Posted: Jun 07, 2021 1:30 am
arugula2 wrote:That wasn't a careful enough reading...Seabass wrote:1. You don't know that Bernie was lying. You're not clairvoyant. Maybe he has a different understanding of the word "apartheid" than you.
Go back and read it, please. I didn't say he was lying. I suggest you follow the link I provided (easy to find, it's at the very bottom of that earlier post); the question wasn't whether Israel does or doesn't have apartheid, the question was whether people should be using that word when criticizing Israel's policies (i.e. when criticizing apartheid). I am under no illusion that Bernie doesn't think it's apartheid, nor did he hint that's the case. Of course he thinks it's apartheid. I'm criticizing his stance on whether people should be using the word. I think I gave a thoughtful explanation of all this in that paragraph - but you even misunderstood what my claim about him was.
How do you know this? Can you read minds? Have you discussed it with him?
arugula2 wrote:2. If you refuse to compare AOC to the other 90% then you are judging her completely removed from the context in which she exists. You are removing all context and history and creating a standard that no politician can live up to.
No, of course not - I'm contextualizing her throughout. Please fully read the post. This is merely a word game (not necessarily deliberate). When I say I "refuse to compare" her to the 90%, I'm clearly saying I refuse to judge her actions against the 90%. I was drawing an explicit contrast to what you stated you do do, in your own post.
Distinction without a difference. Politicians don't exist in vacuums so it makes no sense to judge them as if they do. They ALL end up breaking promises. They ALL end up changing once they become part of the system. They ALL have the idealism beaten out of them once they get beyond the campaign and run face first into real politics. What's more important in my opinion is the direction of the party, and for the first time since the Republicans strangled the unions, there is actually a slight chance that the Democratic party can once again become a left-leaning party of the people thanks to internet fundraising, and AOC is one piece of that puzzle. I don't want the toxic part of left to ruin that.
arugula2 wrote:3. If you expect politicians not to compromise, then I don't think you understand how politics works.
Again: please read more carefully. I do the opposite. I have no faith in politicians to stick by their principles (this is exactly what I said in my post). We need to be always on the lookout for politicians with the right principles, and then replace them when they betray their principles. I'm not yet sure how complete AOC's transformation is, I'm still trying to figure it out. But SHE is not important (beyond her personhood). Her standing up for those principles is - precisely because we need to be multiplying these types of politicians, not watching their numbers shrink. It's not complicated. Only an irrational attachment to specific individuals makes it seem more complicated than it is.
But overall: several misreadings of what I thought was a straightforward response.
Replace her? Already? With who? She's barely had time to do anything. Why the fixation on her? What about the other 534 congresspersons? Why her? Is she the worst of the bunch? Or have you just bought into media hype?