Listed: AOC, The Met Gala, and That Dress

Maura Alwyen

HVAC/R Master Craftsman, Chef, Woodworker, Journeyman Metalworker, somewhat of a Blacksmith, & Author I do my own stunts & cinematography. Typos, poor word choices, wrong but similar sounding word choices are par for the course. All mistakes are artisanally crafted from the finest oopsies. Otherwise I'm just a regular girl with opinions and a point from which to shout into the void.

Related Post Roulette

154 Responses

  1. DJ
    Ignored
    says:

    The most important thing about the dress and it’s statement is something that a lot of people seem to be missing: the venue. The dress, or the same design on a tshirt, wouldn’t have meant ANYTHING if she’d have worn it go get her morning coffee. “Eh, yeah, makes sense.” is the most anyone would have said as they went about their day. Wear it to the Met Gala? You’re making the statement from amidst the target of the statement. Walk in to a crowded room of rich people and yell out “YOU’RE NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE” and you make a lot bigger statement. It was a bold and daring statement to make BECAUSE she made it where she did.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to DJ
      Ignored
      says:

      The most important thing about the dress and it’s statement is something that a lot of people seem to be missing: the venue.

      Really, we’re not. It’s obvious that we’re supposed to think that, as you put it,

      It was a bold and daring statement

      But it wasn’t. There was absolutely no chance of her childish antics having any negative consequences for her. She was LARPing at being transgressive, and you’re eating it up.Report

    • Pinky in reply to DJ
      Ignored
      says:

      The courage of preaching to the choir. No, less than that. The courage of giving a three-word sermon to the choir.Report

  2. North
    Ignored
    says:

    Yeah I agree with every point. I don’t strongly agree with AOC on policy very much but I can readily recognize she’s a talented politician. The party is fortunate to have wingers like her.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Remember the first episode of The Boondocks? The Garden Party?

    People are talking about AOC as if she were doing something dangerous.

    She was, instead, doing something fabulous.Report

  4. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    If only there was a party saying that it wasn’t that the rich had too much, it was that they spent too little… and what we needed more than taxes to fund managerial class ‘boondogles’ disguised as ‘programs for the poor’ is instead that we increases the velocity of money by diverting much much more of that money much much more broadly at the point of creation.

    Tax the Rich begs the question of who becomes the fund managers of the taxes.

    Distribute the gains of successful capitalism more broadly is a better policy goal.Report

    • North in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Trickle down economics rebranded as sped up economics?Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Not trickle down at all… still taking money directly from the rich.Report

        • North in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          I guess I’m misreading you then. You’re suggesting something like a GBI or something else? I guess it’s the “diverting much more of that money more broadly at the point of creation” that I’m puzzled by.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            If I recall things Marchmaine has said previously, it’s about setting up incentives (or regulations, perhaps) that encourage the wealthy to distribute the wealth themselves, not exactly as cash handouts, but as greater equity.Report

            • North in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              Ah I see, so not even trickle down but rather slightly incented noblesse oblige then?Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe? My way of interpreting it is treating workers as (at a minimum, although IMHO, they should be greater than…) equal to shareholders when it comes to what kinds of responsibilities corporations have to stake holders.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s gonna require either:

                1) Strong unions
                or
                2) Democratic Socialism
                or
                3) a revised tax code that favors these sort of policies.

                We have none of those, and our economy has been engineered to be such.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Obviously we don’t, which is why we need to argue for it. IMHO, I’d pick #3. #1 could work, but we’d have to change the incentives unions operate under.

                #2 doesn’t actually get you there. It could, but like #1, it would depend on the policies and incentives in place.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Someday I’m going to have to write a formal post on March’s crazy distributist schemes.

                It isn’t trickle-down, nor noblesse oblige… it’s better than Warren’s toothless 30% Labor Board Seats… and God save us from Taxes to set-up sinecures for the managerial class.

                A non-wonky Dorm-room precis looks like this:

                Think of it as a one time re-pricing event … we wave our magic wand of Democratic Will (and 2044 Executive Powers) and 30% of all corporate wealth is ‘re-priced’ to include labor (realistically we could go back 5-yrs and would likely phase in over, say, 5-yrs)… Repricing events happen all the time… we’re just going to deal Labor in at the Corporate Charter level.

                That’s it.

                No socialism, no unions (but sure, have them if you wish! And Elk’s Clubs and Curling societies have them all!), revise the tax code? Sure, we should simplify so congress doesn’t have incentives to sell incentives, but it doesn’t impact this.

                Hence forth each minute, hour, day, year, decade you work you accrue some fractional portion of the real value created by capitalism.

                Absolutely impossible to fathom 30- maybe even 20-years ago… but computers, electronic records, and fractional ownership via independent brokers are a thing now… new things are possible. New Deals may be struck.

                …but there’s only so much I can fit on the back of my gown.Report

              • North in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll tip my hat, that’s new to me!
                So the workers of the company would, if they weren’t unionized, have some sort of appointed architecture that’d administer their new value, throw their weight around at board meetings, send a third of corporate profits to the workers and vote no on all the executives bloated compensation packages? It’s a neat idea and not a little bit socialist. I’d subscribe to the newsletter.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Right… baseline principle is that nothing Capital can do with their shares is privileged over what Labor does with theirs… no Class A… no Voting Rights Only… no Preferred, etc.

                Now, honestly, that 30% would be as organized as Cats in a meadow… but the goal isn’t control, it’s capturing some of the productivity gains even as your gains make you redundant (eventually).

                Devils, Details, and Lawyers and all that… but that’s your Political Sell-To story… after that it’s all execution, accountants, and Bezos tears.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I think there are some issues of scale. I get how this works at Amazon or Wal-Mart. But what about the pub up the street, or the used car dealership, or the dog walking service? I don’t see how you can give equity to the waitresses or the front desk clerk at a little mechanic and that’s over 40% of workers. There’s still some socialism required.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure… and there are non-Profits and other entities which aren’t specifically designed to make money beyond operations.

                It’s not entirely true, though that small businesses don’t or couldn’t share equity; in fact, a lot of small businesses ‘work’ precisely because ownership is taking profits as distributed income… and that’s ok. Effectively we’d have to change the regulations such that ‘30% share of dividends’ would also go to waitresses. Might not be a lot, it’s not a get-rich-for-everyone plan.

                My Family has operated a small business for 100yrs… on the one hand Capital in this case is really only making 1.5x-2x median worker (sometimes less) but we’ve experimented with dividends on profits and it works – in terms of productivity gains and incentives.

                But true… there’s not likely to be a big liquidation event, but also not impossible that there wouldn’t be.

                I’m not sure I’d say we need ‘socialism’ to fill the gaps since I like to use the terms correctly… but we’d surely continue to have civil society programs to fill in the gaps. Those programs might simply be better served by straight cash transfers rather than Managed Services.

                Today’s news about Yellen suggesting we need a massive Govt run Child Healthcare? Take 75% of the money and give it directly to parents and take 25% and provide supplemental day-care… let the 75% flow where it needs to go.

                As a ‘for example’Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I get that small family businesses can operate this way where everyone has an interest beyond just a paycheck, but I think a lot of that comes from a sense of duty to their kin. I’m just wondering if there’s really enough actually in small, tight margin businesses to require it by law. Like, would the crab’n’beer shack that nets in the 5 or low 6 figures in actual profit annually still be able to exist? I have my doubts. Which isn’t to say you couldn’t exempt entities under a certain size and/or irregular seasonal workers and still significantly rebalance the scourges of capitalism. I’m just saying I refuse to endorse a world where there is no crab’n’beer shack.

                I’m with you on the cash transfers>existing approach.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                Thank you, I knew I wasn’t recalling it correctly.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Thanks for at least having a crack at it…Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll grant you its a noble concept – and we do have examples where companies that have restructured along these lines fair way better in terms of work retention (which lowers costs) and productivity (which raises revenues). Gravity Payments comes to mind.

                Problem is you can’t just do the repricing. You do have to have strong unions (to wangle the 30% worker share into the bargaining powerhouse it needs to be); you do have to rewrite the tax code to change corporate incentives, or Capitol will simply find new and innovative ways around these restrictions (similar to how Capitol currently finds ways to not pay the $163 Billion the Treasury estimates are owed in taxes every year).

                And frankly, your dismissal of government as a means to this misses that Government just rather successfully redistributed income to large numbers of unemployed and working but impoverished Americans. With statistically positive if somewhat startling results – like poverty dropping to an estimated 7.7%-8.5% which is roughly half of where it was in 2018. Child poverty looks to be cut more then in half, and poverty among black Americans is likewise reduced around 50%. All of which is to say that you can reach your goals a lot of ways – and government can do it quite well when it gets the chance.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Says the guy who is regularly complaining that government can’t get rental assistance out to people…Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                “Says the guy who is regularly complaining that government can’t get rental assistance out to people…”

                That’s not me, but the problem with that is “doesn’t want to” and not “can’t”.

                They have the money. They’re just…sitting on it. They can’t even spend it on anything else, and eventually it’ll revert to the Treasury as it’s unspent.

                Which is again why block grants to the States is an iffy proposition in practice. Even if you forbid any diversion of funds, they can simply….do nothing with it.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                I give props to the feds for getting unemployment cash out to people post haste. That was some seriously well done redistribution of wealth and gives me hope that a UBI is actually something we could manage administratively.

                But I also get what March is selling, and I think it’s a workable idea. I think it’s also something Unions (as a concept) could do a lot of good with, but that Unions (as we currently have) would squander in an orgy of cash & power grabbing if they got any control over it.

                I do agree that the regulatory framework for a repricing would have to be rock solid, because there is no way corporations are going to simply agree to that, too much inertia with not treating workers as equal partners / stakeholders. Need to spend a generation getting all the MBA programs to toss the Friedman idea out and undoing the whole Shareholder primacy attitudes.Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                “I give props to the feds for getting unemployment cash out to people post haste. That was some seriously well done redistribution of wealth and gives me hope that a UBI is actually something we could manage administratively.”

                Also the most incredibly invisible.

                In a few years, there’s going to be some real surprises as people whose ONLY interaction with the unemployment system was the pandemic.

                I know a handful off the top of my head that don’t really grasp how significantly their unemployment was subsidized. Two of them normally wouldn’t have qualified, and the rest probably don’t grok that Texas’ benefits cap at 535 a week.

                The only government act they really remember, or even recognize as government acts, are the stimulus checks themselves.Report

              • Chris in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                Granted, the initial rollout at the state level (states distribute UI, the feds just give states the extra money) did not go well pretty much anywhere, including Texas. Systems were outdated and staffing was at levels for usual levels of unemployment. I knew people who spent a couple months just trying to get benefits at all. That said, it was still pretty impressive.

                Also, unfortunately, Texas is now pushing back on a lot of the people who got UI benefits who would not, in pre-pandamic world, have qualified (self-employed and contract workers, in particular), which means that if they don’t respond in time, and with the correct documentation (not always easy to obtain for either group), they could owe all of those benefits, including the extra federal ones, back to the state. It’s a mess, but not of the federal government’s making, yet again.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Distribute the gains of successful capitalism more broadly is a better policy goal.

      Quit trying to steal the stated goals of the Democratic Socialist movement.

      That aside, capitalism as practiced in America has been set squarely against this approach for most of its existence.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m more radical… kill the intermediary. Ownership and Money directly in the hands of Labour to squander as they see fit.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          The intermediaries are for constraining capitol, not necessarily helping the distribution – though they do a better then credited job of that. the history of capitol is that it will resist things like this absent a constraining force. Just look at the brutal violence visited on labor organizers last century.Report

  5. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report

    • Jesse in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      The “servants” at this gala were probably paid better for that night of work than a decent amount of people on this sub might think. High end serving jobs like that pay well.

      Also, masks were required inside the actual museum, not just outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        The thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “well-paid servants wear masks in the tent where photos are being taken, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        Not that it matters at all but there is video of her being unmasked indoors among well-paid servants who were masked:

        Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Gotta say, this convinces me.

          The poor workers should be paid a higher minimum wage. And given health care and a pension. Maybe even form a union to demand better treatment.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            You misunderstand, Chip.

            This is a response to the argument that “Also, masks were required inside the actual museum, not just outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.”

            Apparently, there is footage of the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing when the celebrities were inside and not outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I understood perfectly.

              There is no argument being made. Its someone who dislikes AOC looking around the room for something, anything to throw, and landing on umm, “Bleargh mistreated workers gibber scree”.

              If you would like to make an argument, consisting of a criticism which logically leads to alternative policy, hey, that would be great.Report

              • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                far be it for us commoners to criticize american elites. We’re just trash and we know that they are better than we are….that’s why they don’t have to wear masks when they don’t want to.

                Just like gavin newson and obama. Proles? they have to be masked all the time.Report

              • KenB in reply to Damon
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s like the bit from this Remy video:

                You don’t understand – we’re not like other creatures
                The rules do not apply to us – we are the leaders
                Voters can’t be trusted to be indoor-eaters
                They are more contagious – after all, they’re mouth-breathers
                Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Damon
                Ignored
                says:

                *Emperor Palpatine voice*

                Yessss…YESS, let your anger at elites flow through you, let it ignite a righteous fury at how the poor and powerless are mistreated.

                TAX THE RICH…you know you want to.Report

              • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                LOL Anger? No. Given current tax laws, I don’t want to tax the rich, I might get there eventually 🙂

                But I sure as hell detest hypocrisy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, not exactly.

                Here, I’ll restate what I said in the first place:

                The thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.

                I’ll ask you this question:

                Are masks necessary?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll answer my own question:

                No, they aren’t. If they were, the important people at the Met would have been wearing them too.

                And if things were *THAT* dangerous, then the Met wouldn’t have happened at all.

                Therefore: Masks are not necessary.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, and so?

                Allow me to slip on my Republican free market hat:
                The workers were required as part of their service to wear a mask. They agreed to these terms in exchange for their pay.

                What about this state of affairs do you dislike?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What about this state of affairs do you dislike?

                It has to do with the semiotics of mask wearing and who is and who is not required to wear one as part of their showing up at the Met.

                (Out of curiosity, what do you think when you temporarily put on your “I know all of the words to ‘The Internationale’ hat”?)Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And what are those semiotics? Specifically.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                That important people don’t have to wear masks (but unimportant people need to wear them).Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                A little local knowledge might be useful. I’ve eaten out several times lately here in NYC. I’ve had to show proof of vaccination to eat indoors, servers have been masked, and customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables, like when going to the restroom. I don’t know if the Big Bad Government is requiring masking of servers or whether the employers are requiring it, or what the vaccination status of servers is, but that’s been the practice here. Makes sense, too, since they’re circulating among numerous customers and serving them stuff they are going to put into their bodies.
                Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, well, the thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Which differs from ordinary dining out in NYC how?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, for one thing, you said “customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables”.

                The celebrities were not at their tables.

                That’s one thing that you specifically said was expected in NYC of customers. Does that count?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve seen the footage. Looks like the practice at the last wedding reception I went to. Masked staffers, socially-distanced (from the staff) guests getting photographed, then leaving. How do they do it out your way?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                You asked me “Which differs from ordinary dining out in NYC how?” after explaining to me that, in NYC, “customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables”.

                Right?

                Anyway, here’s how they do it out my way: I dunno. We don’t go out to eat because there’s, ostensibly, a pandemic. We order food and it comes to the house. Or we cook.

                We have discussed going out to eat a couple of times but only to places that have a patio where we can eat a pleasantly socially distanced meal in the breeze… but it hasn’t happened yet. Maybe next month.

                (I imagine that, if I were doing something like “going to the restroom”, I’d be encouraged to wear my mask, though.)Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So we’re down to arguing over whether the cigar is a robusto or a churchill. Or whether a gala is more like a restaurant meal or a wedding reception. Hope you can get to one or the other sometime soon.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                No, you told me how it’s done in NYC and asked “how is this different?”, then I copied and pasted what you said and connected the two things.

                And now you’re saying that that doesn’t matter.

                For what it’s worth, I’m beginning to suspect that it doesn’t.

                I mean, if important people don’t have to wear masks… maybe unimportant people would be just as safe not wearing them?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Is this only about masks or is it wrong, generally, to demand that unimportant people do things that important people don’t have to do?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I have several questions you haven’t answered, Chip.

                Here are the big ones:

                Are masks necessary?

                You said that, when you put on your Republican free market hat, you didn’t see a problem because the workers were under contract to wear masks.

                What do you think when you temporarily put on your “I know all of the words to ‘The Internationale’ hat”?

                I’ll answer your question after you answer those two.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Don’t bother.
                This is a tiresome game where I ask a question then you ask me one and refuse to answer until I answer yours, as if we are not supposed to notice that you really really are trying not to answer the very first question.

                Because the more you dodge and weave, it appears that my first hunch was right, that this is just trying to find something anything, to throw at AOC, which will be dropped the moment she is out of the picture.

                There is no argument being made, it has nothing to do with semiotics no widely applicable principles about important vs unimportant people. Its just bleargh gibber scree.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I kinda *LIKE* AOC. (I think that she’s the Democrats’ Trump!)

                Now, there is something that very much bugs me about the Met Gala. You know what it is? The whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.

                There is no argument being made, it has nothing to do with semiotics no widely applicable principles about important vs unimportant people. Its just bleargh gibber scree.

                My “argument” is that I don’t like the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.

                The optics of that are kinda bad.

                Now, you may want to argue that it’s not as bad as it may appear because of such things as paychecks for the staff and because the pandemic isn’t so bad that you have to wear masks when at an outdoor (though tented) function despite what the CDC says (everybody knows they’re paid to be worrywarts anyway).

                But arguing that the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing isn’t an argument is to deny a sentiment.

                Now, if masks aren’t that big of a deal, well… I guess it doesn’t matter that AOC wasn’t wearing one.

                But if they’re things that you and I have to wear but important people don’t? I think you’ll find that, yeah, there is something out there that can’t be dismissed with “well, you just dislike celebrities!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “I don’t like it” is not an argument, its a feeling. I don’t like tight underwear, you don’t like anchovy pizza.

                These are not arguments.

                In order to make a coherent argument, you need to explain what it is you dislike and why, whether it applies only here, to these particular people in this particular circumstance, or as some broad principle that applies generally.

                I mean, c’mon man.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, it’s an “I don’t like it” rooted in a handful of assumptions.

                They involve stuff like pandemics, viruses, and CDC recommendations on masks.

                And I dislike having the leaders argue that we ought to do things that they themselves don’t feel apply to them.

                Why doesn’t it apply to them?

                If it’s one of those things where it doesn’t apply to them because masks aren’t really that important, really, I’d like that information to be available to everybody.

                If it’s one of those things where it’s okay to be unmasked if you’re one of a few people who aren’t wearing masks in a crowd of people wearing masks, this goes back to the question about how you see the Met Gala as someone who knows the words to The Internationale.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, so this is a general principle, that those in positions of power should model behavior that they ask of their subordinates.

                But you can see where when you expand it into a broad principle, it becomes the underlying basis for much of liberalism.
                You’re basically demanding equality among people, even when as free rational actors, they have made other choices.

                Not that there’s anything wrong with that!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Which brings me back to my question:

                When you see the Met Gala you are easily able to put on your Republican Boss hat.

                What happens when you put on your “I know the words to the Internationale” hat?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Please understand.
                I think everyone should be masked in every social setting.

                I’m just noticing how the Internationale solidarity flickers off and on depending on which cadre needs to be punished.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Then you can understand how someone would look at the Met Gala and notice the celebrities not being masked while surrounded by the masked help.

                There are people who reflexively show solidarity with the celebrities! Can you believe that!

                Here’s a great scene from the movie Prince of Egypt (don’t worry, you just have to watch the first 30 seconds).

                It’s easy to see both of their perspectives, isn’t it?

                And, you’ve gotta admit, when you put on your “Big Picture” hat, Ramses has a point!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I notice that once again, there is a concerted effort to restrict solidarity to just the issue of masks, lending credence to my suspicion that the outrage is pretextual and merely a cover for cultural and tribal resentment.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I admit to not knowing what other issues of solidarity might be at play when it comes to the Met Gala.

                Seriously. I would welcome your explanations for other solidarity issues at play there.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s my point, which I made in my very first post.

                Elitism is only visible when it is a convenient object to throw at the outgroup.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Seriously. I would welcome your explanations for other solidarity issues at play there.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Good spot. Good frame. I don’t disagree at all.Report

  6. Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    Let me cosign the statement “AOC is smart”. Yep. Another example. She is also fearless. This combination will take her far.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Doctor Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      I think she has high emotional intelligence, which makes her good at playing to the crowd. In terms of the kind of analytical skills needed to think intelligently about policy, there’s just nothing there. She’s good at Twitter zingers, but she’s obviously in way over her head when it comes to policy.

      This makes her an effective politician, but one that’s very bad for the country. Come to think of it, she’s basically a lefty version of Trump.Report

  7. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Apparently, there is a stink being raised about how the tickets to the Met Gala qualify as “an inappropriate gift” according to Congressional Ethics.

    I’d be interested in hearing arguments from both sides on this one.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      its probably a fluff over nothing. Congress critters get invited – for free – to all sorts of those things. I suspect her predecessor and many other NYC politicians have and will continue to be.

      Even if it violates some dollar level rule, she will likely get a pass since its widely attended (even if only the the rich). That’s the real threshold that would matter.Report

  8. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I have developed a greater and greater amount of respect for AOC as time wears on.

    I hate that much of our politics is games and social media stuff, but as long as it is, I’m glad we have someone on our team who is adept at it. The right is constantly trying to bait her into being the shrill humorless scold, but she never takes the bait.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I think this one was more of an uneforced error than a clever political gambit and I generally like her. The Met Gala is an event for the very wealthy. I’m not sure that wearing a ballgown that states tax the rich at such an event is quite a brilliant move per se. If anything, it provides a kind of cover for the ultra-wealthy to state right on and then continue to fight real change.

      https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/09/aoc-met-gala-dress-tax-the-rich-aurora-james.html

      “If anything, Ocasio-Cortez’s dress featuring what has, at this point, become a “regurgitated Twitter talking point,” felt more naïve, or even passé, than iconoclastic. It’s one thing to demand higher taxes on the wealthy; it’s another to believe that moving among the upper class will convince them to welcome a substantive tax burden. It’s also woefully inconsistent with the world outside of the Met, the one that has given Ocasio-Cortez her power. Last night, Black protesters were arrested outside of the event, for instance, while demanding Mayor Bill de Blasio defund the NYPD.

      But, alas, much of the political gestures that occur on a publicly, well-funded stage are empty. Like most other outfits with writing at the gala (yes, there were more), Ocasio-Cortez’s dress is a superficial demonstration meant to capture attention. In that way, it’s a win. But when it comes to manifesting tangible outcomes for constituents, I find it difficult to believe that a slew of wealthy celebs will do more than fawn over the congresswoman’s slogan-dress and, just by being near her, think that’s enough to signal that they are on board. Giving them that opportunity is nothing even remotely the same as actually doing something about income inequality, which is, after all, her job.”Report

      • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        She has a surprisingly long record of advocating for rectifying inequality, both in terms of her Committee work, and in terms of legislations she co-sponsors and authors given how short a time she’s been on the hill. If after that she wants to troll the rich at the Met Gala I’m in favor.Report

      • JS in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        “The Met Gala is an event for the very wealthy. I’m not sure that wearing a ballgown that states tax the rich at such an event is quite a brilliant move per s”

        1. The gown wasn’t really meant for them, but for — well, this moment right here. People who weren’t there talking about it.
        2. A surprising number of the rich, and I would suspect the Met Gala had a higher proportion than normal, are all for taxing themselves more.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to JS
          Ignored
          says:

          As for the Met, wealth, and politics… Some years back the Met made a big deal about the opening of the David H. Koch Plaza, paid for by Mr. Koch, one of the Met’s trustees at the time. It was billed as one of the great new public spaces in NYC. I’m not sure, but think that the red carpet stuff for the Gala is all done at the Koch Plaza.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        I mentioned in a previous comment about one of the Koch family’s large contributions to the arts in NYC. (David Koch lives in Manhattan and has sunk large amounts of money into both the Met and the Lincoln Center over the years.) I have an image in my head of him smiling, and saying, “How cute.” Then calling whoever the top person is these days, and telling them to remind Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that if she wishes to use the Met for political statements, the Met expects to see a nice piece of that infrastructure money.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m deeply skeptical that David Koch will have any opinion at all on this, much less one strong enough to get him to make a telephone call.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            Then you haven’t been paying much attention to him or his family.Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I guess you’ve just been paying more attention than I have. Say, what has David Koch been up to in the past couple of years, anyway?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                The fact that you were being a Jaybird level bad troll is, frankly, unexpected. But nicely done I suppose. You get to score a cheap point while remaining blissfully satisfied that you owned a lib or two.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                As a liberal myself, I’m not really interested in owning the libs. What you are is a leftist. The difference is night and day.

                Anyway, while I’ve never made a secret of my appreciation for Jay’s trolling game, this is different. What he does is Socratic trolling. It’s done in service of a substantive point. This was just for fun. Honestly, I probably would have played it straight the second time if you hadn’t given me such a perfect setup.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird rarely has a point, just questions . . .Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Is that not the socratic method?Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                No, because in the Socratic method the asker knows the answer, and is making the student work it out.

                Furthermore, it’s a real failure when you keep changing the question as soon as the answerer starts to pin down exactly what you’re asking so they can actually answer.

                The vile offspring of Devil’s Advocate, drunken Socrates, and trolling perhaps.

                The Socratic method if it were a six year old trying to explain bitcoin.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                The Socratic method is not a discussion of equals open to persuasion, but a master delivering ignorant students into enlightenment.

                Combine that with a self-professed antipathy for Democrats as an identity and it seems like a poor vehicle for discussion.

                There isn’t any logic or reason at play, no point of sequitur where the answers to the questions form a conclusion.

                Because identity antipathy doesn’t allow for logic.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, not quite. It’s more that I don’t recognize your self-evident Moral Authority.

                It’s not that I’m waaaaay up there above you…

                It’s that you’re down here.
                With me.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But you can see how your disdain for Democrats as a group, as opposed to antipathy for policy, prevents fruitful discussion?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There is a *LOT* in here.

                It’s not “Democrats as a group”.

                Not that it matters, I’m sure, but I’ve been registered D since I turned 18 back a million years ago.

                But that doesn’t matter. It’s a very particular sub-flavor of Democrats, I’ll grant (and, non-democrats who, if forced to not vote 3rd Party, would pick D every time without having to look at the R).

                But the other thing hiding in the question is the mirror image of the question:

                Do you feel that disdain for Republicans, as a group, prevents fruitful discussion on anybody’s part?

                Or is it just self-evident that that is completely different and a false equivalence?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, North, Me – we start with the policy that attends to the group, and go form there. You start with the group and dismiss the attendant policy. Those two things are not equivalent.

                And as a very lefty person in a very red state let me make this clear – if Republicans actually enacted policy attendant to their stated beliefs there are things I’d take a serious look at, particularly on the fiscal side. But they don’t. And I so they don’t get my support. Tax policy is a prime example. Republicans keep cutting taxes CLAIMING it will boost the economy. We have 40 plus years of data showing no such outcome. They neither apologize for misleading us, or change their policy based on the data. So I can’t take tax policy proposals from Republicans seriously any more.

                I keep being told that will change as I get older, but my politics is even more left then it was 2 or three decades ago, so I am adjusting comfortably to being the outlier on the bell curve.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Philip, please understand: I am not a Republican.

                I’m one of those crazy “third party” voters. I don’t vote for the Republicans because I do not agree with Republicans.

                But that doesn’t matter either, does it?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You are a conservative libertarian. We know this. Sometimes it means you advocate for Republican policies because they align with your world view, sometimes not.

                Even in this little sub thread however, we see a microcosm of whats not working – you asked “Do you feel that disdain for Republicans, as a group, prevents fruitful discussion on anybody’s part?” I answered (as did chip) with a focus on Democrats and Republicans because that’s how you framed the discussion – by asking about how we felt about Republicans and whether it impacted our ability to see the need for discussion.

                And your response was to then deflect that YOU weren’t a Republican – which neither of were addressing.

                That’s the goal post moving that we object to. That’s where you allegedly Socratic question writing style keeps tripping you up with us. Had you asked the question about conservatives or small “L” libertarians you might have gotten similar answers or you might not. We answered the question as asked but you wanted a different answer so you tried to reframe the question post-hoc.

                And you can ABSOLUTELY do that. Just stop pretending that’s NOT what you are doing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I admit: part of my problem is that I argue with multiple people and I can conflate different arguments against me and smoosh them together even though person X says one thing and person Y says another, it can feel like “you guys aren’t consistent!” when, no, person X is consistent and person Y is consistent it’s just that their arguments aren’t consistent with each other.

                So let me try again:

                “You start with the group and dismiss the attendant policy.”

                For a lot of the attendant policies, we’re usually stuck in policy discussions and my go-to is some variant of “these people screwed up last time and the time before that… why do we want to trust them this time?”

                And while that is “starting with the group and going from there”, I do think that past performance isn’t irrelevant. Certainly not after multiple failures.

                As for the whole question of whether disdain for Republicans prevents fruitful discussion, let me just say that, from here, the answer is obvious that there are cases where “well, you’re a Republican!” is seen as sufficient grounds to dismiss an argument. Like, it’s something that I’ve seen myself.

                So I kinda see it as something that is true that is being denied. You know?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No.
                I have utter scorn for behavior, not identities.
                More to the point, I oppose Republican policies and there does exist a point of compromise and agreement with Republicans on nearly any issue.

                But you don’t appear to have any such point. There doesn’t exist any such policy that could get you to agree with Democrats.

                When you spend all your time saying “please understand” or shifting to cryptic questions it becomes obvious that we aren’t arguing politics, not really. There isn’t some assertion of opinion or support of policy.

                If you don’t like a certain class of Democrats, fine. But let’s not pretend that this can be changed by anything THEY do, because the antipathy is within you and only you can change that.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Huh. Wacky.

                But you don’t appear to have any such point. There doesn’t exist any such policy that could get you to agree with Democrats.

                There actually *IS*.

                But it’s stuff like “ending the drug war”, “getting rid of QI for police”, “weakening police unions”, “changing the FDA given that it’s captured, corrupt, or inept”, and a handful of policies that address such things as immigration policy or health care policy.

                You know, like we’ve done hundreds of times.

                And you might be amazed to see who is arguing for policy and who is arguing that, no, we have to keep the status quo! (Also, we should be more like Europe.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Right which means you’re defining your positions such that there can never be an alliance.

                If Democrat X wants to end the drug war, their position on immigration means you oppose them.

                If they want to reform the FDA then their support for police unions is a dealbreaker, and so on.

                And even when they do the right thing like ending a pointless war, it is done the wrong way.

                And your disagreements with Democrats seem much more urgent than say, your disagreements with Republicans.
                Which is even more curious since on all your professed issues the Democrats are a closer fit.

                It leads to the reasonable conclusion that the issues are merely proxy arguments for some deeper resentment.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If Democrat X wants to end the drug war, their position on immigration means you oppose them.

                I haven’t seen Democrat X make a whole lotta movement when it comes to ending the drug war.

                Heck, I even argue for little things like “rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III” and… well, would you rather talk about immigration?

                My viewpoint is more or less the same today as it was here. I have a handful of opinions of assimilation, multiculturalism, and trust/collaboration, of course… but we’ve covered those.

                If they want to reform the FDA then their support for police unions is a dealbreaker, and so on.

                I haven’t seen a whole lotta “we gotta reform the FDA!” out there either. They’re with the “end the drug war!” folks, I guess.

                As for the Police Unions, the defense is rarely “hey, Police Unions are powerful and you have to make trade-offs and the FDA thing is important” but usually something like “why are Police Unions bad?”

                And even when they do the right thing like ending a pointless war, it is done the wrong way.

                This again. My problem was not with Biden but with the military and intelligence community that had spent the last decade lying.

                This isn’t a criticism of Biden.

                And your disagreements with Democrats seem much more urgent than say, your disagreements with Republicans.

                Nobody here is arguing that I should vote for Republicans. (Well, Koz did… back 9ish years ago… when he was on his “Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility” kick.)

                As it is now, the argument is some variant of the moral superiority of Democrats. Which, really, strikes me as kinda absurd. I mean, I can get into a headspace where I can see the perspective, but there are so many things that I have to ignore to do it that it seems, well, self-evident that I oughtn’t.

                It leads to the reasonable conclusion that the issues are merely proxy arguments for some deeper resentment.

                When it comes to the policies, I’m pleased to say that I still hold most of the same ones I’ve written about over the years (and publicly retraced the ones I’ve abandoned).

                The resentment comes from remembering the last few times I’ve argued with people who were flabbergasted that their self-evident moral superiority was not recognized.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The attitude of moral superiority of Democrats is, I think, the underlying source of your antipathy.

                Which means that the resentment can never be healed or overcome no matter what their position is.

                Because attitude is not a position and is not amenable to your resentment.
                In this equation only you have agency.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I disagree, Chip.

                It *CAN*. Indeed, it has!

                It just requires the right framing.

                This it where my agency becomes even more important.Report

              • Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The Socratic method is not a discussion of equals open to persuasion, but a master delivering ignorant students into enlightenment.

                Combine that with a self-professed antipathy for Democrats as an identity and it seems like a poor vehicle for discussion.

                Yeah, Jaybird and his Socratic style is aggravating, back when I was corresponding with him, which isn’t much recently.

                But then again, he is capable of stating a direct argument in simple declarative sentences, in his own voice, and when he does libs bitch at him for that too, so you can’t sympathize all that much.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                When Jay makes simple declarative points we go after the substance of what’s advocating for or against. Which is what political discourse is supposed to be about. I don’t recall him every getting dinged for being straightforward.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually reading and understanding Socratic dialogues spoils all the fun for self-described disciples.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            The Koch Brothers basically destroyed NYC opera when the company performed an opera based on the Anna woman that married one of their friends. They pulled all the funding.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I have nothing personal against AOC. But I read the original Green New Deal when she was the big push behind it, and remarked “Written by someone from the Northeast, addressing Northeastern concerns, with not a thought about the West.” Also that whoever wrote it had obviously never talked to the people at the national labs who have been working this problem for decades.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        A gentle reminder that the “Green New Deal” was not a legislative proposal – i.e. an appropriations or authorizations bill. It was and so far remains an aspirational Sense of the House Resolution. One doesn’t need to talk to Sandia to write that.Report

  9. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    If you enjoyed AOC’s trolling of the rich and want to do what you can to put your finger in their eye as well, you should go to the Tax The Rich Collection at the Official AOC Shop.

    Get her message on a sweatshirt for $58! A coffee mug for $27! Get three stickers for $10!

    Let the rich know exactly how you feel!

    Made in the USA! Union printed!Report

  10. Mike Cohen
    Ignored
    says:

    There are at least 5 news stories of significant import occurring within the past two days.
    This is not one of them — which I say, not to knock the new author, but to knock the lot o’ ya.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Mike Cohen
      Ignored
      says:

      My email is askjaybird-at-gmail.

      Please write me with the post you wish someone would have written, I’ll copy edit it, and see if I can’t get it scheduled.

      Or, heck, give me the five stories that you think we should have on the sidebar and I’ll put… oh… two of them up.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Cohen
      Ignored
      says:

      There are only four significant stories;

      His balls, as it turns out, were not in fact swollen.
      The President will address a shaken nation in a message of healing and unity.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Mike Cohen
      Ignored
      says:

      You may notice that we dabble in current news, big picture policy making and all sorts of sausage grinding. Should you care to consult Ten Second News or State of the Discussion (under Commentary) you may be delighted to find we do, in fact, multitask around here.Report

  11. Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Remember when lefty populists like Robert Reich railed against the “fortunate fifth?” They sure are a lot more focused these days.Report

  12. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Since we’re talking about going out to eat in NYC anyway, I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.

    Report

    • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      The cooks and dishwashers are in the back doing other things. Who else is supposed to ask? Unless you think either: (a) nobody or (b) a cop or public health official assigned to the task.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
        Ignored
        says:

        “Who else is supposed to ask?”

        I dunno. Maybe someone who makes more than somewhere around the bare minimum? Maybe they could make it so that the owners have to deny service to people?

        (“Oh, I’m sure that the hostess makes at least $18/hour!” strikes me as being a counter-argument that doesn’t really address the point.)Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          “I dunno” was honest and sufficient.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
            Ignored
            says:

            I do think that the question “Who should enforce this law?” is a very interesting one.

            If the answer “Law Enforcement” is not seen as a serious answer to the question, we’re in a weird place.

            Maybe the law is absurd if we know that, whatever the answer is, “law enforcement” isn’t the answer.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ve eaten at both Carmine’s locations, as well as their BBQ restaurant and two Chinese noodle shops. All of which I can heartily recommend. Who is “the owner”? It’s a corporate group. Some flesh-and-blood human has to be the person to tell the patrons to show proof of vaccination at each location.
              If I decided to take my clothes off at one of the group’s restaurants and dine nude, in violation of various public health and public decency laws, some restaurant employee would have to tell me to get dressed or get out. Maybe a bouncer would throw me out. The cops wouldn’t get involved unless things went seriously south. Are the laws against my dining nude in a restaurant “absurd” because of this completely ordinary, normal, and not very interesting enforcement mechanism?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                They could call the cops and the cops would walk in and remove the nude person and I’m pretty sure that everybody would agree that this is appropriate.

                Would it have been appropriate for this hostess to call the cops?

                I admit, I am assuming that your answer is “that’s absurd, of course she shouldn’t call the cops” (with caveats over whether or not a brawl breaks out).Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, you know what happens when you assume. When the question is whether to let someone in in the first place, the cops are a legitimate option if the person denied entrance raises a ruckus. Normally, however, some restaurant employee is the first resort, not the cops. Every day, thousands of property owners have their employees take care of excluding people not allowed in, either because the law says they’re not allowed in or the owner doesn’t want them in. Most of the time, this works. Posting cops at each restaurant to check vaccination status or wait around for naked diners to remove would be absurd.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh! There was this whole thing last year where calling the cops on Black people who weren’t committing a crime was the equivalent of attempted homicide.

                Has that passed?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You’ll have to ask the Karens of the world. It’s mainly up to them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                You mean like the Hostess?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You know something about the Hostess that hasn’t been reported? Whether you know anything or, more likely, don’t, go ahead and ask her. We’ll await your report on her response.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I was merely calling the hostess a “Karen”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So you were “merely calling” her a Karen. We get that. Do you actually know anything that would justify it, or were you merely doing you?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Reportedly:

                Texas civil rights lawyer Justin Moore told Daily News, ‘This hostess clearly has some anger management issues and unfortunately her aggression and her violence led to something that three Black women are being punished for.’

                Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, at least that’s something, though I’ve never known you to be so trusting of someone’s lawyer. Even though your original source said the women attacked the hostess, not vice-versa.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                That *IS* from my original source.

                Karening has a lot of unintended consequences.

                I’m not sure that I’m a fan of laws forcing Hostesses to be even more Karenish.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                *Unmasked liberal has employees wear masks*

                “We are suddenly and wildly outraged by elitism!!”

                *Liberal gets in a scuffle with black people*

                “We are suddenly and wildly outraged by racism!”

                Like seriously, do you guys think that no one is noticing this?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Like seriously, do you guys think that no one is noticing this?

                Lotta things to notice, out there.

                In any case, my issue isn’t the one of “racism” but the one of “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.”

                It’s the whole issue of “Well, who else should be asking for Vaccine ID cards?” where we wander into weird questions of law enforcement.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So who else should ask for ID? Wait a minute. You already answered this. “I dunno.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                But I also know that if asking the police to engage in law enforcement is not the right answer, then we are in an absurd place.

                Like, maybe the question isn’t a good one in the first place.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Now you’re just repeating yourself, so I’ll just refer whoever — if anyone — might be interested back up-thread.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Right.
                You raise the issue of elitism, but nah, you really just don’t like that AOCs employees had to wear masks.
                You raise the issue of who should should enforce mask mandates because you don’t like mask mandates.

                Why the silly pretense of pretending there is some big principle involved?

                You don’t like mask mandates, got it.
                It has nothing to do with elitism or enforcement or anything else.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I want to know what the *THEORY* is behind the mask mandate.

                It doesn’t have to do with AOC (though she was one of the elite that the mandate obviously doesn’t apply to).

                Down at the bottom of the page, you’ll see the Mayor of San Francisco (who passed a mask mandate) dancing maskless in a club in San Francisco.

                You’ll see an article about the celebrities at the Emmys not wearing masks while surrounded by the masked help.

                What’s the point of the mask mandate?

                What is required to get an *EXCEPTION* to the mask mandate?

                Because if all that is required to get an exception is to have proof of vaccination, hurrah! I have that!

                But apparently… that’s not what is required.

                So what’s required?

                Who gets the exception?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So what’s required?

                Who gets the exception?

                Rich people.
                Politicians.
                Celebrities.

                Not you, or me. That’s how the system works for mask and a whole host of other things. Like Taxation.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Learning that the designer of the Tax The Rich dress had unpaid tax issues (as well as issues with failing to pay worker benefits) had me saying “of course she freaking did”.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, old sport, if you want to argue that a white woman calling the cops on an outspoken black woman isn’t an example of racism, then you go right ahead.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Hold onto your butts because this will blow your mind…

                Some black folks are assholes.

                Mind.
                Blown.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Well, the protest was not a bluff. It actually happened.

      Report

  13. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Related:

    (Note: AOC was not there.)Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      At another event at which AOC was not present, Tony! Toni! Toné! was playing a small, intimate gig in San Francisco. The Mayor, who laid down an indoor masking mandate, was seen at the gig dancing maskless.

      A handful of people asked “what the hell?” and she responded:

      Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *