Re: AOC
Posted: Tue July 16, 2019 12:52 am
“LOOK at it, NANCY! TELL me that’s not recently damp.”
Well, I mean, clearly Burt.digster wrote: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?Mickey wrote: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've already responded to this but since you posted it again, I'll assume you didn't listen (shocking).BurtReynolds wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:
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 feel like I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of this post given the context here. Like, did you set out to make a point above toxic masculinity for me?BurtReynolds wrote:I like it better when you snap. At least that's a normal human reaction
I'm aware of your (less frequent) condescension towards those groups as well, but it doesn't seem to take on the pathological quality of your weird need to prop up the womenz.durdencommatyler wrote:For example, I also post my support and encouragement of other marginalized communities (artists, politicians, etc, therein) like the LGBTQ+ community, and community, and people of color. .

betterdurdencommatyler wrote:Did I do it right?
Bernie doesn't what now??BurtReynolds wrote: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.digster wrote: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?Mickey wrote: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.
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.
Ignore him. He is obviously trolling and has no idea what he's doing here.Mickey wrote:Bernie doesn't what now??BurtReynolds wrote: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.digster wrote: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?Mickey wrote: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.
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.