What's new

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

What do you mean by "She thought this was real"? I mean, Ocasio-Cortez knows the video isn't "real" because she knows she wasn't in that interview. You mean she thinks the video is "real" right-wing propaganda? It is obviously an attempt to make fun of her, so in that sense it is "real" propaganda against her.

I'm just having a hard time getting where you're coming from.

Yeah, I probably didn't explain the best. Propaganda was not the best word to explain why she got roasted.

Basically, she responded to the video, which was obviously a parody, by saying this:
"Republicans are so scared of me that they’re faking videos and presenting them as real on Facebook because they can’t deal with reality anymore.

Here’s one bonafide truth:
Election Day is November 6th."

Who's trying to pass this off as real? Then again, I literally wrote why she was getting made fun of on Twitter and I was still asked if I thought it was real. :)

So she's either completely clueless to satire or is lying to get followers.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I probably didn't explain the best. Propaganda was not the best word to explain why she got roasted.

Basically, she responded to the video, which was obviously a parody, by saying this:
"Republicans are so scared of me that they’re faking videos and presenting them as real on Facebook because they can’t deal with reality anymore.

Here’s one bonafide truth:
Election Day is November 6th."

Who's trying to pass this off as real? Then again, I literally wrote why she was getting made fun of on Twitter and I was still asked if I thought it was real. :)

So she's either completely clueless to satire or is lying to get followers.
When the video was originally posted on Facebook there was nothing mentioned in the post about it being 'satire.' More than a few of the reactions I saw to the video were from people who clearly thought the interview was real. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it's not intended to deceive, especially when you consider neither CRTV nor Stuckey are primarily satirists. Most of what they publish is intended to be taken seriously.
 
Against the advice of my therapist, i'll set the record straight again.


That was implied by the use of "acknowledged". Were you not aware of that, or did you feel the need to crow a little more?

Cuz it's fun to crow. Come correct next time.



I am not aware of how stating that neither of us has the calculation for a confounding factor, when we both acknowledge the existence of it, is anything other than straight-forward.

Again, I'll let the audience decide whether the confounds of senate vs. congress with respect to barriers to being elected are equal. If they are, I'm curious to hear your hypothesis on why there are currently more female senators in the United States than there have been black senators in all of American history (even when you control for population size, the discrepancy is palpable).

In fact, here's a challenge-- I challenge you to find social metrics/outcomes where white women fare worse than black people (or black men, whatever makes this comparison easier for you).

Even before I get into the mechanism and the historical mechanisms of oppression that black people have faced and continue to face, if your point is true then we should easily be able to find examples of this. You mentioned congress, that was quickly discredited. Please provide more examples, and we can go through them one by one. Think of when every civil right was earned by white women, in comparison to black people. Think of the histories of oppression that white women have faced, in comparison to black people.

Here's a compilation of some in context of the workplace-- http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ge-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/

Or, use these interactive charts to see which strata of SES black boys vs. white girls find themselves in

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/make-your-own-mobility-animation.html

These all point towards the same reality-- the power of black discrimination is stronger than the power of gender discrimination, with evidence pointing to the outcomes of white women vs those of black men.

Here's more data from the EPI: https://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/


I see. You could not find a paper directly supporting your claim, you listed a paper not making that claim, and said it was an obvious manifestation.

This will be addressed in the next retort.



I know a narrower one. The level where you think there is some sort of research on which disadvantaged groups suffer more from their specific group identity than other disadvantaged groups, and claim that this knowledge is so commonly understood in the academic community that asking for evidence is equivalent to denying climate change.

See you round the water cooler.


A good start would be to start with this novel, and reading the preface-- https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vH-XtO1XAFUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=racial+oppression+in+america&ots=ZKHJG_d1YN&sig=_YZmgmfzG3aQdt2BxfOyLdr8RM4#v=onepage&q=racial oppression in america&f=false [Title: Still the Big News: Racial Oppression in America, 2001].

The thesis of this is that race is the central social reality of the United States, pure and simple. It goes through the epistemology of this, although it doesn't go through the mechanics on how it numerically differs from gender (though this can be cross referenced with the studies alluded to above).

I think your posts allude to some of the ideas associated with critiquing the "hierarchy of oppression", whereby we ought to look at how oppression takes many forms, as opposed to trying to rank oppressions against eachother. The idea is a good one-- because it is believed (and I'd agree) that oppression must be fought on every axis in order to be able to defeat white supremacy, or the patriarchy, or heteronormativity.

The problem with this, is that white feminism (historically a tool of oppression against black people) weaponizes this to the extent where white women have made gains since the 60s, whereas black men and women haven't. The proof is in the pudding-- of all dimensions of oppression, if you look at the outcomes seen in some of the links I've posted, groups of people where which white people compose a majority (white women, white LG communities) have generally made the most progress.

Here's a good post summarizing black feminist critiques of Second Wave Feminism, namely those appropriating Lorde's words regarding the hierarchy of oppression: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/appropriating-audre/need-locate-oppressor-within-us

But, you wanted a paper that addresses the mechanistic differences between the oppressions-- here is an example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42859475?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

---


I think I've provided enough information for you to glean that oppression rooted in race is stronger than oppression rooted in gender. If you don't agree, and don't think that what I've shared with you does a good enough job explaining this, (in my opinion) that says more about you than it does about what I've shared.

Take care.
 
As well as what? Any Fortune 500 will have similar amounts of waste. It doesn't become news because only the stockholders are on the hook, and corporate executives go out of their way to hide from them.

very excited to hear any retort to this.
 
The military’s budget has dramatically increased over the last 10-15 years. They are not “doing more with less”.
They are actually doing more with more.

A lot of that “more” is simply not needed.

Yes, they are, I've lived it first hand thanks, but I'm not here to argue the point.
 
Just so you know guys, my cousin married a soldier. Well, not exactly married, but she did **** one. So I have first hand experience with the military, which makes me the authority on everything military.

I'm not here to argue, but feel free to leave any questions you have here and I'll tell you what's up.
 
The military’s budget has dramatically increased over the last 10-15 years. They are not “doing more with less”.
They are actually doing more with more.

A lot of that “more” is simply not needed.
Pretty sure recruitment is way down, so maybe that's what he is referring to.
 
Just so you know guys, my cousin married a soldier. Well, not exactly married, but she did **** one. So I have first hand experience with the military, which makes me the authority on everything military.

I'm not here to argue, but feel free to leave any questions you have here and I'll tell you what's up.

I did 20 years in the military, again, thanks for playing.
 
@Siro feel free to downplay my military service. I mostly played poker and visited cool places overseas.
 
I really don't understand why you're trying to be a dick. Also, please don't downplay my or any other veteran's faithful service to our country.

First of all, I'll downplay whatever I damn please, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know Trump and his fascist base would love to criminalize criticizing the glorious leader and his military, but since that hasn't happened yet, stuff it.

That said, I won't be disrespecting the military because others on this forum who I actually respect happen to have served as well. And this might come as a shocker, but they don't share your opinions on the military and its budget. I know I know, mainstream media sheeple, and not true free thinking 'Muricans like yourself.

As for me being a dick, there's a solution. Click on my handle and select "Ignore". That solves that problem.
 
First of all, I'll downplay whatever I damn please, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know Trump and his fascist base would love to criminalize criticizing the glorious leader and his military, but since that hasn't happened yet, stuff it.

That said, I won't be disrespecting the military because others on this forum who I actually respect happen to have served as well. And this might come as a shocker, but they don't share your opinions on the military and its budget. I know I know, mainstream media sheeple, and not true free thinking 'Muricans like yourself.

As for me being a dick, there's a solution. Click on my handle and select "Ignore". That solves that problem.

Fair enough, I don't think it's too much to ask to not disrespect individual's service to the country though. No need to ignore you over one conversation, but I also don't see a point in not keeping things civil, shouldn't be too hard, right?

Also, look up sequestration, that wasn't the beginning of the "more with less" model, but it certainly hurt all branches as far as effectively running their missions for sure. I never mentioned mainstream anything or 'Muricans, blah, blah, blah, that's all you chief. Budget vs mission vs proper manning and equipment is and has been a big problem for many years for the military. That's what I was getting at the whole time and that's not really an arguable point as it's fact. Aging aircraft, etc., is one of the many issues I'm speaking of.

Now you don't have to agree with the use of our military in all aspects but the topic was funding/budget, wasn't it? Now I absolutely agree with you that there is plenty of things that can be streamlined as far as the military goes for sure but some things can not and taking away from the overall budget is certainly not a smart idea, at least not in my opinion, as humble as it is.
 
Fair enough, I don't think it's too much to ask to not disrespect individual's service to the country though. No need to ignore you over one conversation, but I also don't see a point in not keeping things civil, shouldn't be too hard, right?

Also, look up sequestration, that wasn't the beginning of the "more with less" model, but it certainly hurt all branches as far as effectively running their missions for sure. I never mentioned mainstream anything or 'Muricans, blah, blah, blah, that's all you chief. Budget vs mission vs proper manning and equipment is and has been a big problem for many years for the military. That's what I was getting at the whole time and that's not really an arguable point as it's fact. Aging aircraft, etc., is one of the many issues I'm speaking of.

Now you don't have to agree with the use of our military in all aspects but the topic was funding/budget, wasn't it? Now I absolutely agree with you that there is plenty of things that can be streamlined as far as the military goes for sure but some things can not and taking away from the overall budget is certainly not a smart idea, at least not in my opinion, as humble as it is.

My comment about the mainstream media was in reference to your response in a different thread to a post of mine saying that I'm brainwashed by CNN or some such nonsense. I can find it if that's important.

The use of the military is very much connected to the budget. I would rather see a majority of the money taken from the military, while significantly reducing its size and scope, and diverted elsewhere. I'm not that concerned with public healthcare or other expanded social programs (altho I do think many would be worthwhile ideas to try), and would like the money going to the military to go to other industries that have nothing to do with American power projection. I lean toward redirecting the money to massive infrastructure projects that would push technology forward the way military industries do, while providing good jobs and high, yet sustainable, GDP growth. If we're going to keep that much money invested in defense, then we should use it to develop actually useful defensive capabilities, like improved cybersecurity (but I can think of a lot else!).
 
Top