Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Racism?
The fuck? She's categorized under "racists," no evidence whatsoever to suggest she is. Is the anti-sjw crowd just having another case of the fuckarounds or what? SocialistBeverageWarrior (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at who she thinks should be exempt from U.S. immigration laws. She wants people to receive special treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity. Is that not racism? Nerd (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look where?-- "Shut up, Brx." 18:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look here. We actually have it in the article. Nerd (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that racism? She hasn't expressed the opinion that Latinx peeps are inferior or superior. What she's saying isn't any more racist than the concept of affirmative action, regardless of how you feel about it on a policy level. 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * She wants a race/ethnicity to receive special treatment under the law. That counts is racial discrimination, or racism. However, since the source link is dead, I removed that statement. Nerd (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are levying a relative serious accusation on rather spurious grounds. Stop edit warring.-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove it, clearly people don't like that it's here. — Oxyaena   Harass  01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s a policy that doesn’t have any legal standing, may or may not be morally correct, but from I’ve seen there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this policy suggestion is inherently racist. —Sophie (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh? It was not the part that was disputed; that was the category. I said I was not going to put it back. The bit I re-added was there all along. I only changed the reference because the old one was dead and added the screenshot uploaded by.
 * Dear     You guys might wanna keep an eye on this. For context, please check the page's history. Nerd (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay to have it in there to note it as a gaffe, but it's a stretch to call her an out and out racist because of it. — Oxyaena   Harass  01:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I said I was not going to put that category back! Check the Coop archives! Good heavens! The old source is dead! Why can't I replace it? And what's wrong with adding a screenshot of a relevant tweet someone made an effort to upload? There is nothing malicious about it. Just a retweet of someone else's post with a video of her speaking and a news headline that is not spinning anything out of proportion. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case, never mind. Sorry for bothering you. — Oxyaena   Harass  02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the language here. "Expresses X opinion because [quote from tweet]" isn't a good way to represent her views, especially out of context. She seems to be to be appealing to the notion that some Native Americans have mixed with Latinos and therefore, discriminating Latinos based on them not being "native" is absurd. It's a gaffe, as interracial mixing in the past doesn't have much bearing on illegal immigrants, but to phrase it in the current way to make her look dumb and simple-minded on a complicated issue is pretty disingenuous. 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Has she explicitly stated that she wants to give preferential immigration status to latinos, or promoted policy that gives preferential immigration status to latinos?-- "Shut up, Brx." 02:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't get that from that tweet. I think she's trying more for emotional appeal on top of other arguments. 02:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, but you are not going to be able to find the original video in the current revision. The current link is dead. My version has it, but one editor above accused me of edit-warring for adding back that particular bit after removing it because I found the link to be broken. I added it back after finding a new link that works. And again, I added a screenshot that D was kind enough to upload for us to use. So go back to my revision, check the video and rewrite it. Goodness!Nerd (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Full quote here.


 * It's the second sentence that is problematic. You cannot be criminalized for your racial or ethnic identity, yes. No objections from me. But it's immunity to a certain law because of race or ethnicity that is a cause for concern. You can't say you're X, therefore, your immigration status is immaterial. Nerd (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The link I replaced is here. The story is here. Do what you want. I'm done here. Nerd (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The video can be viewed in context here: I don't think I have any more to add than what I said in the coop about this:
 * 1) I do think that Nerd is editing in good faith. 2) What AOC said in that statement is what could be called racism. Does a single statement make one a racist? I don't think so. 3) The reason why that statement is dubiously racist is: 4a) Guatemalans (for example) never had a traditional right to live in what is now the US. US Native Americans have additional rights because of treaty obligations, which at least in principle have the the force of international law. These treaty rights pertain only to official treaty members and are heritable, but not strictly genetic (hence the Cherokee have such rights despite substantial mixing with whites and African Americans). But 4b) Latino is a very broad category including some indigenous people, mixed indigenous people (such as presumable AOC), Afro-latinos, recent (e.g. Italians to Argentina) and long-ago European migrants, as well as Jews and Palestinians who migrated into Latin America. Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Making Nerd's position crystal clear
Apparently I have not been clear enough, so here is one last try. Nerd (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The bit originally in dispute was the "Racist" category. I said on the Coop and on multiple occasions here I will not put it back.
 * 2) Brxbrx undid an edit of mine in the content space then accuse me of edit-warring (!). I removed a sentence on what she said about certain groups of people and immigration laws because the original source link was dead. I later put it back because I found a link that works. I also added a screenshot provided by Dyskslyver. This is the bit that was undone. I will not put that bloody category back.
 * 3) If you wish to use the resources put forth by, , and myself to provide a clearer, more accurate picture of her stance on immigration, please go ahead. Thanks to both of them. I will not put that category back. I'm glad at least some people, such as Oxy, has finally come to the conclusion I meant what I said. Check the edit history.
 * Well I for one am not hating on you for the momentarily overblown dispute over a category. Honestly if the Coop hadn't already been open it would never have been an issue anyway. 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue to me. AOC may be racist, may have misspoke, may be slightly biased in favour of natives, or may subscribe to some sort of woo about native cultures. The sources and the evidence they provide will determine the truth, not our opinion of her or our political preferences. 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nerd, As I said in the coop, I thought you were editing in good faith, and I still do think that. Bongolian (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is Nerd's willingness to edit war. He will continue doing so even when the issue is brought up on the talk page. — Oxyaena   Harass  16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rely on Hanlon's Razor for the time being. In fact, it's probably how I view the issue currently. 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe, the Dunning-Kruger effect Ariel31459 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AOC? Agreed, . — Oxyaena   Harass  18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The original edit (and a surprise)
Here is the original edit that added the disputed content (note the source given) and here is the very next edit Wherein Nerd removes said content due to poor sourcing. here is the content in question being added back in with the now defunct source. 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

guarantee access to healthy foods
Under welfare we are told she wants "to guarantee access to healthy foods".

This sounds a bit like vague political flim-flam to me. How exactly would you do such a thing? How are you going to define "access"? Do most people not have "access" in one way or another at the moment?

And if you don't have "access" what would your method of redress be?Hubert (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of racism
I guess we need to add the category to Nancy Pelosi now. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate link to the Ben Shapiro mud slinging site that stuffs words into AOC's mouth and idiot BoNs reproducing those, let's call them paraphrases, verbatim. On the other hand the actual things she does say aren't without merit.  Nancy Pelosi has started to make a trend of singling out some specific newly elected young women of color for reprimand.  More likely because they're representative of a different ideology than is present in long-serving dems, than specifically because of racial bias against the individuals.  Suffice it to say, you aren't going to offend me by calling Pelosi racist, but you're not going to convince anyone of that merely by putting the words in someone else's mouth.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for a complete overhaul/reformatting of the article to make it more missional
As has already been mentioned several times on this talk page, the current article on AOC simply outlines her various policy proposals and in this, current form, I don’t consider it to be very missional.

As I mentioned back when an earlier version was deleted, a missional article on AOC would of course take her to task to the extent that she espouses authoritarian and/or crank ideas, but I’d consider its main relevance to be the extent to which AOC has become a focal point of various, usually wingnutty, conspiracy theories and general fear mongering. While she may have a lot of good policy ideas and suggestions, these are only missional insofar as they address, say, pseudoscience, crankery, authoritarianism etc. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see how slave reparations, UBI, and Medicare for All with get to net zero carbon emissions. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You know Rob, I could replace you with one of those programs that generates vaguely related comments via random words, and it would be hard to tell the difference. 15:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To deny H.R. 109 promotes pseudoscience and is a crank idea will subvert Rationalwiki's Mission Statement. This is a major test case for Rationalwiki's commitment to its own mission. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh, nobs; could you for once either try to stay on topic or ride your hobby horses elsewhere? This section is for discussing the missionality of and/or suggested major changes to this article, not for you to air your pet peeves, yet again. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's easy. Will this article present AOC as the crank fabricator and spokesperson of pseudoscientific solutions to climate change or not? nobsI'm all yea'res 01:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean just like that other place that you contribute to, Conservapedia. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't your job to defend RW's Mission? Since when does slave reparations, a universal guaranteed income, and Medicare for All get to net zero carbon emissions? Aren't we supposed to call out cranks and pseudoscience? nobsI'm all yea'res 08:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oookaay... Does anyone have some actual, constructive contributions? (PS. ) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article certainly seems to have very little to do with the stated missions at the moment. I guess that RW could have a list of the policy positions of every major US, European, or international politician.  But that wouldn't be part of the stated missions either.
 * Logically this article should point out any crank or anti-science position she might hold or any weird conspiracy theories people might hold about her.Hubert (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it would seem that we’re in agreement, . ScepticWombat (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Then does she have any anti science views? Vaccinations? Alt-med? Conspiracies? Weird religions views? (OK, she's a US politician so I guess that religion would be just par for the course.)  But I'm not from the US, so what do I know? Hubert (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. She claims in H.R 109 that slave reparations will get to net zero carbon emissions. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're blocked until you admit on your talk page that that page contains zero references to "slavery" or "reparations". Sorry thems the breaks, but unless you can apologize for lying, you're gone.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One wonders what "repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities" might be referring to. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't oppose racial and social justice. But what Rob is clumsily implying is that AOC ceaselessly meshes all these issues together, and he's right. "Promoting equity and justice" is obviously the right thing to do in a general sense, but it's also not an effective way of outlining climate policy. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If i might add, AOC likely has done more harm to the climate science agenda than good. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Rob, say you're completely wrong here, too, or else you're blocked. 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should robrail this and get back to the missionality question. Sorry I got angry and worsened the derail.  And nobs is giving us good examples of right wing conspiracy theories about her to document.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (Greenpeace), co-founder of Greenpeace, said of Ocasio-Cortez and the plan:
 * Patrick Moore is a lier and a garbage human being. Citing him means your either dishonest or stupid. 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobs, you're not on Conservapedia here. Why on Earth are you quoting a climate skeptic? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a shill gambit to call him a paid shill of major polluters, but patrick moore is a paid shill of major polluters. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Denier. Moore isn't a skeptic, he's a denier. He's basically the same as someone who denies the existence of gravity, yet refuses to jump off a building to test those beliefs. He's full of crap and he knows it. 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember when we used to say "climate skeptic" with a laugh. Not sure how a gravity skeptic would somehow be more legit than a gravity denier tbh. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wanna be ironic about it, just say something like "spektick" or "skiptec" or something. 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you all feel that way about him, why don't you cite him as a lead critic? I'm sure he's reputable enough. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, you just asked why we don't cite a known fraud as a source. Shut up. You would have done better if you had said nothing. 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * if we can cite known morons for evidence, then we should be able to cite our asses for the lack of climate change. deal? because all climate "skeptics" either argue in bad faith, talk out of their ass, or jack off oil corporations. 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect "cite as a lead critic" here is Nobsese for "include in a section about right-wing commentators". 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For fuck's sake,. — Oxyaena Harass  17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. I forgot. NPOV is not part of RW policy. Okay, go ahead. Leave the junk science in. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm scanning the Green New Deal document and in addition to promoting action on climate change it also proposes justice for indigenous peoples. Neither of which seem to be objectionable ideas.
 * But I don't see it saying that helping indigenous people is designed to reduce climate change. I see it saying that climate change would disproportionately affect indigenous peoples.
 * Could you quote the particular part you find objectionable Nobs?Hubert (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So silence follows. Or is Mr Nobs still reading H. RES. 109? Hubert (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

repairing frontline communitiesI've been tied up with the Bruce Ohr 302s/Muller bullshit; then I was nearly as surprised as Jeffrey Epstein himself over his apparent suicide this morning. So I can only give you a simple outline on the Green New Deal: The Whereas science Be it resolved doesn't follow logically; there is no scientific evidence that "repairing frontline communities" will keep global warming at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrialized levels. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 01:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. So you have already had to massively shift your ground on the slavery thing. But I don't see it saying ""repairing frontline communities" will keep global warming at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrialized levels" either.
 * You have linked to the article a couple of times so I assume you claim familiarity with it. Can you give the actual quote from the document where it says this or will you need more ground to shift onto?Hubert (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

So going back to the missionality thing
I agree this article is way off topic and just basically lists her political views. While we could keep some, particularly economic and enviromental policies that are her bread and butter it shouldn't be this long. Also for content here are a few conspiracy theories I found: AOC is an actress; a manufactorversy about Trump's violent rhetoric; one of her town hall meetings was interrupted by a woman that said we should start eating babies to deal with climate change; conservative men are obsessed with her; another manufactorversy over AOC calling the Dems a "center-conservative" party; that she's a constant target of hoax claims; hell the entire Daily Wire hastag has enough material to create an article. So I believe we should cut the political views to the most important (economics and GND) and start making parts about the creepy rightist obsession with her. Tuxer (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should should talk about her presence in Congress, including her amazing debut speech exposing how dark money works; exposing corruption in Washington; her sharp questioning of Michael Cohen; blasting Mark Zuckerberg in a hearing. AOC is amazing and deserves better than this faux wikipedia article. Tuxer (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Snopes has a pile of stories about her: fake crying at migrants, calling for ban on 9/11 images, promoting electric cars in hurricanes, misspeaking, opposing open carry, enjoyed hearing "send her back", called Xianity nonsense, said soldiers are overpaid, called the US garbage, fired from hot dog firm. Some are true-ish, some total rubbish, but we should cover this kind of thing. --Annanoon (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that we're letting snopes do our job for us and then not even doing our job once they have kinda sucks. We should have been at the front end of all this bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)