AOC

[BurtReynolds]

Omg you are the worst. Stop with the passive aggressiveness. I like it better when you snap. At least that's a normal human reaction.

How am I mischaracterising you? Where do you disagree with how you treat women? We've talked about this before and you apparently think that it's wrong for a man to ever criticize a woman. Is that wrong?

[Simple Torture]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see someone you swing and miss like the worst of them. Could you put an ( _ ) in your username please? It would be so much easier to keep track that way.

Can I add ( . )( . ) to my username?

[epilogue]

Omg you are the worst. Stop with the passive aggressiveness. I like it better when you snap. At least that's a normal human reaction.

How am I mischaracterising you? Where do you disagree with how you treat women? We've talked about this before and you apparently think that it's wrong for a man to ever criticize a woman. Is that wrong?

I'll tell you what, buddy. If you want to have this discussion, I'm happy to do it. But only if we agree not to begin in it with personal attacks. How does that sound? Is that too passive for you? If it is, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

[Mickey]

I take Burt's point--or what is perhaps a more developed articulation of a good faith reading of Burt's point--that treating woman as a rarefied and unimpeachable category simply reverses the logic of sexism without addressing the problematic othering at the root of sexism itself. But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly), as her prominence within the conservative media ecosystem is probably not unrelated to her gender. I mean yes we should think critically about a certain type of yes slay queen discourse (especially as this aligns with Kamala-style neoliberalism). But we should also think about why this one-term congressperson has a 17 page thread devoted to her (metonymic as this is of other things) when Bernie as multiple-term Senator never attracted this much attention per comment.

[epilogue]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see someone you swing and miss like the worst of them. Could you put an ( _ ) in your username please? It would be so much easier to keep track that way.

Can I add ( . )( . ) to my username?

only if you do it in the most unexpected way

[epilogue]

I take Burt's point--or what is perhaps a more developed articulation of a good faith reading of Burt's point--that treating woman as a rarefied and unimpeachable category simply reverses the logic of sexism without addressing the problematic othering at the root of sexism itself. But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly), as her prominence within the conservative media ecosystem is probably not unrelated to her gender. I mean yes we should think critically about a certain type of yes slay queen discourse (especially as this aligns with Kamala-style neoliberalism). But we should also think about why this one-term congressperson has a 17 page thread devoted to her (metonymic as this is of other things) when Bernie as multiple-term Senator never attracted this much attention per comment.

I know you guys hate Mickey. And I know why. And it's why I love him.

This is an outstanding post on so many levels.

[Mickey]

Wait who hates me? Have I told them yet where I go to school?

[epilogue]

Wait who hates me? Have I told them yet where I go to school?

AL

[BurtReynolds]

...But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly)...

Stick around awhile.

[Mickey]

...But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly)...

Stick around awhile.

We all have biases, Mac. The question is not how to get rid of them, but how to make them machinic.

[epilogue]

...But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly)...

Stick around awhile.

In a good faith effort to have this talk, that you seem to want to have.... I'll again ask you how many posts I've made in this thread and how many have been in support of (or even referencing) AOC? Once again, I'll state that I've had deep and sincere reservations about her as a spokesperson and as a congressperson and a representative in the past. (I know you won't read that last part because it doesn't conform to your thoughts on who I am or what I'm saying all the time but still, for the public record I'll say it.) Today, she exceeded my expectations and I'm not cautiously optimistic that she might just grow into the person, the champion, the representative that many out there have said she is or will become.

Also, how come this one post that I've made today has triggered you so? Do you really not think it's super interesting and kind of obvious why you might be coming after me right now? Because well...

[BurtReynolds]

Obviously I'm not limiting my judgment of your warped behavior towards women to this thread alone. It's just one of a million examples. There is nothing special about today. We've attempted this with you several times.

[digster]

I take Burt's point--or what is perhaps a more developed articulation of a good faith reading of Burt's point--that treating woman as a rarefied and unimpeachable category simply reverses the logic of sexism without addressing the problematic othering at the root of sexism itself. But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly), as her prominence within the conservative media ecosystem is probably not unrelated to her gender. I mean yes we should think critically about a certain type of yes slay queen discourse (especially as this aligns with Kamala-style neoliberalism). But we should also think about why this one-term congressperson has a 17 page thread devoted to her (metonymic as this is of other things) when Bernie as multiple-term Senator never attracted this much attention per comment.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself. But more broadly, I fail to grasp the defense here; would anyone honestly try to argue that the right wing's antipathy for AOC is solely due to her politics?

[BurtReynolds]

...But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly)...

Stick around awhile.

We all have biases, Mac. The question is not how to get rid of them, but how to make them machinic.

More human meat for the Machine God.

[BurtReynolds]

I take Burt's point--or what is perhaps a more developed articulation of a good faith reading of Burt's point--that treating woman as a rarefied and unimpeachable category simply reverses the logic of sexism without addressing the problematic othering at the root of sexism itself. But I don't think that necessarily applies to Joey's defense of AOC here (or his behavior more broadly), as her prominence within the conservative media ecosystem is probably not unrelated to her gender. I mean yes we should think critically about a certain type of yes slay queen discourse (especially as this aligns with Kamala-style neoliberalism). But we should also think about why this one-term congressperson has a 17 page thread devoted to her (metonymic as this is of other things) when Bernie as multiple-term Senator never attracted this much attention per comment.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself. But more broadly, I fail to grasp the defense here; would anyone honestly try to argue that the right wing's antipathy for AOC is solely due to her politics?

Why wouldn't it be? She's antithetical to Republicans. The rest is just baseless assertion. You're really overthinking this. Like Trump, she's a cartoon character, and like him, being loud and populist gets attention far beyond what's called for. Like all the outrage over Trump tweets ultimately gives Trump more power, every post mocking her stupidity in this thread probably does the same for her. But I don't care. It's fun anyway.

Bernie doesn't ramble on in a stream of consciousness when he talks. He's comparatively boring. Of course he's a lot more important, but that ain't what sells.

[epilogue]

Obviously I'm not limiting my judgment of your warped behavior towards women to this thread alone. It's just one of a million examples. There is nothing special about today. We've attempted this with you several times.

You have baselessly attacked me before, yes. That's true. And obviously those attacks haven't been contained to this thread. I'm sure you've noticed, I've barely posted in this thread.

What I think is interesting is that the posts I have made here in this thread today actually contradict the false narrative you're trying to spin. Yet you persist. Also, I think it's revealing that it took my posting on this thread to work you up and send you tailspinning.

[BurtReynolds]

How am I mischaracterising you? Where do you disagree with how you treat women? We've talked about this before and you apparently think that it's wrong for a man to ever criticize a woman. Is that wrong?

[McParadigm]

Bernie doesn't ramble on in a stream of consciousness when he talks

You...just described a thing a Bernie does the most? Out of any of them?

[BurtReynolds]

Bernie doesn't ramble on in a stream of consciousness when he talks

You...just described a thing a Bernie does the most? Out of any of them?

Maybe I'm confusing him with his brother.

[McParadigm]

It’s that finger. He waves that finger, and it’s hypnotic. You stop hearing the words. It’s like he’s trying to prove to his friends that he got it wet at the party just now.