RT @stevesi: What’s So ‘Disruptive’ About AOC Standing Up for Herself? // This is a very good analysis of the language used by the NYTimes to report on this incident and puts the reporting in a broader context on language and power. https://t.co/Q6vUAekk5s
RT @Melt_Dem: "until we can see how white men have taken advantage of sexism and racism for their own gain — how they’ve built their own “brand”— on the backs of the fucking bitches forever, we’re not really reading a full story."
ugh @rtraister well said 🙏 thank you
"until we can see how white men have taken advantage of sexism and racism for their own gain — how they’ve built their own “brand”— on the backs of the fucking bitches forever, we’re not really reading a full story."
ugh @rtraister well said 🙏 thank you
Racial and gender inflammation for political purposes, like the article:
Meanwhile patriarchal power abuse remains so expected as to not be notable as a violation of norms or civility, as disruptive or chaotic. Instead, it simply coexists with the authority, the command, the humanity of white men — it’s just part of what their power looks like.
Any way that the founders of the Justice Democrats can use to promote race hate and division in this country. AOC is more than happy to play that game.
Hard to believe so many people were so unironically racist. Now I know that large numbers of Indians, Hispanics, and Turks hate my white male children. This was good to know. My parents, who didn't graduate High School, had no idea to educate me that brown people would be so unironicaly hateful of me for, you know, working in factories and not going to college.
This is valuable information. Non-white people hate my male children. Glad I found out before it was too late.
Although I understand where the article is coming from, I think that a praise of Ocasio-Cortez is more productive in the long run than a condemnation of Yoho. Let's not forget that politicians are very oftenly elected on chauvinistic political platforms, and any publicity is good publicity for them. It may be less about what's right here, and more about what's useful. Remembering only Ocasio-Cortez's name out of this story seems more impactful to me. Politicians dissappear when they are forgotten, usually when they are no longer relevant. Putting their name in headlines makes them relevant.
New York Magazine isn’t owned by The New York Times. The Times magazine is called The New York Times Magazine. New York Magazine was created as competition to The New Yorker (also unrelated to The New York Times expect that they both are New York based media entities).
because this is framing a throwdown in congress plus biased reporting as a general issue. the issue does exist, but don't hijack this specific fight as an example.
> It's rare we hear men being described as disruptive/bitchy/upset/etc
disruptive/bitchy i hear a bit. asshole/blowhard happens too
Totally condemn the senators remark but still AOC is a con artist. She deserves no respect or attention but addressing her with a slew remark, that too in public, isn't very acceptable either.
But in all probability I think senator didn't say what he said because she is a woman but rather because she is a con artist (socialist) who is always bent on playing cheap politics.
I think AOC is trying to tie the remark made on her to rest of the women out there to garner more sympathy and hoping to come out as a much bigger vicitm than she actually is. The fact she brought up her "working job" cliche argument again in her recent speech clearly shows she is using all possible victim cards at her disposal to associate the remark made on her personally to a much bigger crowd.
she’s a hypocrite and leftists have such a scary double standard for theirs vs republican politicians is downright horrifying
and her “standing up “ and being rewarded for the same thing democrats condemn from their opponents shows just how shallow and fake the entire democrat party is and how stupid people have to be to buy into it, which creates divides as you can imagine
She is exactly what feminism needs. She empowers women without degrading men as a whole. If more self styled feminists were like her, it would do a world of hurt to the anti women asshats out there. She shows exactly how to create equality by bringing women up instead of bringing men down.
Historically, whenever the status quo is challenged those maintaining it call those who show their dissent disruptive. It's a fun delusion of mine that they use that word solely to avoid the lie of saying its wrong.
I don't blame her for standing up for herself on this. It's her right. However, she and the left silence the right for speaking their rights. It's lopsided. I think most people dismiss her because she usually makes truly stupid comments. Like people are looting cause they need bread. Dumb. Just dumb.
The way she publicly called him out without any evidence other than hearsay shows the type of person she is. She wasn't standing up for anything. It was an opportunity to cry victim and it was completely irrelevant if it were true or not.
The fly in the ointment is that, when Rashida Tlaib gave a speech where she said of Trump, "we're gonna impeach the motherf*er," AOC dismissed Republican objections to the insult as "faux outrage." Despite this, she wants people to be outraged when similar language is directed at her.