AOC defends polarizing ‘Tax the Rich’ Met Gala dress: ‘The medium is the message’

AOC defends polarizing ‘Tax the Rich’ Met Gala dress: ‘The medium is the message’


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Quote from a Canadian media theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message


Oh really? That's funny because I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here.


That’s a great movie


Waiting for someone to observe that the dress is not the message, and the message is the message?


I read it more as going to the Gala itself was the message.


McLuhan's observation is about how different types of media cause different behaviors while we experience them. Written text is the medium being used. His famous phrase is definitely being murdered here...


The poor can't criticize the rich, because they're envious. The rich can't criticize the rich, because they're hypocrites. Seems to me, the rich just don't like criticism.


[When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality. —Russell Brand](https://www.google.com/search?q=russell+brand+when+i+was+poor&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS707US707&hl=en-US&prmd=nivx&sxsrf=AOaemvI9bIefGH0zQi3jg3p_uFoZ2fIr-g:1631656574457&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin0o-0uv_yAhWoTTABHe5EBuMQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=414&bih=720#imgrc=4hhhcuNbOwRaNM)


He is such a weird dude to me. He comes across so spastic, unruly, and eccentric, and then this profoundness comes out of him.


He's been really open about the fact that he has a really intense past with drugs, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's permanently altered his personality to be so spastic. He can definitely be annoying, but he also seems like he's been on a really trying journey and come out on top, and I have to respect the hell out of that.


I get really weird vibes from the guy, because I can’t tell moment-to-moment if he’s an egomaniacal grifter or a man genuinely trying to use his platform for good. I’m inclined toward the second, but there’s so many of the first out there right now that I’m hesitant to get too invested. (See: InfoWars, Joe Rogan, etc.)


That's fair, anything is possible. I like to believe in the good in people until I have evidence otherwise, but I'm also not just going to blindly believe that everyone is completely good without any problems. I haven't seen anything concrete to suggest that he's lying, so as of right now I choose to believe that he's not


This sounds like a good general approach. I’ll give Brand’s podcast a listen every month or so. It’s usually pretty wholesome.


> I can’t tell moment-to-moment if he’s an egomaniacal grifter or a man genuinely trying to use his platform for good. Why not both? Russell Brand is an Egomaniacal drug abuser who is genuinely trying to use his platform for good. The guy is no saint, he's a genuine egomaniac, but his heart is also at the right place and he's trying to do good and become a better person. Being an egomaniac, his faults (misogyny, drug abuse, being an egonmaniac) his faults get put in the front page, and they're real faults. But he's also genuinely trying to make the world a better place. Neither part of him cancels the other part out, you sort of just have to take him for what he is.


Por que no los dos? Maybe he’s an egomaniacal grifter genuinely trying to use his platform for good.


He’s working so hard at healing! My sober friend loves him, and he’s interviewed Brene Brown, my main btch 💖


Yes, you develop mannerisms and habits that can stick with you for the rest of your life.


An interview between him and Jason mewes would be interesting


not sure if everyone is aware but spastic in the UK is almost on par with the R slur so I mean, maybe cool it on that one.


It seems more like the decades of trickle-down brain rot which led Republicans into believing that taxing the rich would make the rich leave the country even though we've had higher taxes under FDR and Eisenhower.


Let them fucking leave. I just want to work and exchange my work for other people's work.


What gets me about that is the idea that they can just move. Sure Bill Gates can relocate but the guy who is a partner at Rothschild and is in the NY office can't remote in every day from Malta. The dentist in CA isn't going to be able to practice dentistry in another country as easily nor for the same pay. Many rich people can't just up and move.


It’s American exceptionalism 🤷🏻‍♀️ your country has spent the last 100 years regressing left wing policies and supporting alt right freedom fighters across the globe, maybe if America wasnt a pile of steamy dog shit the rest of the world could’ve continuing to progress socialist policies. I still don’t understand how an entire country can not have centralised health care??? How has there never been a civil war over this? Like your population just ignores the rest of the world functioning better ?


you said it yourself, American exceptionalism. Most here do NOT think other places are functioning better. Name a country, If they have even heard of it, they will tell u all the ways it would suck to live there. Canada has an amazing health care system and people here literally think Canadians are all poor cause of tax rates (not true at all) and none of them can get treated because they think everyone has to wait to get care (also not true at all). meanwhile; Americans just dont get cate cause they cant afford it, despite their so much lower tax rate. (hint- its not so much lower. Canada borders us and most Americans havent a clue how well Canada is functioning.


It is easier to achieve the American dream in Canada right now than the USA


But you guys have the internet right? It’s not North Korea telling you how great you have it and hiding the rest of the world from you? They are giving you lot the Kim treatment and you eat it up? Voluntarily?


Imagine that you never leave the place you were born and grew up. That you literally never personally experience anything outside of your own bubble. Now, imagine that everyone you ever trusted in your life told you lies. They fed you a warped view of the world, and told you anything to the contrary is propaganda. Everyone from your parents, to your preacher, to your teachers and local politicians. Local news media and the police. All of the authority figures through every stage of your life tell you one thing... and people you don't know, from areas you've never been, tell you something else. Some people escape it. Many do not.


Sadly, you don't see this in the US exclusively. Though less extreme, you can see similar happenings in plenty of other countries. They're attempting to kill the left by always blaming them so they can be good protector of the wealthy elite.


Welcome to capitalism… but it’s the US that set the standard and then intervening with others politics just ask the Middle East, Asia or Latin America feels like there hasn’t been a terrorist coup or election overthrown without the US backing it that’s what I meant by the US stopping socialist change for us all over the last 100 years. Also around the world we already live in socialist states that have a capitalist free market unlike the Wild West over in America. Atleast in the uk we have social housing, centralised health care, our education is free until university which then is a lot less aggressive than the us model. That’s the difference.


Much of the US population is absolutely brain washed. They have no idea of how the rest of the world lives because they have never travelled and have been taught that the US is #1. They know the whole mantra and have a prepared sound bite for everything. If you have not been to rural America, you will be surprised at how common the conspiracy theory mindset is.


This country needs centralized a lot of things, but the most egregious ones are probably healthcare and education. Edit: I’d also add utilities and telecommunications to the things that desperately need centralization. Utilities for the horrible mismanagement (see Texas and California) and telecoms because there’s no real profit for them to make in supplying tiny rural areas, so they just don’t, leaving segments of the country living in 1980-90s conditions, where the only places they can get information reliably is from television or mobile apps like Facebook (another reason rural areas are so horribly misinformed and hardline conservative, even without the religious influences).


They don’t like the poors banding together and realizing that things are unequal and unfair.


"I don't have to put up with this; I'm rich!" -Princess Vespa


People like to call out others. She'll be criticized because it cost $30k to get into the event or whatever. She'll be criticized for not introducing a bill to tax the rich yesterday but instead went to the gala. She'll be criticized for this being performative, and I get that, but would it have been better to not do this? This action/spectacle/whatever garnered a fair bit of media coverage, and that gets eyeballs on a dress that say "tax the rich" ...it's not enough but it's not nothing.


Her ticket was free. They invite NY representatives.


I haven't heard anyone say she paid actual money to get in, just like people don't really believe she paid for the dress she wore. The cost of both will nevertheless be brought up by critics


The dress was donated and will likely be auctioned off for charity after


I've seen "LOL she makes 165k a year of course she can afford the 30k ticket and 10k dress" without a hint of awareness.


$165k per year, in DC, with travel budget, is not as much as it sounds like. Believing that $165k is rich is how someone can say they're poor, without saying they're poor.


especially when you consider she has to not only pay for her place in New York but one in DC as well. so the 9k or so she takes home a month probably has half just going to rent.


They don't give them a stipend for a DC dwelling? That's crazy


Is it? Pretty sure no other employers provide living stipends (for most average jobs). Don’t get me wrong I support AOC but I don’t see why any of these politicians need even more money.


Having 2 homes and or apartments is expensive think about. She is easily dropping 2k a month per apartment on rent throw in utilities and renters insurance. Your at at least 5 grand and that’s just to not be homeless throw in food, gas, in aocs case student loans, car insurance, etc that’s another grand or 2. So just her minimum required bills are a what like 7grand. A normal person making less than half her salary has the same take home pay after bills.


Heck lots of employers offer living stipends, camp-based shift work is one such example. My employer compensates me for hotel/meals when I go out of town on business, this is no different. I'm in Canada, and it's expected that our MP's spend time mixed between Ottawa and their local constituency (which is where their primary residence _should_ be). The original intent is that without this, you need to be independently wealthy enough to afford two domiciles, and therefore be able to afford public office. Now, that hasn't really worked out too well, but the intent is there anyway.


I agree the $165k a year is more than enough imo. She was getting by okay on a bar tender’s salary and this salary is is at least double that. She doesn’t need more than a safe one bedroom apartment in dc. She also likely rarely has to pay for food or transportation so that’s one less expense.


What I hate is how much people seem to take the wrong message from things like this. $165k being "rich" is just pointing out how most Americans can't even dream of earning that much money in a year, juxtaposed with how much even half of that would make people comfortable where they are. That minimum wage was supposed to be the minimum necessary to support a family, not the starting line these corps have to pay you and no less. That America screwed up the moment people took second or beyond jobs out of necessity to make ends meet rather than just plain wanting more money or at least figuring out a solid side gig to do.


Dan Bongino (sp?) was on air all fucking morning going on about it. He never outright said she paid for her ticket but he never mentioned she got in for free either. It was being heavily insinuated to his listeners that she shelled out the money and was a huge hypocrite for galavanting with the elite.


Exactly, "NYC politician attending the Met Gala" would never have been a major scandal if it were Ed Koch, David Dinkins, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Charlie Rangel, Joe Crowley...hell even Bill De Blasio. But it becomes a big deal when the attendee is an outsider.


That's because people can't actually dismantle the idea of *taxing the rich*. So instead, they'll argue by proxy: accusations of hypocrisy, concern-trolling, and delegitimization tactics ensue. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. This is a very common tactic (especially on the right-wing), used when people are too cowardly to spell out or defend their core beliefs.


It's been one of the few things the internet is talking about today, so that's a lot of free advertising to get her message out. Well played.


The $30k is exactly the point. $30k to most of the people who went is chump change, movie ticket price. To 90% of America, that amount of money could make huge improvements on quality of life. And let's not forget the fact the rich will have accountants that will write it off as a charitable donation and pay no taxes on it, assuming they reported that $30k in income in the first place.


What are you talking about, it _is_ a charitable donation. The Met is one the most amazing collections of art and artifacts in history and is completely free to anyone who wants to visit due to charitable donations.


Is there still a Sackler Wing at the Met?


Apparently yes, but they will not take any future donations from them [(source)](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sackler-opioids.html) Which is a bit crap but better than nothing.


The poor can’t criticize the rich because it’s their fault they’re poor. The rich shouldn’t be criticized, because they have all the money which makes them great people who deserve our adoration and forgiveness.


What i dislike most about the current version of rulers we have is most of them were birthed into their hordes of loot. Act as if they're holier than thou for it and claim any criticism is unwarranted. I truly despise that, and while I'm sure not all of the rich probably feel that way they get some real class solidarity once their wealth is threatened. Also most folks I know don't want their wealth, power, or flashy shit. Most just want to take care of their families, travel, pursue a hobby, real simple shit. Yet they won't even allow basic human rights like homes and healthcare. They seem to conflate things to justify their immense wealth and that we should be thankful they don't take a little more. They know why they are despised, however they always pivot to it's our fault for where we are and we're jealous or others who have wealth are hypocrites for advocating for the rest of humans. Shit gotta get figured out soon.


The mega rich can criticize the rich because they’re dirty peasants?


did you just paraphrase Russel Brand and then not credit him with the phrase?


What’s irritating is the idea that she’s somehow not allowed to say “tax the rich,” because she makes 174k/year. That isn’t even on the same planet as the ballpark of what corporations and rich folk that are dodging taxes make. Hell, it’s the standard salary for people that write tax laws. No one is saying it isn’t a large salary, but stop pretending like she’s a super-wealthy hypocrite being chauffeured around in a Rolls. And having money doesn’t disallow you from calling for higher taxes. Are altruism and social responsibility unfathomable to some people?


>That isn’t even on the same planet as the ballpark Even if it were, why shouldn't she be able to say it? Does anybody call Bill Gates a hypocrite for saying he should be taxed more? I don't think we should be gate keeping who can say "tax the rich" in the first place. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/bill-gates-americas-tax-system-is-not-fair.html


>Does anybody call Bill Gates a hypocrite for saying he should be taxed more? Yes, see the recent 5g vaccine Bill Gate tracking conspiracies that have been springing up since he's become a philantrophist. The funny part is that Bezos, who actually is trying to track everybody (via Amazon Alexa stuff) isn't put in any conspiracies, just Gates who hasn't done anything techwise for a long while. Anybody that says "Tax the rich" has to be made irrelevant somehow, by either being called hypocritical, envious, part of a secret conspiracy, etc.


like she's probably just fucking fine with being taxed how the fuck are people equating her being paid that with people who get *a trillion dollars*


You’re [absolutely right that it’s not even close to being anywhere in the same league](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/)


This is awesome!


now i'm a mixture of depressed and angry.


What a ride that site is. Well done and infuriating.


174k isn't rich, it's middle class. People thinking they're middle class at mid five figures are just deluding themselves about how much prices have gone up in the last 25 years. Middle class is classically defined as having enough wealth to own property, be comfortably independent and not have to be existentially terrified about making ends meet without being wealthy enough to be in the wealthy or ruling class.


‪Our tax system transfers wealth from workers to the rich. To reverse that, stop taxing labor! Labor pays w/ blood, sweat and tears. Tax capital! We need a min and max wage tied together (max = x10 min) defined as labor. Anything above the max is capital....tax it! ‬


”Tax the rich, Vaxx the poor”


"polarizing" ? In what way is saying that the owner of a billion dollar IT company shouldn't pay less tax than a teacher "polarizing" ?


It's polarising in the same way covid is political. It simply is, it just really shouldn't be. The wealthiest largely don't want more taxes and have successfully convinced a lot of poor and middle class that tax increases kills their income. So, it's polarising. Polarising through lies to keep their power and wealth and grow it at any cost.


alternatively, it’s not polarizing, the media just likes to pretend with every political issue that both sides are somehow equal when that is not true it is not “polarizing” if 60% of people have common sense and the other 40% have extreme fringe views. people need to stop with the false equivalency


"Polarizing" and "divisive" are the new buzzwords being used whenever they want to shut down discourse about something they don't want people talking about.


Exactly. When 1% doesn't want billionaires to pay taxes and 99% does, the latter view isn't "polarizing".


Remember when people got mad about Pelosi having a nice freezer and ice cream?


Hillary Clinton's $600 haircut remembers...


They're the same people defending AOC here.


Yeah… how does that person not see the hypocrisy lol.


I think people were upset at her showing off that fridge of ice cream while so many were suffering due to the shut down.


The folks mad at her won’t understand what a “medium” is.


It's a psychic! /s Alternatively... Is that what's smaller than a venti? /s


They have no idea who Marshal McLuhan is, or probably even how to read.


She knows she’s talking past them, too


oh she's definitely a hot media


*Hey lil media lemme whifper in ya ear*




I'm not mad and I don't understand what that means. What's the medium? The dress right?


Like she can help people talk to their dead relatives?


Polarizing? Like most people don't agree we should tax the rich more? That is ridiculous and it is bullshit.


yeah who are the groups on the "poles" in this situation? a few hundred thousand elite rich assholes versus the 300 million plus rest of us?


yeah poles are meant to be equidistant. polarization implies fringe views from both sides of a given argument. that’s… not what this is. at all.


You have to include all the people those few hundred thousand have in their pockets.


Everyone but progressives hated this btw, that is if they care enough to have seen or paid any attention to this. the right wing hated it because they hate everything AOC, democrats hate this because she shouldn't have gone at all, because attendance just perpetuates these events.. the fact that a celebrity politician went absolutely drew some people to the event, which is why they asked her to go in the first place. Fuck everything about this. Fuck the cult of personality, fuck charging the annual salary of a minimum wage worker. Fuck the people defending this as what, trolling? Fuck all of it.


The one thing this AOC thing opened my eyes to, is how many people think 174k a year is a shit ton of money. Not to sound pretentious, it’s definitely well off, and much more than the average american, but I mean it’s really not that much money lol. It’s like a VERY attainable salary for professionals before 40 in the right fields of work. I live in Charlotte, NC and my boss makes more than that, and he has 3 people above him. She lives and works in DC. Just saying…it seems like a lot of people on the internet seem oblivious to just how much money a lot of people are making when they think 174k is some grotesque amount.


174k is 75th percentile here. Median household income is way less than that. It's a lot of money. It's not ultra rich money, but it's not VERY attainable (especially at 31) for the majority of people they live here. ...


She’s not filthy rich tho. She had a negative net worth when she was elected because of student loans, slept in her office until her first paycheck because she couldn’t afford rent, and her 2020 taxes say her current net worth is $40K or less. She’s not even middle class yet.


That should tell everyone how fucked the US is. $175k is more than most will ever make and in a lot of places, it's not enough. People are still hopelessly lost on what rich is. Rich in the context of policy discussions is when people have so much money that they can control the economy by themselves.


“Very atrainable in the right fields”, no you won’t make that working customer service your whole life. I get it, the vast majority people in America don’t work great jobs, but there are a fair amount of professional skill based careers where that money can be made mid-career, especially in DC. I specifically said that it was much more than the average american, so I don’t disagree. I’m not saying it’s the norm, i’m saying it’s not absurd to the point where people on Twitter should be constantly attacking her for making that amount of money. I really don’t know how else to put it, but it’s being misconstrued as if i’m saying it’s the norm, when I very clearly said it wasn’t, but it most definitely is attainable in the right careers.


This is pretty out of touch. The median *household* income in America is $61k. Almost a third of $174k. My household income is about $95k between both my wife and I. Our lives would change *dramatically* with another $80k a year. Dramatically.


As would just people, that's why tax the rich is a thing. People squabbling about a politician making $175k when there are people with multiple billions paying little to no taxes. Missing a forest for the trees and the propaganda machines want to keep it that way. Edit: also AOC would live dramatically better with another $80k in salary as well. Thats almost a 50% raise.


Yeah 99% of people would benefit from $80,000 raise.


Yeah, the people screaming that tend to live places no one wants to live and possess exactly 0 skills. So I'm sure to them it's absolutely insane. Being broad minded isn't exactly what Republicans are know for anyways


Yeah like I feel bad saying this, but like i’m 28 and me and many of my peers will be fairly close to that number in our mid 30s (i do work in finance/banking though) and it makes me wonder “man, what the hell kind of jobs do these people even do to be bitching this hard about low 6 figure salaries”


What percentage of the US population do you think makes 174k a year or more, honestly? Do you think society would work if *everyone* would work in banking/finance?


I’m just putting it this way, if you live in DC, chances are you know regular people that make that much money. It’s not some Bezos amount. I obviously know it’s still like the 2% of the country. But people on Twitter acting like she has generational wealth are being absurd. When people say “tax the rich” she’s really not the type of rich they mean. It’s not “i hide money in the cayman islands and cheat on my taxes through my companies” type rich, it’s “i have a good career” type rich.


Actually, you’re *overestimating* how rare such a salary is, which rather reinforces your point. Top 10% in the country is ~$150k, too 1% is ~540k, and AOC is definitely closer to the former than the latter.


Tbh you sound pretty sheltered if you think $174k/year isn’t a _lot_ of money for a person in their mid 30’s. >if you live in DC, chances are you know regular people that make that much money. I live in DC, specifically Columbia Heights. Our median income is just under $50,000/year and 14% of our population lives below the poverty line. I am in my late 20’s and know exactly 0 (zero) people who make anywhere close to $174k. The “richest” of all my friends makes $80,000/year and she’s 29. >When people say “tax the rich” she’s really not the type of rich they mean Yes, she is. Should she be paying as much taxes as Billionaires? No. Should she pay more tax than she currently does? Yes.


No she’s not. Having a job for like 2 years where you net 174k is absolutely not being “rich” by any stretch of the word. I get your point and agree with it (fair and progressive taxation) but lumping that scenario into the “tax the rich” idea just dilutes the wealth disparity. AOC isn’t “rich”, she just has a good job.


1) i’m not saying it’s not a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things it’s still i have a good career money”. 2) And no, i’m not sheltered, i grew up a pretry poor immigrant until my dad got his masters. 3) If you don’t think 32% federal is enough for someone making that much, then I’ll agree to disagree. These by and large aren’t the incomes where people are skating by on taxes, the data shows this regularly. It’s very much the “i make a lot of money, but not enough to avoid the high tax bills that come with it outside of the standard loopholes” bracket


For plenty of people it's a grotesque amount of money. But that's irrelevant, because people that make money, whether seen as grotesque or truly is grotesque aren't awful people by default. Not everyone with money is the enemy. And believing everyone with money is the enemy is self-defeatist. A lot of the hatred aimed at AOC is because of her being a woman of colour, though. If instead she was a white man, you'd see a whole lot less talk about it.


you saw a lot less criticism directed at Rep. Carolyn Maloney for wearing an ERA themed dress (despite her record on women’s rights and in general being much less consistent than AOC’s… but nah, ‘brown woman bad!’)


It’s almost 6x the average American salary. 6x. So yeah. To the vast majority of people 174k is rich. These comments Piss me off. It’s tone deaf, idiotic and just ignorant. 174k a year is completely unfathomable to most Americans. Instead comments like this go all “sHe iSnt jeFF Bezos”. No shit. But she also is not living on average American wages either.


100k is a LOT of money. 174k is even more. My mom makes 50-60k a year and when she got her job she thought that was even a lot of money cause she’d never made that salary in her life. When I was growing up and my dad was still around and the sole provider, he was a six figure earner and we, a family of 4, never went hungry and had a nice roof over our heads. So yeah. It’s a lot of money, maybe not ultra rich status, but most certainly enough to have a comfortable life which is quite frankly what most people in this country deserve- to live comfortably without having to pick between eating or being homeless.


This is exactly the right perspective. So many people spit venom, but really, her salary should be more attainable, not gazed at with envy. Her proposals aim to make that a reality. It’s a lot of money, but it shouldn’t seem like impossible money. Enough to provide families a good life; stability.


Totally agree. All the people saying “sIX fiGurEs isNt *tHaT* mUcH” have probably never struggled a single day in their lives. Half the amount she makes yearly would be life changing to a majority of Americans. I personally don’t think I’ll ever make six figures in my lifetime, so to have people say shit like “not to be, like, privileged or anything” makes my blood boil. You are privileged.


It’s annoying to see people say that 6 figures is average. No the fuck it’s not lol. All it takes is some simple googling to see it’s definitely not. Before my family split up my dad was a 100k earner and we never went hungry or worried about material things. 100k is just what most families need to live at a comfortable level, not a luxury level.


In fairness, it does depend on where you live - 100k in rural America will get you a hell of a lot farther than it will in Southern California or NYC. Conceptually I completely agree with you that it's well above-average, but there are definitely situations where you could still be struggling even if you're making 6 figures


Oh yeah, I agree but I guess I’m just more so pointing out that 100k is NOT the average salary- but it certainly should be especially for people with kids or relatives to care for.


And this is the rub! The ultra wealthy prefer we jab at six figure earners instead of 7+ figure earners! Benefits provided to lower income earners has diminished in recent decades. Minimum wage has diminished in proportion to cost of living and inflation in recent decades. The average American is earning less because spending in these areas has shrunken to little more than peanuts. That someone who, granted, makes 6x more than the average American is fighting to rebalance the equation should be applauded by those looking to benefit from some mirror of a time gone by. Comparing her salary does not get us anywhere. Aim instead at those who don’t wish to see positive change


I remember one comment that was very similar. Like "yeah, I make 6 figures. It's really not much and doesn't go very far. I can only do things like go out a couple of times a week, eat pretty healthy, leave some in the savings. But it goes fast". What you are describing is literally not a possibility for fucking millions of people, but tell me more how it's not very much or not "rich".


It really isn't that much in the grand scheme of wealth disparity, particularly if you're in a big city. Without diminishing the entirely legitimate and real struggles of the typical working class American, if you're getting worked up at a member of congress making 174k, you ought to spend some time thinking about the accumulation of wealth by the handful of capitalists that actually run this country. The working class have far more in common with AOC than AOC does with Bezos et al.


Uh I don't think you're arguing against the point that guy made, but some completely different point.


>oblivious to just how much money a lot of people are making when they think 174k is some grotesque amount. ...would you say almost as oblivious as sonme other people are as to how little money most Americans make compared to that..? What percentage of Americans do you think make that much money or more?


That's like.. top 5% earner. That's common enough to have a social circle making that much, but it really is a lot compared to what most make.


Having worked with high net-worth individuals for years, I can tell you that people have absolutely no clue how much money is out there and what constitutes "rich". Most people adjust the definition to fit their personal biases or desired narrative. For example, the firefighter with two cars, a house, a pension, and a Robinhood brokerage account with $20,000 contends he is rich while the business owner with a mansion, several cars, and hundreds of employees will contend he's a "hardworking blue collar guy". I've also found it depends in how the money was made. Those that inherit don't usually think the number is that high (even if it is) and those that earned and saved every dollar tend to think the money is more valuable than it is. Here are the facts: $100K salary is good, but not rich. $1 million is not that much money, certainly not enough to retire. People making more than $400k with $10 million+ in liquid assets (of which there are MANY) need to pay more goddamn taxes. And don't get me started on mega corporations.


Why’s she dressed as a chick fil a cup


Love it. Now, let’s do it.


she looks really nice


The dress is as lame as the Gala itself.


Hey AOC. Dont apologize.


I have a lot of problems with AOC, but this is pearl clutching. If you can’t support protest within the arts community, you’re not supporting the arts and know jack shit about them.


Your first mistake is assuming the right wing nut jobs give a fuck about the art community.


Course they don’t. They’re the same dumb motherfuckers that accused *Kendrick Lamar* of making the Grammys political.


I am not polarized. It’s the right message and she looked great in the dress. 💕💕💕


It would have been more dramatic if it was a coverall/boilersuit, but the juxtaposition was still effective, IMHO.


I’m of two minds about it. I def agree with the message, and that art is a powerful tool to express it , but I think the way these types of images proliferate across the internet make the talking point more about AOC and less so about taxing the rich. So my gripe is that it feels like branding? To be fair I know that goes hand in hand with being a politician. Tbh I saw the image floating around without realizing AOC is wearing the dress, and I do think her having some power in taxing the rich does make more of a statement than it would have on a celebrity who paid to get in and for the dress itself. So if branding was the intent (I’m being cynical here), then it’s worked. Maybe “tax the rich “ could have been more powerful if she was able to bring all the workers who designed and made the dress with her? That would show how vastly unnoticed the labour of the working class goes by the elite who can afford to wear one garment for one night just to look beautiful. Maybe the wage of the average worker fabricating the dress could have been printed onto it to contrast with how minuscule it is compared to the guests in attendance. Sorry for the epic ramble - I’ve put way too much thought into this. My stake in the game is that I’m an artsy person by trade and get all up in my feelings when I see art become swallowed and regurgitated as capitalist realism. :/


I agree. I appreciate the message, but the image of an expensive designer dress seems rather to imbue it with materialistic importance. Or, as Marx might say, it fetishizes the object.


Agree, adding that her admission was free the dress was free and the bootie is beyond J-lo quality. Plenty to see/learn here folks. Two thumbs up!


You can be rich and criticize inequality but the messaging of this was cringe and tone deaf.


I don’t think we should be treating politicians like celebrities. Also it just seems so hypocritical and ironic for her to be there dressed like that.


The issue I have with it is that nobody is talking about taxing the rich. They are talking about a dress. I don’t give a shit about the dress. But she probably would have been better off boycotting the event and leading a protest outside if she really wanted to make a statement. It’s cool and all to take a stand on things but this just feels like typical slacktivism. Paint some shit on a dress and then go eat food and drink champagne that costs more than most people make in a month.


The coverage of this has been insane. Her boycotting would have gotten a blurb on MSNBC that would have been forgotten.


How much money she makes is completely irrelevant to her message. She's not saying there's anything wrong with being wealthy, she's saying the wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes.


Is that chik fil a font?


You tax people with money to pay, that's how it works.


She's so good at this.


I'll put it this way.... It's not anywhere near as bad as "I really don't care do u?" while your husband is ripping kids from their families, and who are potentially being sexually assaulted while locked up in cages.


Am I the only one believes She not only look fabulous, but is on sexy piece of art work in that dress? The girl killed it in many wonderful ways: - getting the message out - being a fashion queen of the night - making Republicans see red - getting more support for the infrastructure bill


If AOC had actually read Marshall McLuhan (theorist who coined the phrase “the medium is the message), maybe she would have known that it’s absolutely not a defense of wearing that dress at the met gala lol


That’s not necessarily the only medium. The photo of it is a medium, the video, the dress, the writing on the dress, the met gala itself are all mediums. McLuhan himself points out how behind nearly every medium there’s another medium. There’s no reason to restrict ourselves to only thinking about a photo of the event


From the perspective of the viewer, the photo is the medium anyway, not the dress. The situation would still be deeply ironic and talked about even if she wore a normal dress.


She got free admittance to an event that would normally cost 35K wearing a dress that is probably worth two or three of my mortgage payments that someone gifted to her and doesn't understand why that isn't a good look to a lot of people - not just the Fox News jerkoffs. Hey this kind of stuff happens to me all the time.


Isn’t that the point though? You’re uncomfortable with her being given a ticket and dress? What about all the people who paid for both of those but won’t pay their fair share of the taxes in this country while American people are in crisis? Why doesn’t that upset you more?


Polarizing headline polarizes people


It would have been a bigger statement if she had stood outside the met gala protesting in the dress.


Would it? Protests are a dime a dozen.


For her to do it, yeah, it would have


It doesn't appear 'the rich' fear her that much at all.....


Like that isn't the point. Someone who made that dress asked her to come wear it there. She clearly has been getting tons of attention, so at least part of this message is getting out there once again. People on the internet are literally like, "she didn't immediately succeed at overthrowing capitalism? How disgusting of her!"


Yeah the met gala is one of the most elite and exclusive events in the world. The fact she got invited tells you everything you need to know about how she’s viewed by the 1%


They invite all NYC representatives, as far as I know and for free. All this says is that she's a NYC representative.


A novelty like the other celebrities they invite....


The gal who designed her dress is dating the grandson of one of the Lehman brothers.


How about you also mention the upbringing of the woman who designed the dress as well and how she started … you know unless you got a narrative you want to push about her


What narrative? Are you disputing the fact that she's dating the grandson of a Lehman brother and that her boyfriend isn't worth hundreds of millions of dollars?


The narrative that she’s some 1% elitist when she’s someone that’s been in the industry working since she was a teen, her father is a Canadian first generation immigrant , and has started her own company from the ground up and used the growing influence she gained the last 10 years or so to push billion dollar corporations to commit to spending 15% of their revenue at exclusively black owned businesses. She also dated fairly recently a guy that artist MIA had a child with , funny how that doesn’t matter Funny how her actual work doesn’t matter But you felt the need to bring up a potential current boy friend she hasn’t dated very long… nothing about her herself Why? To push that narrative , you keep doing so, people without agendas who actually know about her will put the truth out there 👍🏽


Interesting ....


clickbait is the medium and the message


At least AOC has the hutzpah to wear her words at an event for and by the rich!!!


Are these tabloid-tier articles what passes for politics now? You all realize the polar caps are melting, carbon emissions are through the roof, Russia *still* controls parts of Ukraine, North Korea is pursuing nuclear weapons & missiles, there are genocides going on in Africa, the economy is getting ready to shit its guts out, and more are happening **right now**. To say nothing of the myriad of domestic issues going on.


Do you even realize that all those problems could be fixed by **TAXING THE RICH?** Which is exactly what AOC is saying. The money has to come from somewhere to solve all those problems.


If she is quoting Marshal McLuhan should we not than be focused on the high end designer dress the message was written on? I was under the impression “the medium is the message” was a theory wherein the medium not the content delivered should be the focus of study.


This will be unpopular, and my politics align with this sub, but it wasn't a good look and to me the criticism was fair.


"At palaces in New York and Chicago people gave poverty balls. Guests came dressed in rags and ate from tin plates and drank from chipped mugs. Ballrooms were decorated to look like mines with beams, iron tracks and miner's lamps. Theatrical scenery firms were hired to make outdoor gardens look like dirt farms and dining rooms like cotton mills. Guests smoked cigar butts offered to them on silver trays. Minstrels performed in blackface. One hostess invited everyone to a stockyard ball. Guests were wrapped in long aprons and their heads covered with white caps. They dined and danced while hanging carcasses of bloody beef trailed around the walls of moving pulleys. Entrails spilled on the floor. The proceeds were for charity.” ​ E.L. Doctorow, Ragtime


talk about a Champaign socialist. I liked her in the beginning but now I can’t Fucking stand her. It’s like someone downloaded the Twitter millennial consensus in a human body. I’m surprised she hasn’t tried to start a political party named after a Harry Potter house.


Legislate not tweet is my opinion.


Next she will be wearing an ahegao dress to pull in gen z.


“Why do Independent, moderate, and swing voters not take me seriously”


taxing the rich is a policy idea that has broad support among the american people actually, even across party lines, so i don’t get what the point of saying this is.


You don’t think that normal people find this… weird. I’m fine with higher taxes on the rich, but it’s not exactly intelligent branding of your ideas is it


> You don’t think that normal people find this… weird. no, i don't.


>You don’t think that normal people find this… weird. I think you forget this was at the Met gala. In the context of that gala, this is very much vanilla (with strawberries).


I loved the meltdown conservative reactionaries have had about her dress while most of them gave Trump wasting even more money on golf trips to his own resorts a pass


I got her point immediately, but it's still weird virtue signaling. Attending the event, in itself, makes her point moot. Just don't fucking go. Honestly, a simple tweet criticizing the event would have got a much stronger reaction and been a big talking point.


Yeah I too want to be against the rich while enjoying a multi millionaires lifestyle. Those tickets that were donated to her cost $35,000. That was my first year's salary after university.


The medium is the message, eh?


Yes let’s talk about taxing the rich AT A GALA. How much that dress cost and how much you get taxed on it?


Do you...think she paid for that dress??


I'm pretty sure she doesn't own the dress, but is just wearing it - [as is the custom](https://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/style/fashion/celebrity/red-carpet-dresses-celebrities-wear-them.htm). So AOC is probably not taxed for wearing it once, but my guess is she actually did pay the artist for it (which isn't the custom). It's a gala where famous (and wealthy) people go to wear ridiculous clothes. I think Lil Nas X came in wearing THREE outfits at once. But sure, let's talk about why AOC is there in a white dress with "Tax the rich" on it and imply it's somehow not fitting.


This was so brilliant, people and the media simply can't fathom it. She is such a fascinating political figure. May the future forever be one with more and more of stuff like this from AOC.


Repubs are outraged! But the First Lady wearing a jacket that said "I don't care. Do u?" on a visit to immigrant children separated from their families was OK. Smh.


You know, I understand on a surface level why people are upset...but I do think this is really a case of people forgetting who we're angry at. Yeah. It's an expensive Gala. More so than most anyone here will ever be able to afford, and even those who could afford it probably wouldn't attend. But she isn't the rich. She isn't wealthy. We're not supposed to be angry at the people who just happen to get their hands on a Lamborghini or fancy clothes. AOC is not a billionaire. From what I know she's not even a millionaire. She is not in charge of a corporation which is undermining employees so she can have her yachts and dresses. She is not destroying unions so that people work longer without health care. She is not putting oil pipes around water sources, or taking water sources away from communities to sell for profit. In fact, AOC is ultimately fighting all of this. What I'm getting at is this directionless vendetta against anyone who has money undermines the cause. It makes the idea of redistributing wealth and doing away with billionaires appear to be nothing but a movement of lazy jealous people who have nothing better to do with their time but to be angry at anyone who can buy things that they can't.


Why were the “help” the only people required to wear masks. She needs to pay the taxes on the ticket and the dress that should be about 4000 maybe 6000 dollars in New York.


She was gifted the ticket by a sponsor. She was asked to wear the dress by its designer. Once inside, guests were required to wear masks unless they were seated and eating. The entire guest list has been vaccinated.


> “And yes, BEFORE anybody starts wilding out — NYC elected officials are regularly invited to and attend the Met due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city’s cultural institutions that serve the public. I was one of several in attendance.”


Is it a polarizing view to say the rich should be taxed?


It is if you believe you’re rich, or could eventually be rich.


Polarizing? Get fucked la times. We all agree to tax the rich and it’s not including anyone in this comment section.