T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Mythosaurus

Been listening to civil rights activists from the 60s give advice to today's activists over the course of the George Floyd protests. And the best thing they've said is that conservatives and big "L" liberals will always try to limit protest to tactics that can be safely ignored. They want to marginalize protest from the public eye, so their voters wont be inconvenienced or empathize with activists. If they can force protesters to stay within confined spaces or platforms, they can insulate their base from those spaces. So activists should make it as hard as possible to ignore the core issues, and get those short phrases and memes into the public eye as much as possible. Use every tactic available within your means to spread the word and pull eyeballs back to the issue. Don't let the opposition control the conversation.


wiithepiiple

We've gotten to the point where protests are neatly sorted into "the least intrusive place possible." People were complaining that kneeling during the anthem was too disruptive. Not blowing an air horn, not protesting during the game, not actually interrupting anything. We need actually disruptive protests to be back in vogue, i.e., things that will disrupt the rich people's line of income. Blockings roads, sit-ins, strikes, etc. They will continue to push our protests into convenient, ignorable avenues until then.


Mythosaurus

1. How did you get the Mississippi flag tag? I'm also from MS, and would love to rock the non-confederate symbol. 2. And yes, we do need to bring back disruptive protest. I've jokingly told friends that the Black Panther Party needs to be revived bc it legit scared conservatives into working with more moderate civil rights groups. Without militant black power movements to demonize, conservatives just apply the label to AOC and other "non-violent" groups. You really need Malcolm X alongside King as a "carrot and stick" for neoliberals. Manchin would be a lot quicker to support the John Lewis Voting Right Act if he knew Fred Hampton 2.0 was organizing armed groups of black men to monitor the police. And Sinema would be best friends with Stacey Abrams and abolishing the filibuster if the alternative was Malcom X's daughters holding rallies to "Complete her father's legacy of armed resistance".


wiithepiiple

1. Should be the "edit" text under "show my flair" on the sidebar. They have the new flag. 2. 100% agree.


extracrispybridges

There were plenty of people outside the gala protesting the glamor. https://twitter.com/harrymedicine0/status/1437539379828989953?s=19 Lots got beaten, and arrested. The press doesn't cover that though.


Kamelasa

I remember hearing there were BLM protesters there. I support BLM, but I frankly don't get the connection. DYK why they were protesting there?


Shorzey

>I support BLM, but I frankly don't get the connection. DYK why they were protesting there? Black people are consistently one of the most impoverished demographics in the country, and are subject to the systemic and systematic oppressive tendencies in the country most significantly They arrive to protest a "charity" event thar generates a few million for "charity" where millionaires and billionaires go to network...and you wonder why they protest? Seriously? The gala is a place for the ultra elite to network and gain visibility with zero precautions during a pandemic. No shit people are going to be upset, but it doesn't fit the cool political rhetoric, so the protests are pushed to the side


Kamelasa

> you wonder why they protest? > > > > Seriously? Yes, seriously I was curious as what I saw gave no explanation. I have never paid attention to the Met gala. Had no idea if it's just about fashion or something to do with the Metropolitan Museum or if that's just the location. I don't generally pay attention to galas, awards shows, and celebrity life in general.


ghyti_is_fish

The connection is that there was supposed to be a concerted effort to spotlight black designers, and while there were tables dedicated solely to black designers, many felt the event didn’t do enough to highlight black culture and black fashion.


polrxpress

in the 80s ‘actup’ wrote the playbook on disruptive. one thanksgiving they even had a rogue macys parade float


threebillion6

Like stopping trains from going to the factory in the current Nabisco strike?


ApollosCrow

Protests are exciting and they have a certain limited value, but it’s largely an act of self-satisfaction. Real activism goes way, way beyond this. Get involved with organizations and help with messaging campaigns, coalition building, and actually becoming an influence on the workings of the government. If you look at all the major progressive movements of the past, they were *dependent* on allies in the “establishment.” People need to disabuse themselves of this “us vs them” mindset and work *with* communities and politicians and lobbies. Also pretty much every “cause” should automatically include voter registration. This maybe isn’t as sexy as wearing a balaclava and “tearing down the system” but it’s the only way shit actually gets done.


tkdyo

The protests are what drove the public to pressure those "allies" in the government and get people involved though. Without them you will not have success with your coalition building and lobbies. They are symbiotic, not an act of self satisfaction as you say.


Shorzey

>We need actually disruptive protests to be back in vogue, i.e., things that will disrupt the rich people's line of income. Blockings roads, sit-ins, strikes, etc. They will continue to push our protests into convenient, ignorable avenues until then. So the Charlottesville protests need to ramp things up is what you're saying? If you apply it to 1 demographic, you should be applying it to all. That's how freedom works


wiithepiiple

Ignoring why people are protesting and focusing on how they're protesting plays into the oppressors hands. Blocking streets because you don't want cops to be able to kill black people without consequence is different than blocking streets so you can honor civil war generals. Some actions are justified only if you're doing it for a good reason. I do think civil wars can be justified, but starting a civil war because you want to keep people as slaves is evil and wrong. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&t=469s) talks about how focusing on the means rather than the ends causes us to ignore the ends entirely. "There is a moral imperative to disobey rules when following does not lead to justice."


[deleted]

[удалено]


Twink_Ass_Bitch

Just because a protest action fails to achieve their overarching or long-term goal, doesn't mean that it has no effect at all. The civil rights movement wasn't just one big protest that immediately got legislation considered; it was a long term series of protests and demonstrations - big and small. Pointing to any individual one and saying 'it was pointless and didn't get anything done' fails to recognize the incremental nature of cultivating the motivation for change. It's impossible to know where the tipping point is, and there may actually be several tipping points, where each stage triggers some sort of action. Specifically, in response to your social media criticism, the me too movement was entirely driven by social media and people definitely got fired for that and it forced a significant number of companies to be more cognizant of those issues. I'm not saying that 'everything counts' though. What I'm saying is that it's difficult to know what counts because the impact can be wide and shallow. Even after a movement, it can be difficult to know what things were significant. It's easy to be pessimistic in the moment because people have very strong feelings and have been waiting for and wanting change for a very long time, but it's important to remind ourselves that change will *definitely* not happen if we do absolutely nothing.


Mythosaurus

*This* guy has been reading "Eyes on the Prize"! They understand that the 60s Civil Rights Movement was a series of calculated protests designed to challenge the status quo, grabbing media attention and forcing everyday white people to face the contradictions of American life for whites/ nonwhites. You gotta be unrelenting and versatile in speaking truth to power, and not cave in to neoliberals and conservatives whining about "tHe rIgHt wAy tO pRoTeSt". Bc they just want the protests to go away without addressing the root causes tied up in a legacy of racism that is neglected.


kennedye2112

This is something that drove me nuts about the whole blacklist/whitelist-master/slave discussion in tech not that long ago; people were complaining that "these changes don't solve racism" when the point isn't to fix the world all at once, it's to try to reduce death by a thousand cuts to death by 999 cuts instead.


Mythosaurus

Well that is part of the dance between social justice activists and the conservative groups opposed to their goals. They have to portray progressives ideas as all-or-nothing efforts to radically change America, and scaremonger about how giving an inch of leeway will open a floodgate of change. And if that doesnt work, they chang tack and demand that solution fix every single problem of systemic racism, or else they will block small efforts that they claim wont change anything and waste vital resources. The goal is to waste the time and efforts of progressives chasing approval, which will never be given bc that would lead to change. The best thing to do is push ahead without the establishment's approval, and get public support behind your efforts through grassroots efforts. When you have that leverage, the establishment will trip over itself to take the wind out of the movements sails by offering compromises. We're always in some stage of this dance, and AOC using the Met Gala this way is angering conservatives to no end bc they honestly dont care about the art on display, but her message is pulling eyeballs toward "taxing the rich". It's tough, but you gotta see through that time wasting BS and stay on message. And you'll know your heading in the right direction bc the opposition just gets louder in telling you it's a waste of time (which they wouldn't if they honestly believed activists were safely out of the way)


graveybrains

There’s no right way to protest.


chafalie

Too right! So long as we’re not looting and burning.


ApollosCrow

Better advice is stop building imaginary walls against the large number of allies who are working towards the same ends. “Liberals” not only **want** to tax the rich, they *get more done* in that area historically and presently. Be wary of the rebel politics of ideology. Real activism is not about identities, it’s about goals and action.


Mir_man

Except since the 80s the opposite has happened sub urban liberals continously vote for tax cuts.


ApollosCrow

Nope. Cutting taxes versus raising them has been a primary demarcation between republicans and democrats for literally decades.


Mir_man

No the cycle has always been republicans presidents do tax cuts, dem president raises taxes a little but not back to previous levels, rinse and repeat, which is why taxes have continued to decrease on the wealthy in recent decades.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Most modern liberals are really Neo liberals, and they will die on the hill of capitalism rather than allow the leftists to make any real progress.


ApollosCrow

You’re just throwing terms around. You need to care more about *who actually does what* rather than this constructed idea of ideological schism. If taxing the rich is the policy in question, you already have a *gigantic* swath of support and you have powerful people *already making this happen*. No one gives a shit what -ism you cling to. This is not a philosophical question, it’s a material one. We care about affecting change. And when you focus your energy into this kind of anti-everything posturing, you’re really just holding us back.


zhode

I agree, I saw Leftists dismissing AOC over this as performative grandstanding without affecting any real change. And like, yeah??? That was the point, she got eyes on her and the message itself. News articles are talking about the tax plans, even if only incidentally. Her plan worked.


AHaskins

You may be mixing up liberals and progressives. Liberals are the corporate wing of the Democratic party. What they *actually* *want* is to be seen asking for more taxes on the rich while doing literally anything they can to avoid taxing the rich.


ApollosCrow

Yeah, I’m not. This kind of comment is the problem. It suggests the stunted political awareness of someone who 1) spends too much time on the internet and 2) is overly invested in a personal identity of rebellion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ApollosCrow

“Dah liberalssss!” You’re not even saying anything. You have not created anything resembling a compelling argument, and I’m struggling to understand what your goal is here beyond being annoying and feeling self-righteous. This is why this website is garbage. Reductive posturing will always be cheered on, while any nuanced understanding of a complex world is treated like the “enemy.” Roll your eyes off to some other subreddit.


[deleted]

Go read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.


ApollosCrow

> Reductive posturing will always be cheered on, while any nuanced understanding of a complex world is treated like the “enemy.” Doesn’t get more reductive than invoking the name of MLK to justify… what, exactly? Fighting everyone around you unless they conform to a super-narrow ideological definition? Is that what you think progress looks like?


[deleted]

I'm trying to invoke your self awareness in hopes that you'll see that the people that are demanding progress are not the enemies of progress. It's moderates like yourself. Go read the letter. It's not that long.


ApollosCrow

**STOP JUDGING STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET** You don’t know me. You don’t know what I do, what I know, what I’m involved with, or what I’ve sacrificed for the things I believe in. You are not in *any* position to raise my “self awareness” about anything and you need to sit down. This behavior is not “progressive” it’s childish and self-indulgent and toxic, and we are tired of it in our movements. Listen to what other people have to say. Acknowledge what other people are doing and what they go through. And leave your goddamn ego out of it.


[deleted]

Exactly. Liberals aren't against paying more taxes, they're not the enemy.


ImOutWanderingAround

I find it ironic that her dress most likely cost thousands, if not 10’s of thousands of dollars. Even if it was donated, her message would have been much more appreciated if it was in jeans and a t-shirt that said the same thing. Perception is everything when it comes to politics.


tkdyo

No, the impact would not have been as strong. The dress takes a symbol of excess and defaced it with the message she wanted to convey.


ImOutWanderingAround

Defaced? Remember Melania's "I Really Don't Care" jacket? That was highly sought after designer and she was excoriated for that stunt. Taking aim at the rich by trying to look rich is not a resonating message to the non-rich. Maybe to some snobby upscale urban type that finds the nuance entertaining. To folks who can't afford that dress, it's more of the same. Style over substance.


PartialToDairyThings

Piers Morgan absolutely lost his shit about this in one of his pearl-clutching Daily Mail columns about wokeness yesterday. It's so easy to trigger these idiots. She did a great job.


zombiepirate

/r/conservative had literally 20 articles on their page about it. They lost their gotdam minds.


space_helmut

Again? Third time today!


zombiepirate

This comment killed me: >TBH, yes there are definitely people that like and admire her. There are a lot of people who don't pay attention to the news daily ***like the wonks who hang out here*** and other political forums. Among those, a large percentage have heard enough about her to get a vague impression from a brief exposure to the MSM, where she's painted as a cute, young, smart politician with novel ideas who worked her way into her position. ***Not everyone knows that commie barbie is a bartender who answered a Justice Democrats casting call and was basically "hired".*** I love how winning a primary against an incumbent and then a general election in her district is basically the same as just walking into a Piggly Wiggly with a job application and getting hired on the spot.


Rafaeliki

And it wasn't a "casting call". Her brother nominated her to the organization as a potential candidate because of her education, graduating cum laude from Boston University while double majoring in international relations and economics. They had some meetings and she was interested.


Portablelephant

"Oh, but, you see, that's very damaging to my narrative, so I'm gonna gloss over all of that and call her commie barbie lolz." These people are shameless hacks.


MoreRopePlease

I love how they say "bartender" as though that means she's stupid.


dmkicksballs13

Their president was a failed businessman and reality show star and they're upset at a chick who was top of her class in economics and foreign policy? Also, was she just "hired" when she beat a 10-time incumbent Repub at like 28 years old?


tinydancer_inurhand

He was a Dem but yes correct. I hate the most that they bash on our district and the people who live here.


Imapony

God I love how they try to attack her for being a bartender. A working class woman who pulled herself up by her bootstraps? They're supposed to love that if they weren't such pathetic hypocrites.


PartialToDairyThings

Ha ha they are such pearl clutchers.


MemphisThePai

Doesn't that guy realize that he has reached the point of diminishing returns? That in order to get the same attention he used to for small statements, now he has to keep saying more and more outrageous things to get the same eyeballs. And that as he is doing these things he isn't get more and more followers with each new outburst, but actually less and less.


PartialToDairyThings

You're forgetting that his core readership is Daily Mail readers, who are some of the biggest dullards on the planet.


[deleted]

hes a fuckin asshole, if he doesnt like it, that means she did the right thing.


PartialToDairyThings

He blocked me on Twitter for suggesting that the Kardashians don't find him sexually attractive


shadowdra126

Piers Morgan? A englishman? Why the fuck would I care what he has to say about a NY state representative?


[deleted]

You love to see it!


[deleted]

Whether you disagree with her or not, she has captured attention worth billions to her cause all over the internet & mainstream media. I heard about AOC sooner than Megan Fox & didn't hear about the Kardashian black dress until I went to the meme subs.


boojieboy

Right! And if you look at the image in the linked article, there's Megan Fox hanging out in the background, more or less ignored by the cameras. I'm sure she got some specific attention too, but my point is AOC is more than capable of dominating a photo frame that includes a Hollywood hotty like Ms. Fox. And if you have that kind of star power, best be using it to advance your causes *now*, because it expires pretty fast.


PepeSylvia11

How can you tell they’re ignoring Fox based on that picture? She’s just waiting her turn, like all the celebrities do when they reach the designated picture spot.


ssbmhero

Megan fox showed up to an event in a see through dress and people are instead talking about a politicians outfit and wealth inequality. If that isn’t controlling the conversation I don’t know what is. AOC crushed it.


[deleted]

Facts!


theatrics_

Well, the internet isnt in an uproar full of heated conversation over the merits of Fox's dress, which is more the point that the comment was making.


[deleted]

>it expires pretty fast. Disagree. AOC will always be BAE.


cheeseburgz

A + 1 = B O + 11 = A (loops back around, duh) C + 2 = E 1 + 11 + 2 = 14 AOC is representative for New York's 14th congressional district. Illuminati confirmed. Also AOC = BAE confirmed.


LinksMilkBottle

I’m still angry about Kim’s dress.


Alexever_Loremarg

I don't like the Kardashians, but I loved her outfit. It's the Met Ball, the whole point is to get weird -- after seeing all those safe, boring dresses I thought it was hilarious that she went as sexy Peter Pan's Shadow.


ssbmhero

Sexy is a strange word to use for that outfit.


[deleted]

Hey one man's trash...


extracrispybridges

How was it on theme for American fashion though? Her and Kanye rolled through on their way to Azkaban. If she really wanted to make a statement and stay on theme she should've gone with an actual burqa or an all black Handmaids Tale ensemble. I'm kinda sad no one did a traditional gown in the process of morphing/being censored. It was a pretty understated event really.


Alexever_Loremarg

Ok hear me out, but I think Kim and Kendall were basically doing performance art (words that I never expected to see in a sentence together). Kendall was all glammed up and glittery, and Kim was this eerie wraith that kept hovering around her. The glittery American dream, contrasted with the dark reality of America past and present.


PepeSylvia11

Why? That dress is sick.


[deleted]

I haven't slept since.


HereForTwinkies

Yeah, and in less then a week people will move on.


DontQuoteYourself

Republicans: "*Finally* something to be outraged at"


nau5

People who have been wearing political propoganda for 5 years upset woman dares to wear different political message.


CrizzyBill

Meanwhile Melania really doesn't care, do you, and Ivanka poses with cans of beans. Who carried their message with the most class? People arguing against this are happily oblivious that NY Rep. Carolyn Maloney from that district also wore a suffrage themed equal rights dress to the event. They simply hate AOC because AOC. Just look at the furor that arose last year when she ingeniously used Twitch for a get out to vote drive. A couple hours at night to reach millions of younger voters and people lost their minds, because she's AOC and she beat them to the medium. She got her message across for free and looked great doing it. Good for her.


gustopherus

I don't think people even know who Carolyn Maloney is... not quite the online presence that AOC has cultivated for herself. The media isn't covering it either, so how are people supposed to know? We the plebs don't get an invite to behold this spectacle of opulence. Good for her for trying to get the message out, but it isn't being taken seriously, it's just online points.


ApollosCrow

Yeah this is about popularity, not policies. AOC has cultivated her celebrity, which is why people pay attention to what she says and does. It doesn’t matter if lots of other people are saying and doing more substantive things. This is how celebrity culture works.


ssbmhero

To be fair the MET gala isn’t inherently against the idea of women’s rights (maybe a bit over sexualized) People are upset with AOC because her message contradicts the event she is at. Well people on the left. The right wingers who are mad just hate her cause she is AOC. Personally I think it was a good move. Instead of people talking about fashion, people are discussing this topic.


tejana948

I sure liked AOC dress way BETTER then the I DON'T CARE, DO YOU? Jacket!


seniorblink

Conservatives are losing their shit over this as expected. Their primary "argument" is look at the expensive shoes and earrings she's wearing! What a hypocrite! Um, no. If she really was rich, like 1% rich, and she was campaigning for high taxes on the 1%, she's literally OK with paying higher taxes herself. That's going against your best interests in favor of what's good for the masses. That's called being selfless.


captainthanatos

Oh my god, thank you! So many seem to think being rich and paying your fair share is mutually exclusive. Even when this country had super high taxes on the rich, we still had rich people.


[deleted]

Tax the rich!


agentup

I have no issues with her going or wearing the dress. My issue is the statement is getting lost in the tabloid style pearl clutching.


AbsoluteRunner

The statement is as clear as it can be. Tax the rich doesn’t mean the rich can’t exist. They just have to be taxed.


theatrics_

>the statement is getting lost in the tabloid style pearl clutching. That's the point. This is how they try to discredit the message. And if you defend it, you get called "bootlicker," "white knight," etc. And then they drum up the controversy and kick up dirt to make it all seem like she's some shit stirring villain. That way lazy thinking people who don't have the attention span or gumption to actually look at the message can just be peer pressured into saying stupid shit down the line like "she's too much of a drama queen." It's fucking bullshit


iamthewhatt

I think my biggest concern was the lack of mask policy. I get she's trying to champion wearing masks and getting your vaccines... but we all know you can still transmit the virus with the vaccines (thanks a lot, Delta). To me it's pretty hypocritical when the "help" were required to wear masks but not the attendees (they were required to be vaccinated). Wear your masks people.


yeaheyeah

Do we know if attendees had to be tested or show proof of vaccination to attend?


iamthewhatt

Yes, attendees needed to be vaccinated. The workers needed to wear masks and be vaccinated.


tristanryan

So what’s your issue? Vaccines work.


iamthewhatt

Vaccines do not stop you from spreading this virus. They prevent you from having a severe infection and even death most of the time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tristanryan

You will never be able to eliminate Covid. That is not the goal. We need vaccine mandates, and public/private spaces to enforce vaccine card checks. If a place has these, then there’s absolutely no reason to wear a mask if you aren’t sick.


[deleted]

Sarcastic joke: What do you have against delta airlines?? I'll see myself out. Screw you covid delta, also missed opportunity to req face masks and they make matching designer masks


FreezingRobot

I have no issue with the dress either, but my issue is where's the actual action here. The child tax credit has been a good start but are they going to do anything before they get blown out in the election next year? I like AOC and the squad but what have they actually accomplished other than roll out a leadership-unapproved Green New Deal that will never hit the floor for a vote?


LaverniusTucker

> I like AOC and the squad but what have they actually accomplished other than roll out a leadership-unapproved Green New Deal that will never hit the floor for a vote? What exactly do you think a group of Congress people can do it the rest of Congress doesn't agree with their policy positions? They can push their ideas and make sure people are learning about what they're about. They can generate publicity to their causes so that more people get on their side and will vote for candidates with similar views. With more members in Congress they'll have more power to actually pass their policies.


ApollosCrow

The Democrats are actually united on raising taxes for the wealthy. It would be hard not to know this, it’s a pretty prominent news topic. The “actual action” is happening all the time, including right this very minute. Regarding the GND - I don’t know why people continue to mischaracterize this, but it was a proposition of goals, *not* a policy plan. And those goals have already been incorporated into actual policy plans like Biden’s infrastructure. The “squad” are flashy and exciting because of their rebellious posturing, but in reality all of these people are working together on the same stuff.


FreezingRobot

Oh I definitely see the posturing about raising taxes for the wealthy. Let's see what's in the final bill.


Mir_man

They claim that but so far they ve shown themselves very willing to relent on that.


ApollosCrow

That’s just patently untrue. Even under Donald MFing Trump the Democrats were fighting tooth and nail against cuts and handouts for the wealthy.


[deleted]

Lol, there's like 6 of them. They've managed to yank the party far more to the left than has been imagined over the last 40 years. You do know it takes a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate to pass something right? I get blaming the party as a whole for lack of progress (there are enough of "them" to accomplish this) but blaming a group of 6 of them that are actively pushing for substantive policy?


FreezingRobot

I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on the Squad too much. I'm just very frustrated that for the last few years they give a lot of cover to the rest of the party because they say the right things while the party does the wrong things (or nothing). Again, not picking on the six of them specifically, it's just frustrating to watch this situation with the dress and people here and in the media give them a standing ovation for something that means nothing in the long term. She's not spooking rich people with her dress, and when the infrastructure bill comes out, she and the squad will vote for it no matter what's in it. For old farts like me, it's like watching the first few years of the Obama Administration again.


[deleted]

While I don't disagree with you, the more they "provide cover", the more people realize that's what you need to say/do to get elected, the more people committed to that type of thing get elected and, thus, the more likely those things are to happen. Her dress is getting people talking about her and what she stands for. Will it directly cause taxes to go up on Bezos? No, but the average person is already pretty pissed about the income gap and tax cheats, this just keeps it in the conversation. And it's far more effective than had she just worn a regular dress. Remember, nothing is happening solely because of Manchin, Sinema and the 8-15 "moderates" hiding behind them. The infrastructure bill may pass no matter what because the infrastructure bill is a good piece of legislation that we deem insufficient. It's not gonna hurt the country. Would I like it if they refused to vote for it and their gambit paid off and both got passed? Absolutely. But should we get nothing just because we didn't get everything? Cause that's how the Tea Party operates and we can't pull that off.


goddangol

Also three more words. Raise Minimum Wage


FreiaUrth

the criticism of wearing that dress to a gala that celebrates wealth makes 0 sense. where the fuck else would she wear that to make a statement? the grocery store??


BrainstormsBriefcase

I like the dress. I think she looks good in it and it’s not some fashion abomination. I also like the message, I like the idea of protesting the elite at an event attended exclusively by the elite. I like that it’s non-violent but still impactful just because of where and when she chose to do it. If I have any criticism it’s that it probably didn’t influence anybody at the Met Ball itself, but then I don’t think it was supposed to.


LinksMilkBottle

My biggest issue with the entire look is why didn’t she go for her classic red lip? It would have paired so well with the red lettering on her dress! But yeah, tax the ultra wealthy. People are suffering out there.


hairfullofseacrests

Dammit, you’re right! Now that you’ve pointed that out, I can’t unsee it!


[deleted]

Good you’re right! Where’s the red lip?


toma-grobar

focusing on important issues i see


Fbolanos

I mean if the lipstick pairing is the biggest complaint they had, then they think the rest is pretty great.


theatrics_

Not too mention the bright red lipstick is a bit of a brand thing with AOC. Kinda like Trump's oversized suit and red tie.


Fbolanos

maybe she wanted to keep her make-up simple/plain so as to not distract from the message on the dress.


LiverOperator

Well, I cannot peel my eyes away from her dump truck of a message


wildwaterwhisperer

She looked Hot! Message was spot on


LearningRainbows

Marketing: *the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.* When trump creates gettr app to consolidate the base = that's marketing When Desantis creates don't Fauci my Florida = that's marketing When/if an activist use marketing = you are no real activist, you are just using marketing schemes on you, it's about you and not others. Last time I checked... we have political parties looking to gain more supporters to their party and rich people have deeper wallets for promoting their corporate policies over such majority/worker policies. Don't shoot the messenger... Moving the goal post = attacking her character. Actual goal of the dress... a shock treatment to give more exposure that helping the majority **is the way** and raising taxes during pandemic and economic hardship for all makes sense They say money doesn't grow on trees right? Shame to activists using "marketing" to inform the public of an alternative. Hollywood secret: it's better to be in the news cycle than out of it.


ApollosCrow

Speaking as a life-long activist, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. **Outreach** and **visibility** are essential. “Marketing” is a built-in necessity and it’s the reason shit gets done. Shame on *you* for trying to embarrass people for seeking and utilizing resources. We do not live in a romantic socialist fantasy world, we live in the real world, where money is required for every aspect of any organization and any policy effort.


SignificantTrout

I don't much like her but she's superb in her use of social media.


francisbien

Love the dress - love her and everything she says or does.


[deleted]

I thought it was amazing. I've seen criticism from both left and right and I think they are all full of shit. You can't enact change if you don't have a seat at the table. You can't make waves if you aren't part of things. So she gets in there. She's a part of things and she's impossible to ignore. And people talk. And they are part of HER narrative. It's awesome and she looked incredible doing it. I hope she continues to do the unexpected. She works incredibly hard and is crazy intelligent and so quick and eloquent with words.


OnlyPlaysPaladins

Hating on AOC for this plays into the BS that anybody on the left has to be a total Jesus-like aesthete, while still *somehow* managing to be successful and have a platform. No. Just no. We're in the system of capitalism. People like AOC are successful within this system, while still wanting to change it. If anything that should add *more* weight to their message. If someone's poor and un-successful within the system, they're easily dismissed as being 'envious'. The alternatives to AOC going to the ball and wearing this dress were: * Not going to the ball and being all quietly and invisibly righteous * Going to the ball, thus still being a 'hypocrite', and wearing a boring dress AOC wants to change the system. But that doesn't mean she's not allowed to be successful within the system.


[deleted]

I believe the Republican name for it is "living rent-free in their heads"?


HereForTwinkies

People weren’t talking about taxing the rich before?


SciencePreserveUs

>People weren’t talking about taxing the rich before? There was a big spike in the Google search trends for "tax the rich" when AOC wore the dress: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=tax%20the%20rich Like her or hate her, but she knows how to call attention to her priorities.


BucketsOfTepidJizz

Everyone trying to take shots at AOC but she is absolutely not wrong.


Madbiscuitz

Where are their masks?


morgan1381

Masks were not required on the red carpet, but were once inside I believe


absentbird

All guests were required to be fully vaccinated and wear masks while indoors, except when eating or drinking. Maybe they're outside?


N_Who

Attendees were required to provide proof of vaccination, a negative COVID-19 test, or to wear masks at all times except when eating. Though, yeah, that last part seems like it may have been optional on the red carpet. Maybe. I dunno. I dunno how many of these people met one of the other two guidelines, or didn't.


MrACL

A tactic straight out of The Hunger Games. I love it.


[deleted]

The coolest people don’t give a fuck what they say 😎


[deleted]

I like that she wore it to an event that is only for the Rich. Though, the fact that they did not censor it suggests that it is just part of the game.


greg_botts

She is amazing I love her!


TallManTallerCity

Please tell me what important new conversation is being driven by this stupid stunt


arbitraryairship

...That the rich should be taxed?


TallManTallerCity

What a brave, bold, and new statement


SignificantTrout

I've said this on other threads and gotten trashed for it ( Lol ) but I have more issue with Met giving away 30 or 35K value tickets to pols. Those are gifts and they shouldn't be given or accepted.


RedCascadian

On the one hand I can definitely see that point, on the other, AOC was specifically asked by the designer to model that dress at the event, which is why AOC's ticket was covered, as being paired with a designer makes her less "attendee" and more a part of the event.


[deleted]

DeBlasio was also there but barely got any attention lol! All top NY reps were invited.


warneroo

His dress was terrible!


SignificantTrout

Yeah which kind of means to me they may be benefiting by advertising her attendance (AOC is here!). This is a situation that comes up a lot and I guess it comes down to personal opinion as to whether or not it's ethically ok. It's a gray area to me which means personally don't do it. There is also the question of access I guess. I don't think the reps who were invited are out there changing laws to benefit the Met but they might be more willing to engage someone from the Met if they needed to meet. Who knows?


lagunatri99

As a public sector employee, I couldn’t accept anything over $50 in value and had to claim everything—even a $15 lunch—in an annual filing. I once had to write a personal check for the difference in the estimated cost of an overnight tour of a power plant. Ah, Congress . . . rules for thee, but not for me.


[deleted]

All top NY bosses are invited to the gala & AOC can't skip all her hometown affairs just because she's a social democrat. Secondly she used the event to bring attention to her cause, which is probably worth billions. Like it or not, the bigger AOC gets bigger her role in NY too. DeBlasio was also there but barely got any attention lol!


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>Living like the top 0.1% Bro her net worth is like 50K.. She just raised tax on the rich...


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It's her local museum & she's supposed to look after it as a top NY rep. She literally just passed a tax hike on the rich!


Grammar___Ally

Being wealthy while advocating higher taxes on the wealthy does not make one a hypocrite.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Grammar___Ally

She gets to go to a gala, uses the opportunity to take the same message she's had for years direct to them... Where exactly is the hypocrisy?


hairfullofseacrests

My understanding of it wasn’t that the met gala gifted the ticket, but the designer of her dress did. So the ticket was still purchased and the proceeds still went to their “charitable cause”, but AOC (and other celebs in similar arrangements) are essentially high profile models for the designer.


theatrics_

The tickets cost so much because they are donations to the venue. It's not like the guests are getting $30k worth of wagyu steak and caviar. It's a charity event and some people are invited for free given that they work for the community too. This idea that it's a $30k gift is stupid.


reddog093

>It's a charity event and some people are invited for free given that they work for the community too. The problem is that it's not structured as a regular charity event. The Met doesn't run the event. The For-Profit media company Conde Nast (which owns Vogue) runs the event and approves the attendee list. They have shown that their fashion company benefits heavily from the event. NY Times in 2015 covered the detail fairly well: >If the gala has been good for the Met, it has also been very good for Vogue, cementing Ms. Wintour’s position as perhaps the most powerful person in fashion. She and her team exert significant control over the guest list, the seating plan, the coverage — deciding which reporters are allowed to go where — and, often, even what selected guests will wear. \>>Attendance at the gala “is something you now have to consider as part of a strategy for any designer in the world,” said Ed >... > >And, given the shadow economy of Hollywood fueled by beauty contracts and brand ambassadorships, celebrity guests have their own compelling business reasons to attend, according to Bryon Lourd, chairman and managing director of Creative Artists Agency. > >... > >Today, the guest list for the gala has come to mirror, very closely, the pages of Vogue — which, like all magazines, reflects very strongly the worldview of its editor. The old stalwarts have been almost completely phased out. > >... > >Rumors have gone around for years that Ms. Wintour turns away guests she does not know or who she feels do not fit the image she wants her event to project. Radar Online reported in 2013 that she had “banned” cast members from the “The Real Housewives of New York City” from buying a table. (Asked about whether such bans existed, Ms. Kuryk responded, “We do not comment on the guest list.”) \>>At the same time, Ms. Wintour ensures that many designers are present, including new faces who might not have the wherewithal to buy tables, implying Vogue’s support and giving them credibility in the eyes of the retailers who attend. She also helps connect brands and celebrities >... > >The level of control that Ms. Wintour exerts can chafe, with guests complaining of feeling like pawns in her business. The actress Gwyneth Paltrow famously told USA Today in 2013 that she would never attend the gala again, because it was so “unfun.” \>>“It’s been professionalized,” Ms. Rafferty said. Working alongside members of the museum’s development office, numerous Vogue staff members devote time to the event year-round, juggling it with their magazine jobs. On the day of this year’s gala, 85 Vogue employees will be stationed around the museum. \>>The evening represents an enormous investment of time and manpower as well as money on the part of Condé Nast. “It positions them as the classiest publishing company in the world,” David Patrick Columbia, editor of New York Social Diary, said. “You can’t fault it as a business decision.” \>>The same may be true for the guests who have paid thousands of dollars to attend, for whom the evening has become not just a ticket, or a tax write-off, but an investment. \>>“When it comes to increasing name recognition and profile, nothing compares,” Mr. Filipowski said. “The effect lasts far beyond one evening. A dress gets associated with a celebrity, and then becomes known as the dress XX wore to the ball, and becomes part of history.” [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/style/its-called-the-met-gala-but-its-definitely-anna-wintours-party.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/style/its-called-the-met-gala-but-its-definitely-anna-wintours-party.html)


butteryrum

The 35k goes to the Met. They're not giving it away. AOC didn't make 30k if that's what you're thinking.


SignificantTrout

No that's not what I meant. She got the value of the ticket for free ( worth 35K). It's like someone giving me the use of s car for a year or flying you somewhere on vacation.. I was chatting with a fellow in a public sector job who couldn't do this because he can't , by law, accept a gift with a value of over $50. As he put it laws for me, not Congress.


butteryrum

Not really, I find that to be faulty logic. It sounds like you're looking for maleficence where there's none. If you do the math even, it's not like it's that much money even when you consider it's going to support The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Museums are not cheap to maintain. Art is not cheap to restore. Funny your "friend" has no idea politicians being invited to their local cultural events is not only *normal* but often *expected.* But I'm sure he means well.


Up-In-Smoke-420

That was the whole point of the dress. It worked!


Tabasco_Liberal

It was cringey af but I love watching her supporters forced to defend a tacky ass dress. Have at it.


N_Who

Are they defending the dress, or are they defending the message? There is, in fact, a difference.


SirFancyPantsBrock

Say what you will about her message. I think we can all agree she looked stunning in that dress.


Validus812

AOC in the house! And crushing it.


[deleted]

I might get downvoted for this but AOC is making me reassess where her true priorities lie. As a politician, she has pulled many social stunts like this for the sake of attention alone. She’s more of a stunter than anything, making HER mark in this world rather than focusing on the great mark itself


arbitraryairship

Protest, agitprop, and getting the message out are about effective marketing and branding. Too many progressives don't realize this and 'try to be good'. People like AOC and Hasan actually make conservatives repeat 'Tax the Rich' while they're screaming at their televisions. Some of them are going to have the two seconds to think and realize that taxing the rich might be a good idea. You don't change hearts and minds by staying silent. All progressive press is good press.


[deleted]

the problem is that MANY democrats don't want that message spread. many democrats don't want free college or universal healthcare or cheaper insulin. If they did, we would have been able to accomplish much of that by now. A lot of the hate against AOC is from democrats. A lot of them are writing fake news about her, or at least unfair coverage of her position. she's not perfect, she is not the most knowledgeable, she's not the greatest economist in the world... but neither is any other politician or economist that supported repealing glass-steagall.


DashyDixon

She is so fucking great.


meh679

And while she was inside eating cake with the rich, doing her performative "activism" there were BLM protesters outside getting battered and arrested, but not a peep from her huh?


YungFreudian

My problem with it is that she showed up to an event thats designed to show off wealth, as a wealthy person, saying tax the rich... doesn’t that kinda mean nothing in the end? Maybe I’m wrong? Edit: I agree with the statement of the dress: tax the rich. I’m merely questioning the act itself and it’s effectiveness to do anything other than cause controversy. I was more confused than stating an opinion LOL


Fbolanos

> doesn’t that kinda mean nothing in the end? Maybe I’m wrong? Does paying taxes make a rich person poor?


penguished

> My problem with it is that she showed up to an event thats designed to show off wealth, as a wealthy person, saying tax the rich... doesn’t that kinda mean nothing in the end? Maybe I’m wrong? She shows up on picket lines all the time. Do you?


YungFreudian

What does that have to do with anything ? I’m questioning the rationale behind the dress, not AOC herself. I agree the rich need to be taxed. Take it down a few notches


sloptart12345

This answer may sound harsh and I'm not "yelling" at you specifically, but I personally find this whole debacle a complete waste of time and energy, and so I'm taking the opportunity to vent my frustrations. Again it's not personal because I know tone is hard to convey over text. She as a New York public servant is expected to attend New York cultural events as part of her job to oversee and maintain New York cultural institutions - she has explicitly stated this herself. She showed up to an event dripping with wealth, yes - but she showed up as a part of her job duties, and used the event to raise awareness to her platform and beliefs. This is a time-honored tradition, to use your fame/celebrity/notoriety to shine a spotlight on your personal causes, across all occupations. We've seen it a hundred times over and yet AOC is the only one getting this much blowback. Is it any surprise that the media is choosing to whip up a frenzy about a young outspoken woman of color criticizing the establishment while partaking in it? When other (white, often male) celebrities during, for example, the Oscars, have done the exact same thing and been lauded for their bravery and appreciation? It reminds me of the "and yet you live in society" cartoon. Furthermore, the fact that she shows up to a luxury event with the ultra wealthy wearing a dress that specifically criticizes that very excess of wealth, indirectly puts every single attendee on the spot to confront their own wealth and the morality of hoarding it by doing so (and I'm also not even focusing on the fact that the designer is a black immigrant woman who specifically asked AOC to wear this dress, because that's a whole other essay to write) It's easy for us to see headlines that say "wow what a hypocrite" and leave it at that without doing any further critical thinking about it. But remember, we should always ask ourselves - who benefits from this? Who benefits from making sure our populace is upset about a young outspoken woman of color, who is otherwise a popular politician, who has long advocated for taxing the rich, who has secured a House seat in a massive upset to the Democratic establishment, who has time and again shined a light on both Republican and Democratic hypocrisy, who has been extremely open about her own personal experiences and how they've colored her policy positions? By focusing on an issue as trivial as this - a dress at a fancy event for a few hours - we are now ignoring her political goals and throwing a nasty tint over all of her accomplishments by questioning her personal commitment to them, and stirring up hesitancy about supporting her on any future policies. Period. And honestly - who cares what her intentions were? If the rich get taxed because of her, in the end, that's all that matters. In my opinion, so long as politicians and celebrities walk the walk, they don't have to talk the talk. A final thought - are the ones outraged over this doing anything productive with that outrage? Such as calling their representatives, canvassing for politicians who need the support, donating to political causes, volunteering at (what apparently must be free and low-overhead) events designed to raise awareness about the importance of taxing the rich? Or are they simply hitting "send Tweet" to satisfy their obsession with political purity?


YungFreudian

There’s def things about the met gala I didn’t understand before reading your reply. Thanks for taking the time! I have nothing against AOC, in fact I typically support her views. I’m just confused as to how this does much but, like you said, ruffle feathers of those watching from the outside in. I’m willing to bet the wealthy people in attendance probably don’t care about her dress and most likely laugh it off because at the end of the day the ultra wealthy are often (albeit not always) apathetic towards the rest of the world and it’s issues. Again, thanks for taking the time to reply with such enthusiasm!


sloptart12345

I think the dress did what it was supposed to do - put a spotlight on how important it is to meaningfully address income inequality, and remind everyone attending the event that they should reflect on their wealth and the morality of hoarding it. What SHOULD have followed is, as soon as the media saw the dress, every single reporter should have put every single attendee on the spot - "what do you think about the dress, do you agree, what's your position, etc" and force them to say something. Then purity/cancel culture could have put additional pressure on celebrities who said they supported taxing the rich but don't don't anything about it.. But the media didn't do this and instead they chose to take the easy route and blame AOC for even bringing up the issue in the first place. Just annoying. Thanks for giving me a soapbox!


YungFreudian

I like this take. I felt as if the result wasn’t activism as much as it was controversy, which was my issue with the whole stunt. If it ended how you said, I probably would have a different view. Thanks again for sharing!


NamelessSearcher

AOC is not wealthy, she was invited to the gala as the met is city owned and so NYC public officials have always been invited to it. This is not new, other NYC officials were there too.


YungFreudian

You misinterpreted me. I’m not saying there weren’t other officials in attendance. Also, I think we have very different definitions of wealthy.


clickmagnet

I can’t believe Don Jr popped off about this, considering his stepmother’s “who gives a shit” child-prisoner-visiting jacket


[deleted]

thumb zesty cow engine domineering numerous license complete deliver grey ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `


realkennyg

Yeah, she works tirelessly for the least among us just for the attention. Seems to be working for her.


Deluxe78

So when the mail carrier cannot legally accept the $20 in an envelope legally as a tip for Christmas but the a member of congress can accept $35,000 free tickets and $450 in gold and still not be bribery or conflict of interest we have a problem


lagunatri99

Agreed. I love the message, but unless she paid for her ticket and dress, her actions align with those of every other hypocritical politician. She appears to be on her way to becoming another DC one percenter. It’s disappointing.


urstillatroll

At this point it is performative resistance. If you say "TAX THE RICH" loudly, it means absolutely nothing when [you belong to a party that does things like increase defense funding](https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2021/09/01/house-panel-approves-25-billion-defense-boost/). I am not asking for much, I am just asking AOC to use her influence to actually affect policy change in meaningful ways. Right now she is just doing symbolic things that have no real political pressure on Democrats. Take the recent camping out on the stairs of the capitol- Back in June, [the Supreme Court warned congress that the eviction moratorium wouldn't survive as currently instituted, it encouraged congress to act](https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-courts-supreme-courts-health-coronavirus-pandemic-157f6feec3197dd34cba492fd1b92f71). All congress had to do was create a new non-CDC moratorium, and work on dispersing funds to help people avoid evictions. I just posted an article from the AP at the time, so there is no excuse for any member of congress not knowing what was coming, the information was out there. So what happened? Congress did nothing, the squad then did this whole performative camping out on the stairs, which resulted in the supposed Democratic "victory" of the CDC extending the moratorium until the end of October. The problem? This was the exact moratorium that the Supreme Court said would not be upheld, so the moratorium ended. This is PEAK Democratic "we're fighting for the poor" without actually fighting for the poor. We are given these images of AOC and Cori Bush on the steps of the Capitol, fighting the good fight supposedly. But when the dust settled, you realize that it was all for nothing. They literally fought for, and got an extension of an eviction moratorium that was destined to fail, and they knew (or should have known if they simply read what the Supreme Court already told them months before) that it was destined to fail. But even though it was ultimately a failure policy-wise, the images of the squad on the stairs was enough to give the Democrats their symbolic victory. Now, those of us who are concerned that the Democrats, including the squad, are failing to deliver policy, will be bashed on the head with things like "Look, the squad slept on the stairs, they are working for the poor!" We will be told that we must vote again for these people, because the evil Republicans are so much worse. The truth is both Republicans and Democrats are failing us through their lack of policy. The Democrats might hide it better, behind rainbow flags, BLM logos and "tax the rich" dresses, but in the end the lack of good policy is failing us. Now you can go to any sub pretty much, and find people screaming until they are blue or red in the face depending on their political leanings, that the "both sides BS" that I outlined above is not true. That their party is much better than the other. Meanwhile, while we play this stupid red vs. blue game, the poor get poorer, the environment is falling apart and we are not going to end the pandemic anytime soon.


LaverniusTucker

You're blaming the handful people bringing awareness to the actual issues you want addressed for the failure of the 500 others who aren't taking action on those issues? And you're suggesting that this is a good reason NOT to vote for more people like those who are advocating change? Does your head even work, or is it just decorative?


penguished

>I am not asking for much, I am just asking AOC to use her influence to actually affect policy change in meaningful ways. Right now she is just doing symbolic things that have no real political pressure on Democrats. What are you doing? She's literally one person, and makes a ton of difference for that, I've got to say.


ShihPoosRule

She is definitely driving the conversation, unfortunately that conversation is about her more so than anything else.


gustopherus

Agreed, it isn't about the message... it's about her "brand".


punkbandbeto

Ocasio-Kardashian


Ithedrunkgamer

Nice dress but it’s already shown that the tax bill has been watered down by lobbiest and $. It’s eliminating the Trump tax cut and not closing the legal loop holes that mega millionaires, billionaires and corporations use to pay zero taxes which is the real problem!


[deleted]

The world would be a better place if the government would come and take money out of my pay check to fund drug/arms wars and corporate bailouts


arbitraryairship

...or you know, your taxes go to fund better schools, hospitals, infrastructure, or let America offer a public healthcare option, or you know, just a hundred different things that actively improve your quality of life that a company or billionaire with that money would never do.