Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

tempo_n_groove

mace1229 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

I actually haven't even heard of the dance video until I saw it here. I don't think anyone of big influence or importance is really talking about it or even cares. When I tried to search it I found far more people complaining about people complaining about the video than those who actually complaining about it to begin with, which just to me seems like trying to blow up a non-issue. I think I worded that confusing enough.

That's what I've been saying about this too.

All these things are true, but I think you guys are forgetting that right-wing trolls actually do play a significant role now, too. That's why Russia is flooding the west with troll accounts now. What online trolls do and say is no longer irrelevant, unfortunately.

But that doesn't explain why the number of complaints about the complainers outnumber the original complainers 10 to 1. That's why to me this seems like a non-issue that has falsely blown up to make others look bad (and not by Russia), when there never was an issue to begin with.  If the media and social media didn't get upset over the attempt of one person to poke fun of her, I never would have even heard of this dance. 
The point is no one thinks anything negative of this, but it is being painted by social media (and regular media) as "The old white male republican club can't stand a woman dancing" when no one cares.

I assume the issue is that there are ANY right-wingers who tried to use that to criticize her - it's so ludicrous. I figure the one to "blame" here is whatever right wing moron who did that, because shit like that makes everyone on the right look bad. That's how it works, and it works both ways, as we all know. But also because that video is so very entertaining on its own, and references insanely famous American pop culture.

But also, the right really DOES hate this woman. No, not because she danced. But the troll highlighted an undeniable truth in general when it comes to the right and how they have been treating her. And FWIW, I think they are treating her like that for the reason everyone says: they are terrified of her and people like her.

Did whoever post the video leave a comment about how it makes her unfit or something?
The only thing I've seen was that it was posted to humiliate her or something, but I haven't actually seen anything negative said about it.

How and why did the video surface to begin with?  Someone obviously wanted to paint a negative picture.

I have no idea. And if I just saw this video without any context or comments, my first thoughts would not be that someone was trying to shame or slander her. I would at the least think it was just meant to be fun, and maybe even think they were trying to be positive and show her fun side. Thats why I was curious if anyone knows how it was actually shared because I haven't seen anything. Like I said, I actually haven;t even seen anything negative said about it, so I just don't know where all this defense towards the haters are even coming from.
And as pjhawks pointed out, most of the "Defenders" refer to her as an innocent high school girl, when she clearly looks much older and has been identified many times as college aged. Again, to me just looks like a "poor little high school girl being attacked" when there's really nothing being said to begin with.
This whole story still puzzles me, if you search this topic all you get are people defending her, when no one is even attacking her. 
ANd no, one right extreme idiot does not make everyone look bad. You can't search a single person without finding some negative comments. If you search "was Mother Teresa a good person?" the first several results are all people arguing no. So just because 1 random person that no one has ever heard of says one bad thing is so irrelevant. And it's so weird that this is getting any attention at all.

The original and ONLY tweet about it has been deleted.

So basically everyone has been piggybacking off of other peoples stories.

tempo_n_groove

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

tempo_n_groove

HesCalledDyer

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

She's sure in the heads of people in the comment section on that article.  Perhaps not about the dancing, but my god Fox News viewers are neanderthals.

mace1229

pjhawks said:

here is what bothers me about this.  why does everyone say she is dancing as a high schooler...but to my understanding the dance video was taken when she was a student at Boston University.  am i wrong?

Ha, Just watched it for the second time because the link had the longer (whole?) clip.
what I just noticed is that everyone in the video is wearing a Boston shirt. That makes this even funnier.

pjhawks

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

tempo_n_groove

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

cincybearcat

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

True news

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

That's EXACTLY why I used the word, lol.  It's not an outrage at all, it's a figgin joke!

I never got to see any comments because the tweet was taken down.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots?  Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways.  And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party?  This is all nonsense.  Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots?  Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways.  And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party?  This is all nonsense.  Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.

Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.

tempo_n_groove

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

Yes those comments can be pure gold.

Unfortunately I never saw any of them...

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots?  Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways.  And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party?  This is all nonsense.  Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.

Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.

just to be fair, I joined instragram late in the game. I only had a few followers at the time, only followed a few people, and got into this thing with some douche who I guess decided to look at my page to see what insults he could throw at me, and since my page was so imcomplete, he assumed I was a bot and dismissed me. 

New people are joining twitter every day, and probably even facebook, so I don't think the criteria you've outlined is as black and white as you think it may be. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

At least 2...

You aren't getting it though.  One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.

Fake outrage.

My .02.

of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc. 

but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't. 

for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage". 

Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.

So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots?  Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways.  And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party?  This is all nonsense.  Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.

Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.

just to be fair, I joined instragram late in the game. I only had a few followers at the time, only followed a few people, and got into this thing with some douche who I guess decided to look at my page to see what insults he could throw at me, and since my page was so imcomplete, he assumed I was a bot and dismissed me. 

New people are joining twitter every day, and probably even facebook, so I don't think the criteria you've outlined is as black and white as you think it may be. 

Normally the bots have literally no friends or followers though, and no posts besides profile pic edits. Even new people are those who don't use it much have more than what a bot has! And you can see when a profile was created. Really, it's not hard to tell the difference even taking the kinds of things you're talking about into account. Sure, there is a margin of error. But not a very big one at all. Because keep in mind that the posts that cause one to go check if they're a bot are also telling.

That guy you mention is indeed a douche. For me, I have been accused of it simply because my privacy settings are set high on Facebook. Some idiot thought I must be trying to hide something. People can be just so fucking dumb.

mace1229

pjhawks said:

tempo_n_groove said:

It's FOX but they seem to see the same thing that only 1 tweet sparked an outrage, or "fake outrage".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video-media-claims

so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough?  2, 5, 10, 50...?

I think applying basic common sense would be best here.
I think it was in 2002 I read a study that 12% of Americans thought Elvis was alive. So basically you can get 12% to believe anything, and about 12% of the population should be ignored. If only 12% of the population dislikes something, then that by any measure is a very popular idea or person. And from all accounts it was much, much less than that. Since I can't actually find any people who dislike this dance video, and apparently they only exited in the original tweet, this truly is "fake outrage."
It is obvious to me that the many accounts reporting on this outrage are just people wanting an excuse to be upset over something.  No one was bothered that she danced, but when I Google Search "Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez dancing" all I get are pages and pages of reports about how so many conservatives are upset with her dancing or that she made a second dance video to combat the outraged conservatives, without seeing a single conservative actually upset about it. It really is the left or the media wanting something to be angry about when there isn't anything to be angry over.
You can literally find dozens of negative tweets or comments about anything. So if 1 person tweeting is enough to justify that the right is outraged, then there isn't anything that the right or left isn't "outraged" over.

brianlux

Some desperate right wingers out there.  Cretins!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/10/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hits-out-at-disgusting-media-publishing-fake-nude-image

gimmesometruth27

Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.

oftenreading

gimmesometruth27 said:

Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.

An online war that will involve sexual harassment, as is typical for any woman in the spotlight, particularly in any position of power.