BREAKING: AOC wears a "Tax The Rich" dress at the Met Gala, where a ticket costs $30,000 to attend.

[HillGoose]

what a hypocrite

[Calthrina950]

There's this interesting Greenwald article about Ocasio-Cortez and the Met Gala, which I think is humorous but also very relevant and well-argued.

[Yoda]

Everyone does realize that AOC was invited (as other NYC officials are as a matter of protocol, as the site is NYC government property) and did not pay for a ticket, right? We all know that the dress was borrowed, and she does not own it? We all realize that this event is a fundraiser for the museum itself, which only charges $25 (free for kids and less for some others) for entry, which maybe barely covers its expenses if at all?

[DaleCooper]

There's this interesting Greenwald article about Ocasio-Cortez and the Met Gala, which I think is humorous but also very relevant and well-argued.

I'm a big opponent of Greenwald, but he definitely brings up an important point in his article. I've been seeing it in Nebraska's big cities lately as well. I was in Omaha the other day and I had to stop by a UPS office to drop off some mail. I noticed there were workers outside loading boxes onto a truck with masks on even though they were outdoors on a very hot day. It's of course most noticeable in restaurants where the waiters are all masked up and bringing food to the maskless customers. It doesn't feel right to me now that the vaccines are available to everyone.

[Calthrina950]

There's this interesting Greenwald article about Ocasio-Cortez and the Met Gala, which I think is humorous but also very relevant and well-argued.

I'm a big opponent of Greenwald, but he definitely brings up an important point in his article. I've been seeing it in Nebraska's big cities lately as well. I was in Omaha the other day and I had to stop by a UPS office to drop off some mail. I noticed there were workers outside loading boxes onto a truck with masks on even though they were outdoors on a very hot day. It's of course most noticeable in restaurants where the waiters are all masked up and bringing food to the maskless customers. It doesn't feel right to me now that the vaccines are available to everyone.

Agreed. I've noted before about how at my job, all of us employees have been back under a mask mandate since last month, but customers can go maskless as they please. It seems like mask mandates have become another way of reinforcing inequality and distinctions between the classes. Of course, college students and faculty-such as at my university-are also under mask mandates, as are the vast majority of public school students and faculty. Students and workers alike continue to labor under them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Everyone does realize that AOC was invited (as other NYC officials are as a matter of protocol, as the site is NYC government property) and did not pay for a ticket, right? We all know that the dress was borrowed, and she does not own it? We all realize that this event is a fundraiser for the museum itself, which only charges $25 (free for kids and less for some others) for entry, which maybe barely covers its expenses if at all?

Indeed, it's possible that if the rich were taxed more, the museum wouldn't see the need for the gala.

[H. Ross Peron]

I don't have strong feelings about this either way. AOC is hardly the first politician to do stunts like this these days nor is it only a habit of the left. It's more of a testament to the impotence of real politics, where even modest tax increases on the wealthy and upper middle class are stopped by endless veto points and the traditional mass mobilization institutions of society such as unions and machines are in abeyance, that politicians are forced to resort to ironic, meta displays of slogans in incongruous settings. You could make an optics based argument that AOC wearing this dress will generate more negative publicity than any substantive discussion in favour of greater taxation on the wealthy but Trump seems to have set the precedent of "controversy is free publicity" in US politics.

[DS0816]

The Democrats will earn losing control of the United States House of Representatives with the midterm elections of 2022. It will also be well-deserved.

[Joe Republic]

Perhaps once we get the billionaires to start paying any taxes at all, then we can focus on possibly increasing them.

[Fight for Trump]

Tax the poor!

[Brittain33]

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender.

She's not rich, although she's famous. But do you believe she went to the Met Gala in order to "rub elbows" with them? As opposed to using it as a platform for her own publicity and message - which, truth be told, is what most attendees are using the Met Gala for?

If she wanted to just have fun at the Met Gala, she could have quietly had a much more enjoyable time by wearing something stunning and not controversial and taken in the adoration of all the other attendees. Instead, she successfully made it a political moment.

[DaleCooper]

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender.

She's not rich, although she's famous. But do you believe she went to the Met Gala in order to "rub elbows" with them? As opposed to using it as a platform for her own publicity and message - which, truth be told, is what most attendees are using the Met Gala for?

If she wanted to just have fun at the Met Gala, she could have quietly had a much more enjoyable time by wearing something stunning and not controversial and taken in the adoration of all the other attendees. Instead, she successfully made it a political moment.

I don't believe any of this whatsoever. This interpretation is so unbelievably charitable. Would you really believe this if someone used this reasoning for people you don't like? I've seen Trump supporters justify his relationship with every establishment "swamp" Republican in Washington by claiming he's just "keeping his enemies close." I'm very cynical these days, especially when it comes to politics. I don't believe AOC is mean or evil, if that's what you're asking, but I think that she gets a thrill out of publicity stunts and I'm sure that showing off this gaudy dress at a snooty entertainment event, where no one would have a negative thing to say about her anyway, was an exciting idea for her.

[7,052,770]

AOC says she (and other NYC elected officials) were invited.

Anyway, obviously the post was deleted in this thread but it's pretty obvious what she was doing. The irony is the point, and clearly lost on the pearl-clutchers in this thread.

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender. Socialists in this country are extremely, extremely judgmental of everyone that offends their sensibilities of what is and isn't fair in this economy, but they seem to universally have no problem living it up to the fullest themselves. I don't care if rich people enjoy an expensive night out to the gala, but I'd rather they not pretend to be men and women of the people while they do it.

And please, no one give me that god-awful "you participate in society" comic thing. It's so out of touch. Anyone who thinks that going to a $30,000 night of entertainment is merely "participating in society" is about as deluded about what the average American experience is like as Donald Trump is.

I didn't get the impression at all that she went there because she enjoyed rubbing elbows with the rich and famous - she seems pretty clearly to drag them all and make them uncomfortable, and expose their hypocrisy, as most of them there claim to be liberal/Democratic but don't want to actually do anything to help the poor.

[DaleCooper]

AOC says she (and other NYC elected officials) were invited.

Anyway, obviously the post was deleted in this thread but it's pretty obvious what she was doing. The irony is the point, and clearly lost on the pearl-clutchers in this thread.

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender. Socialists in this country are extremely, extremely judgmental of everyone that offends their sensibilities of what is and isn't fair in this economy, but they seem to universally have no problem living it up to the fullest themselves. I don't care if rich people enjoy an expensive night out to the gala, but I'd rather they not pretend to be men and women of the people while they do it.

And please, no one give me that god-awful "you participate in society" comic thing. It's so out of touch. Anyone who thinks that going to a $30,000 night of entertainment is merely "participating in society" is about as deluded about what the average American experience is like as Donald Trump is.

I didn't get the impression at all that she went there because she enjoyed rubbing elbows with the rich and famous - she seems pretty clearly to drag them all and make them uncomfortable, and expose their hypocrisy, as most of them there claim to be liberal/Democratic but don't want to actually do anything to help the poor.

The same can be said about her. There's a reason her publicity stunt didn't involve a "Tax the rich!" demonstration out in front of the gala.

[Brittain33]

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender.

She's not rich, although she's famous. But do you believe she went to the Met Gala in order to "rub elbows" with them? As opposed to using it as a platform for her own publicity and message - which, truth be told, is what most attendees are using the Met Gala for?

If she wanted to just have fun at the Met Gala, she could have quietly had a much more enjoyable time by wearing something stunning and not controversial and taken in the adoration of all the other attendees. Instead, she successfully made it a political moment.

I don't believe any of this whatsoever. This interpretation is so unbelievably charitable. Would you really believe this if someone used this reasoning for people you don't like? I've seen Trump supporters justify his relationship with every establishment "swamp" Republican in Washington by claiming he's just "keeping his enemies close." I'm very cynical these days, especially when it comes to politics. I don't believe AOC is mean or evil, if that's what you're asking, but I think that she gets a thrill out of publicity stunts and I'm sure that showing off this gaudy dress at a snooty entertainment event, where no one would have a negative thing to say about her anyway, was an exciting idea for her.

It sounds like not liking AOC is driving how you interpret the situation. That sounds like an emotional take. I’m going based on what I’ve observed about how she uses the media, traditional and social, to convey political messages. She has a much longer and more public track record of doing that than being a star-f…er.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I thought the point of her wearing this is to mock the tendencies of the sort of rich people that attend the Met Gala. Don't see how this is hypocritical?

[GoTfan]

I personally find this cringe, but AOC does have a strangely large fan base, so whatever works for us works.

Besides, as Trump has shown, any process of her getting real power would be kind of funny. That alone would be worth it.

It's clear for all the Atlas mockery of AOC, she is a pretty good politician all things considered. She seems to understand the power of social media and coverage in a time when...most politicians simply don't, even the younger ones.

I said it when Yoho accosted her outside the Capitol, and I'll say it again. Despite some people thinking she's an idiot, she is a very shrewd and cunning woman.

Idiots don't finish second in the International Science and Engineering Fair and get an asteroid named after them. Idiots didn't intern for Ted Kennedy. Idiots don't graduate cum laude with degrees in international relations and economics.

She's a smart, cunning politician and is far, far better at 'playing the game' than most people realise.

Side note: I would say idiots don't get elected to Congress, but we live in a world where Louie Gohmert is an incumbent, so clearly that statement doesn't hold up.

[DaleCooper]

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender.

She's not rich, although she's famous. But do you believe she went to the Met Gala in order to "rub elbows" with them? As opposed to using it as a platform for her own publicity and message - which, truth be told, is what most attendees are using the Met Gala for?

If she wanted to just have fun at the Met Gala, she could have quietly had a much more enjoyable time by wearing something stunning and not controversial and taken in the adoration of all the other attendees. Instead, she successfully made it a political moment.

I don't believe any of this whatsoever. This interpretation is so unbelievably charitable. Would you really believe this if someone used this reasoning for people you don't like? I've seen Trump supporters justify his relationship with every establishment "swamp" Republican in Washington by claiming he's just "keeping his enemies close." I'm very cynical these days, especially when it comes to politics. I don't believe AOC is mean or evil, if that's what you're asking, but I think that she gets a thrill out of publicity stunts and I'm sure that showing off this gaudy dress at a snooty entertainment event, where no one would have a negative thing to say about her anyway, was an exciting idea for her.

It sounds like not liking AOC is driving how you interpret the situation. That sounds like an emotional take. I’m going based on what I’ve observed about how she uses the media, traditional and social, to convey political messages. She has a much longer and more public track record of doing that than being a star-f…er.

You must be new to the online political discourse if you think that my commentary on AOC is driven by feelings. Aside from Donald Trump, she has the most devoted fans and haters of anyone. Pointing out that she's being obnoxious by playing up her anti-1%er brand while hanging out with the snobs at the MET Gala is far from an emotional take in any case, but definitely not compared to the worshipful praise and deranged hate that she gets. Oh and by the way, it's transparently obvious that the reason the "populist" left rhetoric has changed from being anti-1% and anti-millionaire to being merely anti-billionaire is purely to accommodate all the rich people that champion the left these days.

[7,052,770]

You must be new to the online political discourse if you think that my commentary on AOC is driven by feelings. Aside from Donald Trump, she has the most devoted fans and haters of anyone. Pointing out that she's being obnoxious by playing up her anti-1%er brand while hanging out with the snobs at the MET Gala is far from an emotional take in any case, but definitely not compared to the worshipful praise and deranged hate that she gets. Oh and by the way, it's transparently obvious that the reason the "populist" left rhetoric has changed from being anti-1% and anti-millionaire to being merely anti-billionaire is purely to accommodate all the rich people that champion the left these days.

She went there to bash and troll them and make them feel uncomfortable, hence the dress. It's some pretty harsh spin to handwave that message away and portray it as if she was just there to smile and chat.

[dead0man]

It's nice that AOC got another chance to reaffirm her brand, but how is this any different than any of the other times politicians have ignored their own covid rules?

The Met's covid rules for visitors

The Museum requires face coverings for all visitors age 2 and older, even if you are vaccinated. You will not be permitted inside the Museum without a face covering. Additionally, face coverings must be worn for the duration of your visit.

The health and safety of all is our priority. The Met will continue to monitor and abide by guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), New York State, and New York City for health and safety procedures that inform our operations.

[DaleCooper]

You must be new to the online political discourse if you think that my commentary on AOC is driven by feelings. Aside from Donald Trump, she has the most devoted fans and haters of anyone. Pointing out that she's being obnoxious by playing up her anti-1%er brand while hanging out with the snobs at the MET Gala is far from an emotional take in any case, but definitely not compared to the worshipful praise and deranged hate that she gets. Oh and by the way, it's transparently obvious that the reason the "populist" left rhetoric has changed from being anti-1% and anti-millionaire to being merely anti-billionaire is purely to accommodate all the rich people that champion the left these days.

She went there to bash and troll them and make them feel uncomfortable, hence the dress. It's some pretty harsh spin to handwave that message away and portray it as if she was just there to smile and chat.

As many others including one of my fellow Nebraskans have now pointed out, this was a branding opportunity for her. She's a clever businesswoman, I'll give her that, but I find it impossible not to be skeptical when all of the heroic actions these people take conveniently further their own brands as well. As for this being "trolling", first of all I don't see how such immature behavior is anything to brag about, and second of all, if you think that modern art people are hostile to AOC, then you're out of touch with that crowd.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

A lot of rich people want to be taxed.

No they don't.

For the sake of Allah, please stop trying to personify the meme.

Who needs sources when you can vaguely generalize a group to just "they" without citing any specific examples?

[7,052,770]

You must be new to the online political discourse if you think that my commentary on AOC is driven by feelings. Aside from Donald Trump, she has the most devoted fans and haters of anyone. Pointing out that she's being obnoxious by playing up her anti-1%er brand while hanging out with the snobs at the MET Gala is far from an emotional take in any case, but definitely not compared to the worshipful praise and deranged hate that she gets. Oh and by the way, it's transparently obvious that the reason the "populist" left rhetoric has changed from being anti-1% and anti-millionaire to being merely anti-billionaire is purely to accommodate all the rich people that champion the left these days.

She went there to bash and troll them and make them feel uncomfortable, hence the dress. It's some pretty harsh spin to handwave that message away and portray it as if she was just there to smile and chat.

As many others including one of my fellow Nebraskans have now pointed out, this was a branding opportunity for her. She's a clever businesswoman, I'll give her that, but I find it impossible not to be skeptical when all of the heroic actions these people take conveniently further their own brands as well. As for this being "trolling", first of all I don't see how such immature behavior is anything to brag about, and second of all, if you think that modern art people are hostile to AOC, then you're out of touch with that crowd.

As I said ...

The crowd was full of people who are liberal on paper but still don't want to pay higher taxes to accomplish left-wing goals. AOC went there to make them uncomfortable.

[Person Man]

A lot of rich people want to be taxed.

No they don't.

For the sake of Allah, please stop trying to personify the meme.

Who needs sources when you can vaguely generalize a group to just "they" without citing any specific examples?

The big question is if “they” are them.

[DaleCooper]

You must be new to the online political discourse if you think that my commentary on AOC is driven by feelings. Aside from Donald Trump, she has the most devoted fans and haters of anyone. Pointing out that she's being obnoxious by playing up her anti-1%er brand while hanging out with the snobs at the MET Gala is far from an emotional take in any case, but definitely not compared to the worshipful praise and deranged hate that she gets. Oh and by the way, it's transparently obvious that the reason the "populist" left rhetoric has changed from being anti-1% and anti-millionaire to being merely anti-billionaire is purely to accommodate all the rich people that champion the left these days.

She went there to bash and troll them and make them feel uncomfortable, hence the dress. It's some pretty harsh spin to handwave that message away and portray it as if she was just there to smile and chat.

As many others including one of my fellow Nebraskans have now pointed out, this was a branding opportunity for her. She's a clever businesswoman, I'll give her that, but I find it impossible not to be skeptical when all of the heroic actions these people take conveniently further their own brands as well. As for this being "trolling", first of all I don't see how such immature behavior is anything to brag about, and second of all, if you think that modern art people are hostile to AOC, then you're out of touch with that crowd.

As I said ...

The crowd was full of people who are liberal on paper but still don't want to pay higher taxes to accomplish left-wing goals. AOC went there to make them uncomfortable.

How do you know this? And can't AOC troll them without enjoying a $30,000 night at the gala that's provided for her by underpaid servants?