> Alexandria ocasio Cortes go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours

Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...

This 'if you criticise Democrat female politicians you must be sexist' line is incredibly annoying

Wow so her ICE quote would've been 100% correct if not for the word "required" (evidenced by what Politifact ends up admitting in the body of the article).

Is there a rating worse than "Pants On Fire" we could brand this liar with?

(I don't know about sexist but the media sure is dumb and pedantic as shit.)

Who wants to tell simula67 about Trump's relationship to reality?

She was criticized for being female regardless of her misconceptions on military spending and how many jobs people have. A huge chunk of the world doesn't give equal forgiving or demands of females as they do males - they demand more and forgive less. Ever looked at PolitiFact for just about every other politician? Just look at Serena Williams.. she blabbed and it may be the end of her career (or a lingering black eye)yet for other males in the sport, it just means the front page on the newspaper and nothing else the next day... We can't ignore this. I wouldn't want AI to shape the views of women any worse than they already are just as we shouldn't use targeted bias in user comments to make her look unique in light of her male counterparts than ran against her - of which they all have/had faults and screw ups themselves.

> She was criticized for being female

No, she wasn't. There are lots of successful female politicians. She was criticized for being a moron.

Yes, she was. It's a systemic problem in American society. Your comment is essentially proof of your bias. Unless you want to back it up and say everyone is a moron because once again, everyone has said things that could categorically quantify them as a moron - but your holding HER and specifically HER to a special case.

>every criticism of a woman is a criticism because she’s a woman

K.

keep kidding yourself (oh, and so glad you can downvote instead of have honest discussion)

It’s aactually not possible to downvote someone who replies to you. So it wasn’t me.

Anyway, keep telling yourself that you understand people’s motives, and that they’re bad. In the real world, sexism and racism are not nearly as extreme as you’d think from the perspective of the tumblr echo chamber.

> She was criticized for being female

I've read a lot of critique of O-C but never "for being female". Could you quote some critique like that so that it would be clear what do you mean? I honestly absolutely can't even imagine how such thing would look like: "We know O-C is female and thus unfit to hold an elective office..." or what? Name the most hostile press outlet to O-C outside wacko forums and 4chan and it would never dare to print something like that. Sure, there are sexists here and there, but openly and publicly criticizing a major political figure "for being female"? It's just rhetorical suicide. You must mean something else, but what?

>> she blabbed and it may be the end of her career

This is a terrible overstatement. It's not even the first time she has fought against an ump, and not even the worst she has said. End of career lol.

What media are you talking about? I Googled in Google News for Alexandria ocasio Cortes, and almost all of the coverage I found from mainstream publications was positive.

I checked and results are very different if you spell her name with a z, as she does.

Ahhh....OK. I copy/pasted the spelling from the comment I replied to. It didn't occur to me to check to see if it was spelled right there.

I don't see a difference, or much in the way of attack articles

The "s" page had a bunch of month-old stuff. The "z" page was more recent news. I just rechecked and it's mostly the same way (though we're already in a different news cycle). When I check previously, 4 out the first 5 links were negative. Now, it's 3 out of 6. (Different news cycle)

https://screenshots.firefox.com/c8bGMXUBBHMFkqga/www.google....

vs

https://screenshots.firefox.com/UeE3uvdbOyBrvvKT/www.google....

Thanks, corrected

Cortes's portrayal however seems pretty spot on to me.