, your obssessive attempts at trying to find the hidden racism/sexism that you are sure is hidden just out of sight and even going so far as to go digging into people's subconsious to find it. Whether you like it or not it's an apt, if unflattering, description.


What you do, however, is essentially this:

Someone: "I don't care for AOC. I find her abrasive and annoying"
You: "A sexist would use the term "abrasive" to describe a woman! Are you a sexist?"
Someone: "No, but I think it's the most accurate term to describe how she comes across to me."
You: "So what you're saying is that you're a sexist?"




You are, of course, free to ask. Also, if it was applicable, it would be libel, not slander.




I thought I was pretty detailed in why I called your positions religious. Would you like me to expound further?




Well, that sure is a change of pace...




I like how you say "influenced by" instead of "based on". Inadvertently accurate, I suspect.




And that was big of you. You're still in no position to demand people forget it. If someone borrows my car and crashes it, I can forgive them, but I'm not lending them my car again.

There are a lot of women who won't call people bigots just because they are held accountable, in fact they tend to be held accountable far more often; Hillary Clinton being treated like she is the devil, while Donald Trump's many scandals like the grab them by the you know what was excused as just locker room talk. Donald Trump after all refuses to be held accountable for anything, and if someone tries he will call the news fake, the investigators corrupt and the facts wrong, after he has claimed that he had evidence that Obama was not born in the US, that he was spied on and any number of easily proven lies like that a hurricane map was clearly altered by a sharpie. But people still vote for him.




And I am sure that the first women who voted had equal representation to all the men. Sounds cool that women got some votes back in the 1700's, I don't see that fact as inconvenient at all, I would love to learn what amount of influences managed to have in history. Just as I recognise that it has hardly been fair that women in history have had to be things like courtesans to have any influence in politics or have to rely on the vote of their husband. All the more power to the women that managed to have some influence.

I base my opinions on facts.




There is an entire thread saying that woke people as people who don't think, as a person that thinks, is able to take criticism and express my opinions with facts the attempt to accuse me of being woke is equal parts an attempt to silence me as would someone being called sexist. How do I argue against such an accusation apart from having the opinions you approve of? I would rather not have you dig into my subconscious in accusing me of calling people sexist.




That is a gross misreading of anything that I have said. I have not once called someone sexist. You however have blatantly called me "woke". If you wish to have a proper discussion I ask that you stop being this accusatory in reading intent into what I have said, or provide more evidence than words you have put into my mouth.




Being aware of the line from the Spider-Man movie, I knew that you would say this.




Please do, as you have provided no evidence that my opinions are not based on facts.




I was using it as a synonym. I think thought that it was more accurate in that context when I can also point to facts and studies that can be shown to be flawed or not give the whole picture, and I also appreciate first hand experiences and taking into consideration opinions of people who have not yet had equality due to discrimination such as gay people historically not having equal marriage rights.




And I am not asking you to forget, just not accuse me of stealing cars and crashing them for fun.

The second part is an outright lie, so I'll ignore that.

And I was talking about people at large, not the elected person. There is no flavour of widely condemned bigotry one can be accused of for laying into a white male politician. Meanwhile, whenever criticism is levelled at a female or a minority politician (especially if it's both, see AOC) accusations of bigotry are guaranteed no matter how precisely one constructs it.




The grabby Donald recording is from something like ten years before he became president. Hillary, meanwhile, had already been First Lady and Secretary of State. Already the top 1% of the Top 1% of the most powerful people in the world and a long history of being an absolute harridan, not least evidenced by her treatment of the women who levelled numerous and credible ellegations of sexual assualt against her husband. And upon losing the election to the most powerful office in the world for the second time, she of course goes on to blame...*drumroll*..."the latent sexism of the American people!".




The voting system back then was based on land ownership, so yes; the women that voted had exactly the representation due to them based on the amount of land they owned. Were they as numerous as the men? Probably not. Were they oppressed and kept down for being women? No.

In the UK, do you know how many years men could vote, but women couldn't? Less than 5. Previous reforms to the voting system had untied voting rights from land ownership and instead tied it to the draft. In addition to the draft, men were also subject to the hue and cry laws, which include things like being legally obligated to help chase down and apprehend criminals and to aid in firefighting if commanded to by Police. Most women of the time opposed being given the vote, on the assumption that they too would be subject to these things.




Yet more blatantly untrue statements. The Temperance Movement, the Order of the White Feather, the Suffragettes (whose preferred model of voting DID NOT get accepted) are all pre 1920's political/social movements consisting primarily or entirely of women. And although not making up most of the number, both the Abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad had significant numbers of female members.

"Had to be courtesans"...No one's denying there have always been women using their sexual viles to get ahead, but don't let's pretend that was ever the only option.




Not exactly convincing so far.





And what an effective attempt it was, seeing as I have no interest in silencing you whatsoever and as such made no such attempt, and also you remain very much talking.




Oh, so prodding at people subconscious is okay, but only when you do it? Like that thing with the implicit bias? Could you measure my Thetan levels while you're at it?




See my recitation of your quotes above.




I actually haven't seen any of the Spiderman-movies, so I'm afraid I can't take credit for the reference.




Again with the insistence of proving a negative.


I'll be using a the wiki page for "Secular Religion", subheader "Political religion" for convenience:


Key qualities often (not all are always present) shared by political religion include:


Structural

Differentiation between self and other, and demonisation of other (in theistic religion, the differentiation usually depends on adherence to certain dogmas and social behaviours; in political religion, differentiation may be on grounds such as nationality, social attitudes, or membership in "enemy" political parties, instead).

(Everyone who disagrees is a racist, sexist, nazi, transphobe, islamophobe, fascist, conservative etc..)



A transcendent leadership, either with messianic tendencies, often a charismatic figurehead.

(Not so much this one, save for the "charismatic figurehead(s)" part. See Melissa Click, Yvette Felarca, Linda Sarsour and, arguably, AOC and her squad.)


Strong, hierarchical organisational structures.

(Not in and of itself, but adherents tend to strive to get into positions of influence in order to steer the direction of a given medium. Currently a problem in comic books and Tabletop gaming.)


The control of education, in order to ensure the security, continuation and the veneration of the existing system.

(Have you seen some of the things coming out of Universities now?)


Belief

A coherent belief system for imposing symbolic meaning on the external world, with an emphasis on security through faith in the system.

(not sure what they mean by this, so I'll let that pass.)


An intolerance of other ideologies of the same type.
("Liberals get the bullet, too")


A degree of utopianism.
(So, so much.)


The belief that the ideology is in some way natural or obvious, so that (at least for certain groups of people) those who reject it are in some way "blind".

(or, for another metaphor, "asleep". What's the opposite of that, again?)


A genuine desire on the part of individuals to convert others to the cause.

(Self-explanatory.)


A willingness to place ends over means—in particular, a willingness (for some) to use violence or/and fraud.

(Antifa, the currently ongoing riots.)


Fatalism—a belief that the ideology will inevitably triumph in the end.

(Arguably that, too.)

Not all of these aspects are present in any one political religion; this is only a list of some common aspects.

Quote end here.




Seems like a bad decision, seeing as I don't think I can think of a single instance where "based on" and "influenced by" could be used interchangably without significantly altering the implication. But maybe that's a shortcoming on my part.




...but you are asking me not to look at things you have written previously and make an educated guess regarding the things you hold to be true?

I would like to see your evidence that any of these cases you have provided actually gave women equal power to vote. The fact that women had to create their own organisations to be able to try and have any political power. You seriously quoting that the Underground Railroad having a "significant numbers of female members" meant that women had political power?

But also, all of this power to vote is a pivot from the actual topic at hand, which was women being the ones voted in or having power themselves rather than that they had to litereally create protest groups not too dissimilar to what BLM is?





Except that being accused of silencing people was literally the accusation thrown at me when people thought that I was implying that people sexist or transphobic, or whatever. Going by the same rules attaching woke to me would be an attempt to silence me.





And you have no evidence that I have done so, just accusations that I have. And also this hypocrisy does not start with me, it starts at you for how I was accused of it first and you started doing it to me.




Despite being someone who likes to say you base all your opinions on evidence, you sure have very little yourself.


(to be continued)

No, people can disagree with me, it does not automatically make them any of those things. But you do seem to be calling me woke if I disagree with you on topics like long standing gender bias, in fact you seem to think it means it automatically means that I am saying people are sexist when I already admitted that I too have gender biases. That seems like more of a problem on your part.





This is not me, I think that all people are fallible and is usually a mistake to treat people like messiahs, since it can create problems with being able to objectively analyse someone's points in whether they may be wrong about a topic and that someone else might bring a good counter. It also can problems with things like cancel culture. A particular YouTube philosopher I enjoy is Natalie Wynn, who does some fantastic video essays, with her and the audience playing around with things like saying she is the lobster queen, a parody of taking oneself too seriously, but at times it does feel like some people do it more than ironically which I know is unhealthy. There really is no one that I consider as having sacred opinions, even a lot of those pop culture icons that everyone seems to think as super smart on any particular topic.

Let alone that I would hold the Squad up as having some sort of untouchable opinions on topics rather than mostly some takes I agree with, and a symbolic element to their formation as part of the progressive movement.




Oh my god, this is like some conspiracy theory stuff. What, you have some problems with some gay characters being comic books? There is no secret invasion of thing things like comics or education, those areas are just getting more progressive. Most progressives do hate that Snowflake and Safespace characters thing that was revealed recently, so stupid and tone deaf. Comics have actually been more progressive from the rest of society for a long time, Stan Lee pretty much said that, with how a character like Peter Parker was far more of an every man than most heroes at that point, something progressive.

I am curious about what you mean with tabletop gaming, I follow D&D, but I am curious what you think is being done with the space.




I have already talked before about how I am more tolerant to other groups than a good portion of society can be, such as Muslims. I welcome people of many different ideologies to be able discuss and see how best we can reconcile with each other. I am also aware of a pretty large spectrum of people of similar beliefs in the progressive movement, which we can disagree fundamentally on, such as that I am not entirely sold certain opinions on worker co-ops. With my viewing habits I am particular fond of watching two progressives, Thoughtslime and Vaush, that are so different that they can come into conflict on various topics that their opinions can get rather heated, but I think those differences give a broader and more nuanced considerations. I love listening to debates that I don't know which side I will find makes the most sense.




Sure I believe that my beliefs will make the world a better place, who doesn't, but I am well aware that what I push for now would become antiquated in a couple decades. Can't wait if I am going to have to reconsider things like AI rights in the future or things like transhumanism that I have no grasp of at all now.




Nah, everyone has their biases, I am sure a lot of people have their own reasons for what they believe. I hope that they can enlighten me on things I am blind to. I think that I might have already said that I just recently was dealing with some internalised homophobia, I put up a topic in the LGBT section asking if I might be forcing myself rather than just becoming aware of my own closeted issues where I might be bisexual. Good to ask the opinions of others.

I am also well aware that many of my beliefs cross a line from being natural to being moral, such as with transitioning that takes hormones that the body would not produce naturally.




Lots of people want to try and convince others to their point of view, but I am also very willing for other people to also convince me of theirs also, I evolve my own all the time. I don’t think that I have ever tried something like call them a comrade and asked them to do the same thing I do.




I disagree with this greatly as I don’t at all think that something like violence should be needed to get things done. I do think that Antifa has a bit of a bad image problem where they make all people that want progressive change to be reckless people that want to break stuff while masked. And I do think that the riots themselves are a bit of a problem in taking away from the work of the protests that have a good cause, I would rather that everyone could stay peaceful but inconvenient to be heard.




Hardly. No cause is going to inevitably come to pass unless the people put the effort in to make it happen. I do however think that history’s show of general progress means that many things I believe in will come to pass, such as acceptance of trans people. I would like a bit quicker movement of the acceptance of NB people though.




What is my political religion again?




Actually, I asked you for evidence. Making guesses of what people feel from having different opinions is the exact thing that I was wrongfully being accused of. That is very naughty on your part.

Another very good reason for people to not be on board with AOC for her politics:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5053 ... -defunding

Anyone who wants to - literally - 'defund the police', might as well have The Joker as a political consultant.

What is wrong with her comments in that article?





She is pretty clear in her comments that she is saying that "Defunding police" means cutting their budget with the purpose of a reduced presence, not an elimination of police, otherwise she would not specifically be mentioning overtime. She is specifically calling out against accounting tricks like moving the funds to education to then pay the same police with that money.

What don't you like about her politics?

So.... there are people who will have imagined beliefs, such as 'people are fundamentally good'. They'll try to put changes to law and ways of doing things in place that operate on the assumption 'people are fundamentally good'. When murder and crime rates then go through the roof they won't notice it or they'll come up with another story as to why things got worse. They either, in their own minds, can't make mistakes or their assumption that 'people are fundamentally good' cannot be wrong therefor they will inject the difference into racism-of-the-gaps. My saying that they will inject it into racism-of-the-gaps is not a claim that there is no racism or institutional oppression, but they will use it as a container for any result that doesn't map to their projected expectations after certain changes have been made (part of the current panic actually has to do with hunts for racism and sexism still not solving the inequalities and cruelty of western culture). Thomas Sowell designated a term for these people 'first-stage thinkers' because they can't process second or third order consequences. I'd actually disagree with Thomas on that - it's really the same thing as arguing with a Christian or Muslim about God, it doesn't need to make contact with reason because it's not about reason - it's a form of pragmatism that centers around the emotions of the person making the proposal and what cherished views they have of reality that they need to cling to in order to stay alive in the fashion that they're used to, and when they make bad decisions predicated on that the costs get externalized to everyone else while they go on to the next thing without skipping a beat.

And I'm going to add - anyone who says 'defund the police' rather than 'train the police better' IMHO isn't enough of an adult to be an elected official, and I'd say that for someone of any race or gender. It would be like saying 'defund the military'.

Cortez also wants to abolish ICE. It's another place where it's lovely utopian thinking that doesn't make contact with reality.

And what if things don't get worse? What if the changes they bring actually helps people? What would it mean if it turns out they were right and what you assumed to be true turned out to not happen?

Or the very least it took a couple years to see the true benefits.

How can you be sure that they are the ones that can't process second or third order consequences? I am sure that they are aware that fewer cops means more of a chance that another criminals gets away or might think they could get away because of fewer cops. But won't fewer cops that are trying to look busy by pulling a minority aside to frisk, could mean one less person holding a grudge against authority that treats them like a criminal for existing, and not joining a gang?

If any examination of priors is taken off the table for examination? We'll just have to let it all happen, see how many people die or how many civil liberties have to be given up and maybe some people will learn as a consquence, most won't because humans are stubborn animals with respect to learning from experience and observation.

Actually that just gave me a good analogy. How many people on this thread, on the pro-Cortez side, would say 'abolish the FDA' and suggest that pharmaceutical companies are comprised of such decent people and that we don't need drug safety testing or government oversight and that people who do want rigorous testing done on drugs before they're sold to the general public are chicken-little or bed-wetters who just can't accept that the FDA is an antiquated organization that doesn't serve much of a purpose when afterall - today - people aren't getting poisoned by drugs?

Maybe we could boycott Underwriter's Laboraty for the reason that houses aren't catching on fire right now for faulty electronics or that at some given point they might have momentarily missed some Chinese imports that shouldn't have made it past their testing and - if they're imperfect in any way - out they go.

American pharmaceutical companies are private organisations that have the pure desire to make as much profit as possible, even at the expense of the vulnerable people that require their treatment, and with no heed to the government funding that might have gone into research for the treatments. The FDA is required to keep them in check. Americans are also super weird from what I have heard where you have things like practically unproven drugs advertised on TV saying small disclaimers like ask your doctor if something is right for you, which is alien to things here.

The police have some real problems, such as you can prove a disparity in systematic issues that affect people who are black more and covers for violence. I don't think the FDA is really the same thing.


Providing more funding to police is rewarding them for their bad behaviour after they already have an incredibly bloated budget compared to other social programs, and a lot of history has shown that the unions have it not taken seriously.

Well right - the whole nation of US is one police department under one leader with one monolithic policy to act as badly as they have f-u money to do so with. Training's not an issue, psychological testing at entry is not an issue, policy is not an issue, police unions aren't an issue, so predicated on that the only way to punish them for bad behavior and get good results is to cut their funding.