• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AOC Quits Facebook, Calls Social Media 'Public Health Risk'

Oborosen said:
She lead her own little war to keep Amazon from coming into the city. Chasing away all of those jobs and the money that the city desperately needed. Around 25k jobs, which Cuomo himself pointed out.
Click to expand...

She did make the mistake of cheering the loss, but she had little to do with them actually going elsewhere. She didn't have the kind of pull to do that. I'm not saying she played no part, but she was pretty busy making scenes on the hill and all at the time. However, she still pretends it was a smart move.
 
Keridan said:
She did make the mistake of cheering the loss, but she had little to do with them actually going elsewhere. She didn't have the kind of pull to do that. I'm not saying she played no part, but she was pretty busy making scenes on the hill and all at the time. However, she still pretends it was a smart move.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was.
 
Thingfish said:
we should send some advisors, armament and food so they can rise up against THEIR corrupt regime...and make Venezuela great again.
Click to expand...

Is this is a skit? Or are we truly going back full circle to where we think arming and training insurgents is the best course of action? Because historically that has never worked for the United States.
 
Oborosen said:
She lead her own little war to keep Amazon from coming into the city. Chasing away all of those jobs and the money that the city desperately needed. Around 25k jobs, which Cuomo himself pointed out.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh you're not just racist dumb, but you're dumb dumb too. Got it.
 
Kobie said:
Maybe it was.
Click to expand...

I don't deny this was a questionable decision (meaning that it could be right as much as I think it was wrong). I fully believe it was wrong, but then again, how often do you find a libertarian who supports a self-avowed socialist? We are going to have differences.
 
Keridan said:
She did make the mistake of cheering the loss, but she had little to do with them actually going elsewhere. She didn't have the kind of pull to do that. I'm not saying she played no part, but she was pretty busy making scenes on the hill and all at the time. However, she still pretends it was a smart move.
Click to expand...

That I can acquiesce to. Though I have friend in New York and all they sent me for about two months were twitter threads and instances where she was protesting the company, wanting to build that second office.

If not a show of some form of pull. It still revealed just how little the woman knows about economics in general.
 
AOC Quits Facebook, Calls Social Media 'Public Health Risk'
Click to expand...

back when i was a kid, sitting too close to the tv was considered to be a public health risk. ah, how far we have come in these few decades.
 
Oborosen said:
That I can acquiesce to. Though I have friend in New York and all they sent me for about two months were twitter threads and instances where she was protesting the company, wanting to build that second office.

If not a show of some form of pull. It still revealed just how little the woman knows about economics in general.
Click to expand...

Well, I've said before, I like her, but she is pretty opposite of my policy sheet. I can't rightfully sit here and defend her economics knowledge in the same breath. Plus... well... there is the GND. It's hard for anyone to defend her economics.
 
Social media can be a tool and a form of entertainment, but like anything, it has its downsides. The two areas where I think social media had become detrimental are:

1. People comparing their actual lives with the idealized versions others in social media post: I've read a lot of articles on this and witness it first hand from the younger generations. Having been a social media user, I too felt that way until I snapped myself out of it by realizing that what people post are the highlight reels of their lives versus the day to day realities. I think that realization is a tougher challenge for the kids who grew up with social media.

2. Facilitating the belittling of others anonymously:This one gets under my skin. Social media and other internet forums allow for people to communicate in ways they would not use if doing so face to face. Reading through the comments section of most articles makes this abundantly clear.

The salient point is we need to remember our "real lives" and that the best connections with others are maintained through direct contact and not just digitally. One might be chatting with 50 other people, but if one is doing so in a room alone it's isolating. There's a lot more to our social needs than just communicating ideas and thoughts.
 
I don't think Facebook can supplant real relationships. One of my little sisters was on FB all day and night until she received a terminal diagnosis, and she surprised me by deciding that she needed real friends (and would learn quickly just who they were), not "friends." My other little sister, a writer and photographer, posts almost daily, and I keep telling her that I don't want to be her FB friend. If she has the time to post, she also has the time to text/phone. :(
 
Every civilization that ever existed had slaves. The USA is the civilization that ended slavery. If you hate this country and its money because it had slavery, like the rest of the world including Africa, then you should not be here. The rednecks in the 1960s were right. If all you can do is complain about your country and never acknowledge the freedom and prosperity it gave you, then go live in Africa.
 
CMPancake said:
So then what's your solution? Don't fight for beliefs or ideals because it's easier to live in a political system that is only benefitting a handful of people at most?
Click to expand...

If you believe there are simple obvious solutions, then we all look like idiots to you for not helping you fight.


And hundreds of millions of people is a little more than a "handful" anyway.
 
Crovax said:
That happens in every first world country and your are a fool if you think otherwise
Click to expand...

He's comparing the US to heaven. But that standard, we don't look so good.
 
CMPancake said:
Pick up a history textbook and tell me how many revolutionaries were only passively interested in making small, incremental, and reversible changes and compare that to people who aggressively stood by their ideals.
Click to expand...

The revolutionaries who aggressively stood by their ideals were the various communist revolutionaries. That aggressive idealism is what made them so deadly and cruel.

The American revolution was aggressive but they were not fighting for any rigid ideology dreamed up by philosophers. They were practical and realistic about human nature.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm thinking she found out social media is more of a danger to her than a help to her. That live video she sent out...the one with her talking with her mouth full of popcorn and wine...didn't do you any favors.

Besides, she has the media on her side. She doesn't need social media anymore...or her followers...anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes... Her issue is that it's dangerous for her. Social media can be a useful tool for public officials, but it has to be carefully managed. This isn't a new concept - politicians and other public figures have always had to be more careful about maintaining their public image.
You can't just get drunk and livestream yourself setting up furniture in your apartment.
 
I wonder if AOC is going to continue to abstain from Facebook once she decides to become a statewide candidate. Love it or hate it, a lot of your voters are on there. It's easy to hold her view of FB when your constituency isn't necessarily reached in that way.
 
dcsports said:
Yes... Her issue is that it's dangerous for her. Social media can be a useful tool for public officials, but it has to be carefully managed. This isn't a new concept - politicians and other public figures have always had to be more careful about maintaining their public image.
You can't just get drunk and livestream yourself setting up furniture in your apartment.
Click to expand...

I think she can't handle responses like this one:

Todd With Trump on Twitter: "OMG 😯 An AOC mini-me! She nails it! #Priceless… "
 
Cardinal said:
I wonder if AOC is going to continue to abstain from Facebook once she decides to become a statewide candidate. Love it or hate it, a lot of your voters are on there. It's easy to hold her view of FB when your constituency isn't necessarily reached in that way.
Click to expand...

She has a very contorted opinion actually. Social media, including Facebook, causes "Increased isolation, depression, anxiety, addiction, escapism." Yet she's only stopping her personal facebook posting. She's continuing to have her campaign operate her facebook presence -- apparently so she can help make other people feel isolated, anxious, and depressed by seeing what she's up to.
 
dcsports said:
She has a very contorted opinion actually. Social media, including Facebook, causes "Increased isolation, depression, anxiety, addiction, escapism." Yet she's only stopping her personal facebook posting. She's continuing to have her campaign operate her facebook presence -- apparently so she can help make other people feel isolated, anxious, and depressed by seeing what she's up to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Facebook sucks, not arguing otherwise.

If she's only personally abstaining from FB, but utilizing it for her campaigning, then that's practical.
 
Good4Nothin said:
The revolutionaries who aggressively stood by their ideals were the various communist revolutionaries. That aggressive idealism is what made them so deadly and cruel.
Click to expand...

Comparatively to the United States where our idealists lead to genocide, slavery, imperialism, and the perfection of war crimes. Throughout history we raped, murdered, and plundered throughout our own country, and the world. Our willingness to kill people in their sleep during Christmas, bomb children, and torture for critical intel make us far more deadlier than you're willing to admit.

Good4Nothin said:
The American revolution was aggressive but they were not fighting for any rigid ideology dreamed up by philosophers. They were practical and realistic about human nature.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers were literally made up of philosophers, and idealists. What on Earth made you look at the likes of Washington, Franklin, John Jay, or Jefferson and go "oh those were stone cold pragmatists right there" They weren't commoners suffering under British rule, the Fathers benefitted greatly and lived in luxury. There wouldn't have been anything "practical" about starting a war with the largest military at that time.
 
CMPancake said:
It just has to get exhausting after a while I imagine. It's not easy being the ire of the Republican Party, "centrists", and the DNC because of actually having a coherent ideology and desire to make actual change in people's lives.
Click to expand...

She is one of those people that doesn't like their view challenged.
facebook opens herself up to criticism and well she just can't handle that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom