As a constituent, I note that her campaign catchphrase (since 2018) has been "Courage". Frankly, I don't think it's as simple as Caitlin says. Behind the scenes, I trust that AOC is going through quite the education, and I'd love to hear her interviewed in two decades, or better, five.
Oh it is that simple.. unless one ascribes to the ‘it’s complicated’ doctrine to describe the Palestine/Israel issue.. indigenous people are being systematically slaughtered and their land stolen by another people and all we [civlised folk] care about is whether the murderers are having a good time doing it and making sure they feel good about themselves..
The character evolution of (initiated-as-adult, 33-year-old, WC->UMC) AOC is most definitely complicated, and has nothing to do with the political topic at hand.
"Courage"? I'm searching my addled brain right now for the psychological term for the practice of projecting the polar opposite of your deepest fears and inadequacies as your virtues. What is that word?
The "progressive" thing was aways a convenient mask. It was never based in principle or analysis or commitment and never came with sacrifice.
She a self promoting ambitious bourgeoisie grifter..
"She a self promoting ambitious bourgeoisie grifter"
I seriously doubt she understands very well the implications of what she's doing. She certainly thinks she does, but IMHO she won't know for a while.
May I ask, what is your current age (roughly)? Were you raised (ages birth-to-teens) working-class? If so, was it skilled or unskilled WC? (Do you know the difference, that is, the *cultural* difference?) In general, was it stable or unstable environment? Were there street gangs as a young child? Were you abandoned for lengthy periods so your parents could work? Were the schools authoritarian disciplinarians? Were you ever experimental meat in an Ivy League teaching hospital? Did you ever have screaming matches with "therapists", who couldn't drop their own "juiced in it" [hard-driving-UMC-]parents-are-the-only-genuine-problem monomania long enough to hear what perceptive things you're saying about other things related to you, the world, and your place in it? etc. etc. etc. No, this is not unusual -- this is WC *NORMAL*. So, I hope you're now getting my drift about the possible, maybe probable, brain-state of AOC, having spent her early childhood the Bronx (a hellhole I don't even want to imagine, having seen enough triggers just on the TeeVee), but then coming face-to-face with the magical world of the UC/UMC.
In other words, moving to Westchester does not instantly transform the psyche of WC-raised to an UMC. Thinking it does is a deep UC/UMC conceit.
Wiki says her dad was an architect. That's not unskilled working class. She left the Bronx at 5 years old so had no real exposure to or experience with gangs, violence, et al. Puerto Rican families are known to be tight knit, is I doubt she had instability at home. You have a myth in your mind. Look at her academic focus.
Fair enough. I'll concede re most of these things (except as in my parallel comment point below). I don't think it's sufficient to refute my core point against Caitlin that "[AOC] knows exactly what she's doing". That's a stretch, to put it mildly.
I have not seen evidence of conscious contempt for the truth. How do you know what's going on in her head? Have you never bought into a line of thinking and rejected it later after realizing more fully its meaning and implications? I think she's contained in a bubble, and she's always being channeled into powerful rationalization to sway her.
She's the Democrats' designated limited-hangout rebel, but thinks she's following her conscience. Like Obama (and, arguably, even Bill Clinton), she was plucked from an obscure environment and molded, although those two presidents are far smarter, and have known for a long time "exactly what they're doing".
On some level she does (she has sufficient though not superior intelligence), but I believe that (within her current hurricane and bubble) she's certainly repressing and/or rationalizing it. It may not bubble to full consciousness for a while, which was in my original point. Therefore, I cannot yet hold her accountable the way I can, say, Bernie Sanders for *his* transgressions.
"She left the Bronx at 5 years old so had no real exposure to or experience with gangs, violence, et al."
How do you know that? You don't think a 3 or 4 or 5-year-old can experience trauma (at some level of) indirect exposure *worse* than, say, the 19-year-old wielding the weapons involved?
I'm not advocating her approach to this conversation at all. I'm saying she is an interesting character, will likely have many demons to face in the future, and in her old age (like Robert McNamara) attempt to come public with them. I do not believe she is a hard-boiled, two-faced sociopath as Caitlin seems to imply. Unless sociopaths and 5-D political chess have become sophisticated beyond my imagination.
Because the thing "I'm really over" is the obsessive re-invention of words. One of these cases is the word "interesting", especially as used among the U.S. upper and upper-middle classes and their imitators for a number of decades now. (Today, in the decline and fall of the West, their discourse regularly functions as a modern court of Versailles, that is, as a slice of hybrid warfare.)
To the larger portion of people, that is, the normal ones (as in the original meaning of the word "normal", i.e. "reflecting the norm"), "interesting" isn't a veiled accusation -- it retains its original meaning, that is, making a statement about the *observer's* emotional reaction (i.e. "I'm entertained to explore this person/thing/whatever further, whatever I find"), and does not involve making insinuations about the target person's character.
Oh, I know exactly how a working-class person moves into an upper-middle class environment during ones teens and twenties. Mastering by 30 years old at a deep level the sinister subterfuge of a hardened spook is not at all a norm. One can put on the cloak, but not understand sufficiently what's actually going on until decades later. Whoever is making this argument (apparently, Caitlin?) has to make a better case.
For example, at their core, I'm convinced AOC and Bernie are two very different people, no matter how they harmonize on stage. Puppet and puppetmaster.
As a constituent, I note that her campaign catchphrase (since 2018) has been "Courage". Frankly, I don't think it's as simple as Caitlin says. Behind the scenes, I trust that AOC is going through quite the education, and I'd love to hear her interviewed in two decades, or better, five.
Oh it is that simple.. unless one ascribes to the ‘it’s complicated’ doctrine to describe the Palestine/Israel issue.. indigenous people are being systematically slaughtered and their land stolen by another people and all we [civlised folk] care about is whether the murderers are having a good time doing it and making sure they feel good about themselves..
The Palestine genocide is not complicated.
The character evolution of (initiated-as-adult, 33-year-old, WC->UMC) AOC is most definitely complicated, and has nothing to do with the political topic at hand.
Hopefully, we never hear from her again. Jose Vega is an interesting character.
"Courage"? I'm searching my addled brain right now for the psychological term for the practice of projecting the polar opposite of your deepest fears and inadequacies as your virtues. What is that word?
The "progressive" thing was aways a convenient mask. It was never based in principle or analysis or commitment and never came with sacrifice.
She a self promoting ambitious bourgeoisie grifter..
"She a self promoting ambitious bourgeoisie grifter"
I seriously doubt she understands very well the implications of what she's doing. She certainly thinks she does, but IMHO she won't know for a while.
May I ask, what is your current age (roughly)? Were you raised (ages birth-to-teens) working-class? If so, was it skilled or unskilled WC? (Do you know the difference, that is, the *cultural* difference?) In general, was it stable or unstable environment? Were there street gangs as a young child? Were you abandoned for lengthy periods so your parents could work? Were the schools authoritarian disciplinarians? Were you ever experimental meat in an Ivy League teaching hospital? Did you ever have screaming matches with "therapists", who couldn't drop their own "juiced in it" [hard-driving-UMC-]parents-are-the-only-genuine-problem monomania long enough to hear what perceptive things you're saying about other things related to you, the world, and your place in it? etc. etc. etc. No, this is not unusual -- this is WC *NORMAL*. So, I hope you're now getting my drift about the possible, maybe probable, brain-state of AOC, having spent her early childhood the Bronx (a hellhole I don't even want to imagine, having seen enough triggers just on the TeeVee), but then coming face-to-face with the magical world of the UC/UMC.
In other words, moving to Westchester does not instantly transform the psyche of WC-raised to an UMC. Thinking it does is a deep UC/UMC conceit.
Wiki says her dad was an architect. That's not unskilled working class. She left the Bronx at 5 years old so had no real exposure to or experience with gangs, violence, et al. Puerto Rican families are known to be tight knit, is I doubt she had instability at home. You have a myth in your mind. Look at her academic focus.
Fair enough. I'll concede re most of these things (except as in my parallel comment point below). I don't think it's sufficient to refute my core point against Caitlin that "[AOC] knows exactly what she's doing". That's a stretch, to put it mildly.
She's corrupt. She kissed Pelosi's ass. This is not the first example of her corruption. She knows exactly where the lines are.
I have not seen evidence of conscious contempt for the truth. How do you know what's going on in her head? Have you never bought into a line of thinking and rejected it later after realizing more fully its meaning and implications? I think she's contained in a bubble, and she's always being channeled into powerful rationalization to sway her.
She's the Democrats' designated limited-hangout rebel, but thinks she's following her conscience. Like Obama (and, arguably, even Bill Clinton), she was plucked from an obscure environment and molded, although those two presidents are far smarter, and have known for a long time "exactly what they're doing".
On some level she does (she has sufficient though not superior intelligence), but I believe that (within her current hurricane and bubble) she's certainly repressing and/or rationalizing it. It may not bubble to full consciousness for a while, which was in my original point. Therefore, I cannot yet hold her accountable the way I can, say, Bernie Sanders for *his* transgressions.
"She left the Bronx at 5 years old so had no real exposure to or experience with gangs, violence, et al."
How do you know that? You don't think a 3 or 4 or 5-year-old can experience trauma (at some level of) indirect exposure *worse* than, say, the 19-year-old wielding the weapons involved?
Her self promotional WIKI bio provided that. There are areas of the Bronx that are very nice. Have you ever been there? You have no clue, my friend.
Will there be a Palestinian left standing in five, or two, or 0.5 decades?
I'm not advocating her approach to this conversation at all. I'm saying she is an interesting character, will likely have many demons to face in the future, and in her old age (like Robert McNamara) attempt to come public with them. I do not believe she is a hard-boiled, two-faced sociopath as Caitlin seems to imply. Unless sociopaths and 5-D political chess have become sophisticated beyond my imagination.
Like someone said, I’m really over these ‘interesting’ characters and these ‘interesting’ times.. let’s drop the euphemism..
It's not a euphemism.
Because the thing "I'm really over" is the obsessive re-invention of words. One of these cases is the word "interesting", especially as used among the U.S. upper and upper-middle classes and their imitators for a number of decades now. (Today, in the decline and fall of the West, their discourse regularly functions as a modern court of Versailles, that is, as a slice of hybrid warfare.)
To the larger portion of people, that is, the normal ones (as in the original meaning of the word "normal", i.e. "reflecting the norm"), "interesting" isn't a veiled accusation -- it retains its original meaning, that is, making a statement about the *observer's* emotional reaction (i.e. "I'm entertained to explore this person/thing/whatever further, whatever I find"), and does not involve making insinuations about the target person's character.
I guess you never met a striving Bronx born Puerto Rican girl who moves to northern Westchester county and sees how the world works.
Oh, I know exactly how a working-class person moves into an upper-middle class environment during ones teens and twenties. Mastering by 30 years old at a deep level the sinister subterfuge of a hardened spook is not at all a norm. One can put on the cloak, but not understand sufficiently what's actually going on until decades later. Whoever is making this argument (apparently, Caitlin?) has to make a better case.
For example, at their core, I'm convinced AOC and Bernie are two very different people, no matter how they harmonize on stage. Puppet and puppetmaster.
BTW, her opponent(s) (this election year) on this question is/are much worse, as is entirely to be expected.
"Semi-like!"