Political Discussion

jaycee said:
I've never viewed The View more...may i never do it again.
Click to expand...

We agree on Pence (and the going into the night portion of you post). And yeah, her entire segment is great. I watched all four clips are on youtube. But that particular one encompassed so much of what we talk about daily here that it was the clear choice to be posted. Also, McCain is such an egotistical hack.
 
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope said:
I don't know. I'm not sold. Take this paragraph for instance:

I don't want to put words in the protesters' mouths, but it seems to me that this is exactly their point. She even said so: to her, there is no distinction. If Pete and Trump are the same, then Bloomberg is also the same. Racism is racism. Not all racism is wielded malevolently, but that doesn't make it not racism.

What Friedersdorf frames as "crying wolf" we could also call "declaring zero tolerance." Gone are the days of the culture quibbling over the threshold for acceptable levels of racist attitudes and actions; instead, we have turned to simply naming it for what it is. How people incorporate that information into their larger worldview and behavioral patterns is up to them; but the alternative, to go along to get along, has also ceased to be a winning strategy. In fact, naming racism and being a faction of dissent within the party has in some cases seen some concrete results in forcing candidates to do better in both word and action.

And here's the nut of it; I agree with the first half of this quote. After an unintended transgression, the message you see online is often "Person X is trash," in the parlance of our time, and not "Person X has a responsibility to understand why this is wrong and how to do better." But again, part of the trajectory that led us to this place is the growing impatience with being required to say these things. If Person X is thoughtful and putting in the work and doing their best, they will take the responsibility to learn and improve before they are told why or how. The responsibility is greater than it used to be: not just to learn and do better, but to do it proactively and without burdening affected groups with that task.

As for the second half of that last quote, I disagree, and I don't see any evidence that the electorate is growing less able to distinguish between transgressions. If anything we are developing a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of how things like racism don't only manifest in robes and segregation but also in the patterns of our speech and our latent attitudes about societal norms.

Are Pete and Trump and Bloomberg the same person? I think we would all say not. But their racism, when and where it reveals itself, is the same disease that afflicts all of us. The irony of being told that call-out culture is weakening the case against racism is that being tired of racism itself does nothing to prevent it.
Click to expand...
My main takeaway, the portion that I agree with is about nuance. The system is corrupt, there are only a limited few viable candidates, none of which (despite Klobuchar's chiding last evening) are perfect. There is certainly a difference between directly partaking in racism, not partaking in a racist act but allowing for a racist system to persist and actively participating, promoting and celebrating the racism with malice. There is also a difference between acknowledging, showing contrition, learning, and bettering yourself and showing no contrition at all while repeatedly transgressing in racism. I would prefer a candidate that never committed these or many other sins but if all you are left with are flawed candidates (partially due to the corrupt system dynamics that our democratic process currently allows) then everyone would be foolhardy to not make distinctions between the candidates remaining. By putting them all in the same Racist bucket, we lessens what impact much more egregious acts of the worst offender.
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I appreciate the conversation that took place today. I personally think there is a distinction between say Pete’s awful handling of his police department and / gentrification versus Bloomberg and Trump’s more blatant variety. But I also don’t blame black or Latinos for feeling differently and always try and listen to their opinion as a tool to framing my own.

On that note, I posted this to Facebook before yesterday’s debate to a very agreeable response (anybody that disagreed remained mute, but my Facebook is also almost entirely made up of under 40ers minus some family)...:


“If Bloomberg is elected It will codify the U.S. as an oligarchy. And while Bloomberg might be more palatable because of the subtly of his racism and disregard for civil liberties, that will also make him a far more effective and savvy politician than Trump.

This is a guy who said Latinos and blacks don’t know how to behave in the work place (while racking up over 60 sexual harassment cases in his own workplace). Who was a Republican up until a few years ago. Who is handing a blueprint to other billionaires on how to manhandle our democracy. Who is mostly running to drive up the cost of campaigning for Bernie and Liz. Who is the antithesis of people funded campaigns.

You know what’s funny in a really twisted way? Everyone is all wound up about the fact that Trump might try and alter term limits right? Well Bloomberg actually did that shit! He altered the term limits he was allowed while mayor...

He also utilized policy that is just as racist (and authoritarian) as border camps (just less likely to bring to mind a certain war). And that policy was aimed at actual U.S. citizens, not undocumented workers.

That policy ballooned the prison population and more than a decade later he didn’t blink twice before exploiting that same prison population to make phone calls on behalf of his campaign.

Again, he is a more effective, cunning version of Trump. And anyone who supports him in the primary in the name of defeating Trump is a spineless hypocrite.”
Click to expand...
This is all very Watchmen-sequel Nixon Vs. Redford. Different sides to the same terrible coin.
 
I heard the greatest argument against people who are so worried about the Bernie Bro thing. Everybody on that stage with the exception of Bernie has voted war or enacted policing policies that have caused more actual violence than a buck of online bullies.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Everybody on that stage with the exception of Bernie
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Indymisanthrope said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Ok maybe he is the exception. But I find all this consternation about a small portion of online bullying from people Bernie has no control over a bit eye rolling. Especially when you have people on that stage that have voted and supported policies that have led to the deaths of innocent people. All the news outlets (useless pundits that are payed to communicate cooperate propaganda) ignore this fact because they are in the tank for the military intervention.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Ok maybe he is the exception. But I find all this consternation about a small portion of online bullying from people Bernie has no control over a bit eye rolling. Especially when you have people on that stage that have voted and supported policies that have led to the deaths of innocent people. All the news outlets (useless pundits that are payed to communicate cooperate propaganda) ignore this fact because they are in the tank for the military intervention.
Click to expand...
Both things can be true one doesn’t excuse the other. Both can be bad.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Ok maybe he is the exception. But I find all this consternation about a small portion of online bullying from people Bernie has no control over a bit eye rolling. Especially when you have people on that stage that have voted and supported policies that have led to the deaths of innocent people. All the news outlets (useless pundits that are payed to communicate cooperate propaganda) ignore this fact because they are in the tank for the military intervention.
Click to expand...

I don't understand equating the violence perpetuated by voting for war and the violence associated with online bullying. Yes it's all violence but this seems like a really false argument to me.

The dismissal of the experiences of people regardless of how many experiences there have been, regardless of any false drama perpetuated by the media, is a bad look for the Sanders campaign and supporters.

It isn't 'no big deal' to the people who have experienced it and it isn't 'no big deal' because the perception that the Sanders campaign is associated with online bullying is real.

One of the first things that people who are more moderate blues point to when describing their waffling on supporting Sanders is the bullying, whether they have personally experienced it or not. So it matters because it IS impacting the choices people are making.

We should be critical about this stuff and we should be critical of the campaigns of the people we support.
 
Say what you will about Pete in general, I thought his comments about leadership being about not just support, but what you draw out of people, were pretty good. That said, spending time on stage complaining that Bernie isn't making people be nice on Twitter doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort either.

It almost seems to me that complaints about Bernie Bros have emboldened some people to become caricatures of Bernie Bros as a snide response. It's a weird gray area of play-acting the bullying to make fun of it, but people outside of the bubble can't tell what's sincere and what isn't.
 
@TenderLovingKiller®

Yes both can be bad, but for some reason cooperate media is only focusing on one of them. The one that causes less damage. They don't focus on his non-violent policies and record.

@jaycee

While people are affected by by the online bullying I am not equating the two. I'm actually pointing the difference in the two. The media reports on a mild form of violence as being so important. A form a violence that can not be attributed to a campaigns actions. While ignoring a much more damaging form of violence, supporting military expansion and horrible policing strategies. Why are these policies not the focus of their punditry?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Bernie Bros
Click to expand...

The name seems to be a wholesale way to write off the coalition of supporters he has built. Are there names for supporters of any of the other candidates used this way?

I see a lot more complaining about Bernie Bro behavior than I see the behavior, maybe I'm not involved in the conversations where it's happening though.
 
Dtknuckles said:
@jaycee

While people are affected by by the online bullying I am not equating the two. I'm actually pointing the difference in the two. The media reports on a mild form of violence as being so important. A form a violence that can not be attributed to a campaigns actions. While ignoring a much more damaging form of violence, supporting military expansion and horrible policing strategies. Why are these policies not the focus of their punditry?
Click to expand...

Ahhh - Ok
Now I follow-you
Thank you for clarifying.

Yes - I agree. Unfortunately, people are willing to gobble up the easy drama to consume and media certainly promote that behavior. I don't disagree that some? media are siezing on these narratives for clicks and maybe other more deep-rooted biases.
 
@jaycee

My criticism is more about the media than the people who are bullied online.
Why are they not criticize Biden and his crime bill while his son is a addict and received treatment for it rather than going to jail like the the rest of the people ruined by the war on drugs.

Why are they not pointing out his rally calls for the 2nd Iraq war?

Bloomberg's horrible policing policies and his surveillance of the Muslim population of NY.
 
Dtknuckles said:
All the news outlets (useless pundits that are payed to communicate cooperate propaganda) ignore this fact because they are in the tank for the military intervention.
Click to expand...

Friends of mine will automatically disregard anything reported by CNN, NYT, WaPo, and the rest because of their "corporate influence." But they'll repeat rumors and propaganda spread through links to uncredentialed "journalists" online with the thinnest of sourcing because it's not "mainstream." We live in a strange time that has twisted people into seeking out disinformation because they're actively trying to avoid disinformation.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Friends of mine will automatically disregard anything reported by CNN, NYT, WaPo, and the rest because of their "corporate influence." But they'll repeat rumors and propaganda spread through links to uncredentialed "journalists" online with the thinnest of sourcing because it's not "mainstream." We live in a strange time that has twisted people into seeking out disinformation because they're actively trying to avoid disinformation.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't even say that disinformation in cooperate media is the biggest problem. It is more the lens with with which they evaluate information and events. What they decide is important to report on. How they interpret information and how that leads to a grater narrative. Part of it is chasing after add money (clicks) and the other is spreading cooperate propaganda.
 
Dtknuckles said:
@jaycee

My criticism is more about the media than the people who are bullied online.
Why are they not criticize Biden and his crime bill while his son is a addict and received treatment for it rather than going to jail like the the rest of the people ruined by the war on drugs.

Why are they not pointing out his rally calls for the 2nd Iraq war?

Bloomberg's horrible policing policies and his surveillance of the Muslim population of NY.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that some are and some are not.... and that the storylines / you mention are things taht require actual reporting / journalism / story-telling to relate them back to the current election in 1000 words or less. As indy just pointed-out that really isn't the way people consume media digitally.... i'm realizing that maybe your questions were just facetious? Anyway sorry for my naivete if that's the case.

If you're implying something about the campaign's assertion of the anti-Bernie conspiracy? well i'm middle of the road about that. i have no doubt that there are interests in the media and elsewhere that are threatened by the Sanders campaign... I also don't think the campaign has handled itself well with regards to that stuff.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Friends of mine will automatically disregard anything reported by CNN, NYT, WaPo, and the rest because of their "corporate influence." But they'll repeat rumors and propaganda spread through links to uncredentialed "journalists" online with the thinnest of sourcing because it's not "mainstream." We live in a strange time that has twisted people into seeking out disinformation because they're actively trying to avoid disinformation.
Click to expand...
Just yesterday I got into a conversation with a friend who is a Trump supporter and her first line of defense was "it's all fake news". These are close friends and it truly hurts me to see them become lemmings. I don't care who you support, but seeing them buy into the "Fake News" idea is sad, I considered these people to be smarter than that.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Yes both can be bad, but for some reason cooperate media is only focusing on one of them. The one that causes less damage. They don't focus on his non-violent policies and record.
Click to expand...
If you want to rag on the media for not covering candidates war vote (also, Mayor Pete May have killed people in the actual war, I don’t think he has done anything to actually propagate war) I am on board but the argument as laid out seem more like whataboutism as a way to deflect the larger concern here about a small yet very vocal portion of Bernie supporters being toxic online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top