That is an interesting perspective about the limits of what can happen in a corporate environment.
But the vulgarity being embraced in this case is done with the assumption that that environment could never be breached by such incitements as performed by Gosar, etcetera. You can have your cake and sell it on Ebay at the same time.

They'd proabbly do what the Republicans did and get their panties all up in a knot. :rofl: The point here is, the Right has the thinnest skin in the game. They talk tough but they are the first to start bawling when they have to eat their own medicine. — James Riley

Really? When has AOC, or any Democrat, put themselves in a situation where they have to debate someone on the other side, or not on any side as they now exist in the U.S. (the number of independents now outnumber both Reps and Dems), like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? Will AOC accept the invitation of Maher to be on his show - doubt it. And the fact that they are unwilling to expose their ideas to criticism. Both sides have taken indefensible positions on many issues, which is why we won't ever see a real debate between them and someone isn't part of their choir. This idea that one is righteous and the other is to be demonized just exposes ones own biases.

like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? — Harry Hindu

No one appointed them as the 4th estate gate-keepers. They must earn credibility before truth will spend time with them. Truth will need to vet the sincerity of curiosity before deigning to satisfy it. One way to do that would be: 1. Contract 100% editorial control over the work-product generated as a result of interaction. That will not happen because work-product is ratings- and/or ego-driven. 2. Submit questions in writing and expect responses in kind.

Since you mentioned "debate" then parties must be willing to agree to a moderator and conditions so the exchange does not devolve into a Maher, Rogan, Rubin ratings-driven circus where the truth is lost on "gotcha" and "whataboutism" and other fallacy-driven, ratings-driven, ego-driven children's games.

It is not the truth which is afraid of falsehood that we are talking about here. Refusal to subject oneself to those you would set up as gatekeepers, is not a refusal of truth to engage falsehood. AOC is a person, not the truth. Maher is a person, not the truth.

I did not know AOC had refused to subject herself to Maher but now that you told me, she just jumped another notch in my estimation.

And the fact that they are unwilling to expose their ideas to criticism. — Harry Hindu

That is simply untrue. AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al, have all had their ideas subjected to criticism. The question is, do their counterparts on the other side have any ideas to subject to criticism? Donald Trump? Gosar? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Lauren Boebert? Matt Gaetz?

Both sides have taken indefensible positions on many issues, which is why we won't ever see a real debate between them and someone isn't part of their choir. — Harry Hindu

We won't know if their positions are indefensible if we don't research the defenses. It is incumbent upon those who want to know what those defenses are, to do a little reading, and not rely upon carnival barkers in the press to elicit the truth, or to do their thinking for them. This takes analytic thinking skills. Not just critical thinking skills. It takes the latter too, but you don't get to be critical and taken seriously unless you've done the analysis first.

. This idea that one is righteous and the other is to be demonized just exposes ones own biases. — Harry Hindu

Do some analysis. The truth has a liberal bias that should be exposed. There is nothing more fundamentally stupid than to think that 50/50 is righteous, or that it is not itself a demon. But it sure is good for ratings. Heaven forbid the truth should win. If it did, we might have to progress to another subject.

Really? When has AOC, or any Democrat, put themselves in a situation where they have to debate someone on the other side, or not on any side as they now exist in the U.S. (the number of independents now outnumber both Reps and Dems), like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? Will AOC accept the invitation of Maher to be on his show - doubt it — Harry Hindu

.
Why do something that might make you look bad, get you into trouble, and in the current American political climate you don't have to do?

Even some Trump supporters felt disappointed when their hero backed off from having a debate with Bernie (which, now knowing the guy would been a disappointment). But then why would Trump do it? Attacking a caricature of the opposing politicians seems to be all what you need to do, not have a debate about actual policies with them. Or then trying to get points from being 'viciously attacked'.

Just think about this thread. In a way proof of it.

Are you saying that Gosar fantasizing about the death of a colleague is part of a protest against a tyranny of civic conventions imposed by a group who reject some other set of civic conventions?