Is Bernie Sanders jinxed?


First he hooked up with the Democratic Party, then he capitulated to the thuggery of Black Lives Matter, now he’s backing Keith Ellison?! Hey Bernie, man. Get back in the game.

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    Jinxed? Does that mean the Repubs calling H.R. Clinton a witch had it right?

      • says

        “Thug” is an intense racist dogwhistle commonly used by right-wingers to denigrate black people as violent criminals. Claiming BLM is a violent mob instead of a civil rights movement is also a right-wing racist talkign point.

        Essentially, saying “the thuggery of Black Lives Matter” makes you sound like Jeff Sessions.

        • says

          @abbeycadabra
          And I was here thinking that “jackbooted thug” was a term inherently dedicated to the racist cops and other authoritarians, regardless of race. The more you know, I guess.

          I was also thinking that, in terms of racism and dogwhistles “Superpredators” would be more damning than “thugs”, since, at least, a thug is necessarily a human being but a Superpredator is some kind of mindless animal. Yet I didn’t see quite this level of passion against the person who used the more dehumanizing term (against children, no less).

  2. Pierce R. Butler says

    anat @ # 2 – Keith Ellison is a Muslim. Have you noticed our esteemed host’s opinion of Muslims?

    I do have to wonder where she gets her information about Black Lives Matter…

  3. tkreacher says

    Love seeing the casual use of “thug” in reference to black people. It’s not coded at all. Nope. No code there.

  4. polishsalami says

    I’m not fussed with the leadership of BLM, but I’m not sure where the “thuggery” comes in here.

    Ellison’s connections to the Islamic world are a worry, but he seems to have matured from his Farrakhan days. He’s still better than most Democrats to me.

    • kenal98 says

      I think Anjuli is more than a little bit off with this one. Even as someone who doesn’t care too much for the Democratic Party I am forced to admit that Ellison is miles and away the best suited candidate if one generally agrees with Bernie on certain important matters. The fact that he is a Muslim cannot be a deal breaker for me.

      • says

        If Ellison is the best the Democratic Party can do, what does that say for the Democratic Party? Is this a case of if it’s good enough for the Democratic Party, then it’s good enough for me?

        The fact that he is a Muslim cannot be a deal breaker for me.

        Can you say a bit more about this, especially if it’s in opposition to me?

        • kenal98 says

          It ought not to be the case that because it is good enough for the Democratic Party then it ought to be good enough for you. And you will notice the way I formulated my argument; to me Ellison is the best only if the yardstick is generally the policies which Bernie espoused during his presidential run. I don’t care for the Democratic Party because it is generally a center right organization which has shown itself by the polices it pursues while in power to be opposed to progressive politics. This is precisely why the Democratic establishment did all that it could do to thwart Bernie’s nomination. So because you referenced Bernie, I was merely pointing out why it is not at all baffling that Bernie would back Ellison; simply put, Ellison is the candidate for DNC chair who is closest aligned to Bernie’s policies.

          I will confess that I assumed your major issue with Ellison was the fact that he is a Muslim. I probably should not have assumed and instead given you the opportunity to state what your specific issues with Ellison might be. However, after seeing that Bill Maher clip you posted and taking into account the general tenor of your blog, I am fortified in my thinking that Ellison’s religious beliefs are your major concern. To be completely honest, people’s religious faith generally do not matter to me that much.

          I was raised (primarily in the UK, Jamaica and Nigeria) as a Muslim by a French Guyanese/Jamaican mother who converted to Islam as an adult and a Nigerian/British father who himself was raised Muslim. I left the religion of my parents during my uni years. But I have to tell you that the Islam which is often described in your seems utterly foreign to me as a person raised Muslim around Muslims in various parts of the world. Sometimes I get the impression that you are arguing that Muslims are automatons who have a certain bit of bad programming (the Koran) encoded in them. It is a fact that only a very small percentage of Muslims commit political violence while citing their religious beliefs and given this fact “the Koran made them do it” line of argument doesn’t appear to rest on very sound ground when loads more Muslims who read the Koran and revere it don’t actually go about the place killing in the name of Allah.

          None of the above is to elide the serious issue of Islamic terrorism or other pressing problems in the so called Muslim world. I am merely saying that it seems to me that Muslims are not different from other kinds of religious people and as such knowing someone is a Muslim doesn’t make me any more suspicious of their motivations or propensity to violence than I would be if the person espoused some other form or religious belief or no religious belief at all.

          • says

            I appreciate this response, thank you.

            because you referenced Bernie, I was merely pointing out why it is not at all baffling that Bernie would back Ellison; simply put, Ellison is the candidate for DNC chair who is closest aligned to Bernie’s policies.

            Point well taken.

            after seeing that Bill Maher clip you posted and taking into account the general tenor of your blog, I am fortified in my thinking that Ellison’s religious beliefs are your major concern. To be completely honest, people’s religious faith generally do not matter to me that much.

            Ellison’s religious belief is not my concern. Ellison’s dishonesty and obfuscation (as shown in the clip) is. Given the way in which he handled Maher’s questions, I am left with serious questions of whether he can be relied on to be entirely candid if he should know of Muslims who are terrorists. You want such a person in a position to take the Presidency of the United States? I am perfectly confident that my discomfort is well-founded.

            people’s religious faith generally do not matter to me that much.

            I’d be interested to know how much.

            It seems we have similar family backgrounds. Something very similar can be said of my parents. Up to 1979,

            the Islam which is often described in your seems utterly foreign to me as a person raised Muslim around Muslims in various parts of the world.

            held true for me, too. Indeed, that “utter foreignness” tore that particular Muslim community (a very small one) apart. But the utter foreignness came not from foreigners, but from the ones within that community who had read and understood the Qur’an and found that utter foreignness utterly compelling. These were the very same people. We had been to school together. The things they were calling for were the same as those the insane Muslim mobs in London called for, except that then, they did not yet constitute international terrorists.

            The Qur’an alone is not enough to “make them do it”. I’ve made that point consistently. Those who grow up in the West or in strongly Westernised societies have simply imbibed too much humanity for the Qur’an not to fill them with revulsion. The necessary preconditions are an inculcation at an early age of complete, unquestioning obedience, indoctrination at an early age that the Qur’an is perfect, and an identity of Muslim supremacy. Then the commandments of the Qur’an stand a chance. For these reasons I maintain that the madrassas are the key to ending this scourge. As for societies steeped in Muslim culture, well, that question is already being answered every day as the great Islamic religious war unfolds.

            I do think Muslims are different to other kinds of religious people because they cannot countenance questioning of the Qur’an, whether they can actually read it or not. It’s visceral. It is their Holy Grail: to loose it is to loose themselves. It is a terrible bind to be in. This is why, in my view, ex-Muslims are the great unsung heroes of our times. Only when Islam has finally torn itself apart, will Muslim be free to be Muslims, or not, or just a bit, if they so choose. And then it really wouldn’t matter “if the person espoused some other form of religious belief or no religious belief at all.” We do not bring that day any closer by refusing to be honest about Islam, even if only for Muslims’ sake.

            * Note added 4 March: Kenal, you might find this interesting. I’ve only just learned of it from Steersman: https://www.facebook.com/simi.rahman/posts/10153153879381302
            It echoes my own experience in many ways, except I didn’t really agonise over my decision.

  5. says

    Thuggery?

    Seriously?

    You do understand that that’s racist, right?

    If you don’t understand the socio-political movements and happenings going on in the US right now, then maybe consider not commenting on them.

    • says

      I call this thuggery,

      although I accept there could be other words for it.

      You do understand that that’s racist, right?

      Am I to understand that you are offering me advice on how to identify racism?

      If you don’t understand the socio-political movements and happenings going on in the US right now, then maybe consider not commenting on them.

      This is the kind of remark one might expect from someone unaccustomed to a constitutionally-protected right to free speech, even if it is more gently put. Where I grew up, I could’ve had my house burnt down or been set alight myself. Where do you draw the line?

  6. says

    I apologize for suggesting that I was trying to tell you how to identify racism, as it was not my intention to suggest that, though I understand that intent is not magic. I should not have written that.

    But there is a context missing, here. In the United States, “thug” is how racists have replaced the n-word. It’s an extremely racist code-word here, in use and practice. I don’t know the context of its use elsewhere, but that is the context of its use in the US and in relation to US issues such as Black Lives Matter.

    As for Sanders being justifiably shut down in Seattle:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqdNF-BHTw

    That is an interview with Marissa Jenae Johnson, one of the two women who shut that rally down (the other is Mara Jacqueline Willaford) conducted by TWiBPrime, a podcast and political talk show I rather love. Perhaps I’m biased as I happen to be a big fan of both women and a supporter of Black Lives Matter, but I agreed wholeheartedly with their shut down of Sanders’ rally. They targeted him for five reasons:

    1. There is no point in targeting Republicans here, as a) it’s not safe and b) they are inaccessible by practice.

    2. Hillary Clinton was 100% inaccessible, ensuring that all of her rallies were held in extremely secure areas, and getting in was extremely hard.

    3. Martin O’Malley proved that targeting him was pointless at Netroots Nation back then, when, confronted with BLM protesters, his response was “white lives matter” (to be fair, he did apologize, and it was real apology, not a “I’m sorry you were offended” not-pology, but it still cemented the pointlessness of going after him at all).

    3. Bernie Sanders was the most accessible candidate by far.

    4. Sanders has a history of being, at best, blind to the issues facing people of color in the United States. From the fact that he is (still!) convinced that Democrats need white people to win (not people of color… he has actually said this… and, BTW, it is 100% false, as proven by both of President Obama’s elections), to the fact that this supposedly radical progressive candidate who openly calls himself a (Democratic) Socialist thinks the issue of reparations for slavery is “too divisive” (as opposed to calling himself a Socialist? Really? Socialism is incredibly divisive in the US; I would argue moreso than reparations; and I’m a socialist myself)

    Those factors really made him a legitimate target for BLM protesters. In fact, I’d go so far as to say there was no better candidate for these types of protests.

    There is also the fact that BLM protesters did indeed go after Clinton and Republicans, as well. But as Sanders was the most accessible candidate, that meant that this protest got the most attention.

    • says

      Thank you for enlightening me on this. An apology is certainly not necessary (thanks all the same).

      I’m surprised at how progressives in the US allow racists to push them out of the English language. About a year ago, someone in the US suggested to me that using the proverb, “calling a spade a spade” amounts to a racist slur, so is to be avoided. Now it’s the word “thug” and its variations too? And maybe other words that I haven’t heard of. Why is this? The interesting thing about this, for me, is that racists aren’t saying to progressives, “we own these words and you can’t use them”; progressive are saying racists, “you own those words and we won’t use them.” This gets even more strange when US black people claim ownership of the derogatory racist term, “Nigger”, throw a racist boundary around it, and then decide, on the basis of someone’s skin colour, whether they may or may not use that word. This is going even further than what white racists have done with “spade” and “thug”. Whatever anyone may think of it, the English language is my language and every single word in it is at my disposal. (This emphatic tone is not directed at you, but at the idea that social or political pressure can force me to abandon part of my own language.)

      I had an interesting experience about two years ago when an African-American student pointed out to me (and to the wider audience) that use of the word “Nigger” was a “privilege” reserved for blacks. However, during this whole time, he’d been saying “the n-word”, while I’d been saying “Nigger”. When I asked why white people did not have that privilege, he said because it was not their historical experience. When I pointed out that it wasn’t my historical experience either, and that none of my ancestors had ever encountered that word, he said that that was OK because I can relate to it. Why is that? Because I’m black. When I pointed out that white Americans relate to that word a great deal more than I do, the conversation stopped.

      My point in telling my student’s privilege story is that the appalling behaviour of those women towards Bernie falls under the same rubric. Because blacks were being killed by whites, they claim entitlement, i.e., “privilege”, to behave in this way towards whites, all whites, any whites. So which whites are they going to abuse? The killers? The racists? No, the ones least likely to kick their heads in in response, regardless of how far such whites might be from the murder of blacks. I call that cowardice. I see your points 1-4 not as a justification, but as an indictment. Point 5 is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if it were the case that:

      Sanders has a history of being, at best, blind to the issues facing people of color in the United States. From the fact that he is (still!) convinced that Democrats need white people to win

      and the appropriate response to that was to bully him off his own stage, then what is the appropriate response to the Republican Party and its full-on racists, or the black gangs slaughtering blacks like its a party. Bernie’s crimes here, for which he can supposedly be manhandled, abused and silenced, is that he’s saying nothing about one thing, and holds the wrong opinion about something else. I’m going to take some convincing that BLM are anything more than a bunch of unpardonable thugs. My beef with Bernie is that he let them get away with it.

      • Steersman says

        Anjuli: This gets even more strange when US black people claim ownership of the derogatory racist term, “Nigger”, throw a racist boundary around it, and then decide, on the basis of someone’s skin colour, whether they may or may not use that word.

        Indeed. It is a remarkably intriguing puzzle – “How the Mind Works” and all that – how it is that people like abbeycadabra can insist (1.1) that your “thuggery of Black Lives Matter” consistitutes a “racist dogwhistle”. Now, they might have had a point if you had said that all blacks were thugs, but of course you said nothing of the sort. I kind of get the impression that many in the so-called #RegressiveLeft are incapable of differentiating between “some” and “all”; they seem to think that any criticism of any member of any group they happen to favour or are part of is tantamount to a categorical condemnation – “Off with their heads!” – of every other member. A variation on the “my tribe, right or wrong”, or the “four legs good, two legs bad” standard operating procedures that seems to motivate so many. Although I’ll concede that that is no respecter of any particular left-right, authoritarian-libertarian set of boundaries.

        But I think also that part of the problem is that so many are more or less clueless or unclear about what the term “racism” really means, and have an aversion, bordering on the pathological if not suicidal, to even refer to a dictionary for a point of reference. Reminds me of a discussion some time ago where someone, who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, averred that “I think there needs to be some internet law, á lá Godwin and Scopie, whereby invoking a dictionary definition as part of your argument results in forfeit“; talk about shooting oneself, and the community, in the feet.

        In any case, I think the relevant definition is:

        the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

        Bit of a stretch to see how pointing out that there are no few “thugs” in the black community or in the Black Lives Matter movement – manifestly true in both cases – somehow qualifies as a statement that all blacks are “inferior” to all members of any other race, much less as being a “racist dogwhistle” or a “racist code-word”. Curious though, as you suggest, that black commentators, or commentators of colour (CoC?) for that matter, can point that out without being tarred with the “racist” epithet, but woe to any white person doing so – guess “white privilege” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be; maybe I’ll turn in my white-card, and, like Rachel Dolezal, “identify” as black.

        But, more specifically and particularly relevant to your “nigger” comment, you might take a gander at a YouTube video [1] by black comedian Chris Rock, and a linguistics paper on slurs [2] (of interest in itself) which quotes Rock as follows:

        There’s like a civil war going on with black people, and there’s two sides: there’s black people, and there’s niggas. The niggas have got to go. Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant ass niggas fuck it up […] Can’t go to a movie the first week it comes out. Why? Cause niggas are shooting at the screen! ….

        Fuck man, I’m tired of this shit. You know what’s the worst thing about niggas, the worst thing about niggas? Niggas love to not know. Nothing makes a nigga happier than not knowing the answer to your question. Just ask a nigga a question, any nigga, “hey nigga what’s the capital of Zaire?” “I don’t know that shit! Keepin’ it real!” Niggas love to keep it real; real dumb! Niggas hate knowledge. Shit, I was talking about niggas breaking in your house, well if you want to save your money put it in your books. Cause niggas don’t read. Put the money in the books, shit, books are like kryptonite to a nigga.

        Somewhat en passant, but you might check out that paper on slurs as the author, Adam Croom, argues that epithets such as “nigger” aren’t necessarily racist as long as the use of the term targets only some individuals or some section of an entire race – as suggested by Rock’s video.

        Anjuli: I’m going to take some convincing that BLM are anything more than a bunch of unpardonable thugs.

        Indeed. If your video of the thugs disrupting Sanders speech wasn’t sufficient to prove the case, you might consider this 2015 statement [3] by Sheriff Clarke – who’s black, and who of course went on to become central to Trump’s election – on BLM:

        It’s open season right now, no doubt about it. … I’m tired of hearing people call [Black Lives Matter] black activists. They’re black slime, and it needs to be eradicated from American society and American culture. I need every law-abiding person in the United States of America to stand up and start pushing back against this slime, this filth disparaging the American law enforcement officers within these communities.

        While I think he may tend to the view that policemen can do wrong, I think he’s spot-on as far as the rather clueless tendency in the black community, and in the #RegressiveLeft one as well, to insist that they can do no right. But of maybe some amusement, you might note that the author of the blog where that quote came from, who shall also remain nameless, insisted that Sheriff Clarke was the right wing’s “very own Uncle Tom”.

        There is maybe a serious problem with racism in America. But it sure won’t be resolved by people whitewashing – so to speak – some of the players involved, or in refusing to understand what the term really means.

        —–
        1) “_https://youtu.be/51vFbsZkhXU”;
        2) “_http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039015000041”;
        3) “_http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/02/uncle-tom-sheriff-blames-black-lives-matter-for-cop-shooting/”;

    • Pierce R. Butler says

      Nate – only your/their 5th point has anything to do with Bernie S as a “legitimate” target; the others only show him as a vulnerable target.

      Shame on Johnson & Willaford for apparently conflating those concepts.

    • says

      @Nathan

      Sanders has a history of being, at best, blind to the issues facing people of color in the United States.

      Such as marching with MLK? Oh ,sorry, that one doesn’t count. Or getting 100% rating by the NAACP? What metric are you using, here?

      From the fact that he is (still!) convinced that Democrats need white people to win (not people of color… he has actually said this… and, BTW, it is 100% false, as proven by both of President Obama’s elections)

      So you think Democrats don’t need white people to win?

      Since you put Obama’s election as proof of this I went back and checked. Within the people who voted for him there was:
      1. A little more than 40% of white people.
      2. Around 90% of black people.
      This may not be immediately obvious to you, but group 1 is actually bigger than group 2 in raw votes. It is also overrepresented by the electoral college. Obama didn’t win by popular vote (which is pretty much a just suggestion in the american electoral system). He, like every other president the US has ever had, won by the Electoral College. He had the opportunity to make some kind of change in that system to make it a little more fair (since disposing of it would’ve been a tall order), but he didn’t, and Trump definitely won’t change it either.

      Assuming you get a candidate that has a perfect 100% approval rating among minorities, how many of them will even get to the polls? You know that there are voter suppression laws and tactics going on that overwhelmingly attack them, there is no reason to assume this will get better in the next 4-8 years, if anything, it’ll get worse.

      Obama needed white people to win, and he was savvy enough to make a truly intersectional campaign. Hillary needed them too, but she lacked awareness of who wasn’t voting for her and why and faced a close loss for it (when by any means she should’ve won by a fucking landslide against that shithead). And whoever comes around next time will need white people even more than other past candidates, because republican’s voter suppression tactics will only get worse now that they are in control of every branch of government.

      And even if you really believe that demographics are the end-all of every political battle, ignoring every other factor, the year you’re looking for wasn’t 2016, it’s 2061. That’s the year when white people will no longer be a majority in the US population, and you can tell them all to fuck off and get away with it.

      Also, did Bernie Sanders SAY “The Democratic Party does not need people of color to win”? Really? When did this happen? Links? Anything? You just dropped that off in a parenthetical like it’s nothing but it would be fucking huge if it were true.

      …to the fact that this supposedly radical progressive candidate who openly calls himself a (Democratic) Socialist thinks the issue of reparations for slavery is “too divisive” (as opposed to calling himself a Socialist? Really? Socialism is incredibly divisive in the US; I would argue moreso than reparations; and I’m a socialist myself)

      Republicans called Obama a socialist, relentlessly, and it’s not like Obama did much to challenge that. He won twice.
      A question that needs to be asked is “Socialism is incredibly divisive among whom?” And the divide seems to fall between the youth who are in favor of it (but not in favor of Democrats) and the old who are against it (but unquestionably in favor of Republicans), and in between them, a large amount of people who are against socialism when labeled as such but love several socialist policies as long as they’re unlabeled, such as the ACA, social security, the army, free colleges, unions, etc.

      The issue of reparations would create a pretty clear division between black people and pretty much everyone else (not just whites).

      It is usually framed as “White people benefit from a system that victimized black people. Now we make them pay for it.”, which, in a vacuum, sounds pretty fair to me. But in reality, being a government program, EVERYONE who isn’t black would pay for it through taxation.
      Even american muslims (it’s not like they face any form of oppression of their own, amirite?). The not-black part of the LGBT community. The latino community. Asians. Native Americans. White people who had nothing to do with slavery in the US, like descendants of holocaust survivors or descendants of oppressed Irish people.
      Since they actually pay a lot of taxes and use little to no services, it stands to reason that even impoverished ilegal immigrants would end up paying for those reparations. That’s fucked up.

      It is a known fact that slave owners fathered children with their slaves, children who were almost always also slaves. After a couple generations you’d have slaves and direct descendants from slaves who are, by all intents and purposes, white. I suspect that those people are not the intended target of reparations, and none of the proponents of reparations would care if they didn’t receive them, or were forced to pay for them. Also, if you are black but kinda just got to the US, do you get reparations too? Would someone like, say, Trevor Noah, be eligible to receive reparations?

      It is an idea that will make everyone (even people currently facing oppression) pay compensation to the one aggrieved group. And not even all of the aggrieved group, just the ones who are black nowadays. And not even all black people, just the ones with a traceable heritage.

      It’s the opposite of intersectionality, and it’s just so fucking weird that so many people seemed to hold on to that as a sort of litmus test to dismiss Bernie Sanders and only Bernie Sanders. Did Hillary promise reparations? Cause I didn’t hear anyone give her shit for that. Or Obama, now that I think about it.

  7. Kreator says

    or the black gangs slaughtering blacks like its a party

    “What about black on black crime” is yet another racist talking point of the right, a distraction designed to drive attention away from systemic racism. I think you’re giving too much undue weight to white people narratives.

    • says

      “What about black on black crime” is yet another racist talking point of the right

      So what? And if that’s “designed to drive attention away from systemic racism,” do you fall for it? I don’t. But it also doesn’t make me blind to “black on black crime.”

      I think you’re giving too much undue weight to white people narratives.

      I’m sorry if I’m not racist enough in my selection of narratives.

  8. says

    This is disturbing. You’re just doubling down again and again on anti-black racism, and you’re defending it with the same arguments I hear from privileged white dudebros.

    • says

      An argument either has merit or it hasn’t. It cannot be prejudiced by who’s making it. That’s like saying a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, because she’s a woman. Well, actually it’s worse. It’s like saying a woman’s testimony is worthless because she’s a woman.

      Does “white privilege” mean, “It doesn’t matter what you say, if you’re white, you’re wrong?” Just trying to keep up here. I’m a bit behind on my racism.

        • says

          OK. Now I take you seriously.

          I’ve been accused of racism many times, as well as sexism and hatred towards Muslims (actually, I’m accused of “Islamophobia”, but since that’s such a nonsensical term, I’m describing what is actually meant). It is seldom that this is done directly to my face.

          So, I demand that you list, verbatim, every one of the “plenty” instances of racism you find in my posts or my comments. Furthermore, I demand that you explain, exactly, why each instance you quote constitutes racism.

          I swear that if you do not do this, I shall take you to pieces, and I shall feel myself entitled to do so.

          • says

            If I thought for a moment you were interested in listening, that might be a good idea.

            But let’s be honest, all you’re doing…

            I shall take you to pieces, and I shall feel myself entitled to do so.

            … is constructing an excuse to do this, and feel entitled to attack someone for being called out.

            • says

              While I strongly disagree with Nathan, he at least has the merit of standing up for his position, making that position explicit and defending it. He challenges his opponents on their merits or demerits, as he sees them. That makes him a way better person than, for example, the Black Lives Matter cowards that he supports. These cowards can only state their position but cannot defend it. They are not interested in that and rely on bullying to intimidate their opponents* into capitulating. You, however, can’t even achieve as little as that. You state no position at all. Of course you cannot. It is more than can be achieved with your mindless politics. So you’re down to making a virtue of the only thing you can do: troll. This makes you a coward even by the standard of cowards. There are places on the Internet where you can indulge such pisspot politics. This blog isn’t one of them. So take your cowardice and go troll somewhere up your own arse. You can be sure you’ll be safe there and you won’t be out of place.

              * correction: the weakest white people they can find, opponent or not.

  9. Kreator says

    @A Lurker from mexico:

    Bernie Sanders did not march with MLK. He was just there when he gave the “I Have a Dream” speech, and his involvement with the Civil Rights Movement as a whole was relatively brief. As for the rest, you are just talking out of your ass. I cannot say I’m an expert in these issues myself, not being an American, but I know about it just enough to notice that you show an utter lack of understanding of the subject.

    @abbeycadabra:

    Well, if Ben Carson taught us anything, it’s that neither a high intellect nor dark skin protect you from embracing ideas that promote racism.

    • says

      @Kreator:
      *sigh* I’m familiar with your hit-and-run tactics. Right now I expect one of two things from you:
      -A follow up comment about me being an asshole or racist or whatever, with absolutely not a peep about the argument you are supposedly responding to.
      or
      -Dead silence.

      The only response that would mildly surprise me would be for you to attempt a coherent response to all (or any) of the points I made, that you disagree with.
      You should save yourself some time, be a little bit more like your soulmate Donald Trump and just say “Wrong” repeatedly every time you disagree with someone. Same amount of real content, less filler.

      Also, on the “embracing ideas that promote racism”. An explanation? At least the thought process that lead you to that conclusion. Or what ideas, exactly, is Anjuli promoting here? Because all I’m seeing so far is people getting on her shit because she said words that the right-wingers of some godforsaken part of the world that she doesn’t live in decided to use them as code. Oh, right, I’m talking to you. Reasoned responses are not your thing.

  10. Kreator says

    @A Lurker From Mexico:

    Well, first of all, I think that “White people benefit from a system that victimized black people. Now we make them pay for it.” Is an inaccurate way to frame the issue which paints it as more confrontational than it actually is. That last sentence is particularly unfortunate, as it suggests a degree of vindictiveness on the part of black people rather than a desire for justice. In short, and to be completely honest: to me, it feels like a somewhat racist interpretation of the issue.

    The problem with addressing your other arguments about reparations is that they all stem from a hypotetical assumption, that of reparations being carried out as a government program. We really can’t know for sure which is the best way to implement reparations in practical reality, because most white people, like Sanders, simply refuse to have a honest conversation about their necessity in the first place. No action can be taken without the will to carry it out. I refer you to this article: The Case for Reparations

    Also, on the “embracing ideas that promote racism”. An explanation? At least the thought process that lead you to that conclusion. Or what ideas, exactly, is Anjuli promoting here? Because all I’m seeing so far is people getting on her shit because she said words that the right-wingers of some godforsaken part of the world that she doesn’t live in decided to use them as code.

    The idea that BLM activists are being unreasonable troublemakers (“a bunch of unpardonable thugs” – really?) comes from and promotes racism regardless of the specific terms in which it’s put. And then there’s this:

    I’m surprised at how progressives in the US allow racists to push them out of the English language.

    This is the same line of argument I remember from the post “Racism from blacks:” the idea that black people are the real racists. That’s straight out of the book of white supremacists.

    • says

      black people are the real racists.

      You saw this in my post, or in the book of white supremacists, or both? It’s not in my post. I know that because I wrote it. But I’ve not read the book of white supremacists. Thanks for the pointer. And it’s good that you cite your sources. As you see, I always give credit where credit is due.

      • Kreator says

        OK, hyperbole. Sorry, reasoned responses are not my thing after all.

        The argument that pointing out the racism in people’s language is racist is a cherished argument of conservatives when they want to silence critics. That’s all it’s good for.

    • says

      …suggests a degree of vindictiveness on the part of black people rather than a desire for justice.

      Semantics. The recipients of reparations will view it as justice, the ones forced to pay for those reparations will view it as vindictiveness. As is the case almost every time a crime is punished.

      The important questions here are
      “Will Reparations help the black community increase their standing in American society?”
      And if it’s a government program where everyone else’s taxes go up (including those of other oppressed groups) to benefit the one group, it may backfire. Badly. It would isolate the recipients of reparations from everyone else, which is an extremely vulnerable position to be in.

      “Will Reparations be a net positive for the oppressed group or used to oppress yet another?”
      The modern state of Israel is basically reparations for the Holocaust. At the end of the day, the people who were made to foot the bill for this reparation were the Palestinians, who had literally nothing to do with the Holocaust, and are now dispossessed in the name of justice for the jewish people. If the means to alleviate black people’s problems are taken from yet another underprivileged group, then reparations were fucking pointless.

      “Are Reparations even that big of a deal for the people requesting them?”
      I ask this because, again, nobody gave Hillary Clinton shit for this. Only Bernie. Not even Obama. Being indisposed to reparations was an excuse to delegitimize the one dude and literally no one else. If reparations are such a big fucking deal that they would refuse support to a politician on that point only, why are they supporting other politicians who are also not on board?

      to me, it feels like a somewhat racist interpretation of the issue.

      Nobody cares about your feelings.

      The problem with addressing your other arguments about reparations is that they all stem from a hypotetical assumption, that of reparations being carried out as a government program.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_(transitional_justice)

      In transitional justice, reparations are measures taken by the state to redress gross and systematic violations of human rights law or humanitarian law through the administration of some form of compensation or restitution to the victims.

      As far as I can tell, reparations are to be carried out as a government program, otherwise they’re not reparations, they’re charities. But whatever.

      Assuming that there were non-governmental ways of providing reparations, that’s still not what’s being talked about here. That’s not a hypothetical, I know this because:
      -They asked Bernie Sanders. If you didn’t intend for reparations to be a government program, a presidential candidate’s opinion on the matter would be of little importance to you.
      -They lost their shit when he said it wouldn’t pass congress. If your reparations program is not to be undertaken by the government, it’s passage through congress is irrelevant.

      The idea that BLM activists are being unreasonable troublemakers comes from and promotes racism regardless of the specific terms in which it’s put.

      Johnson and Willaford targeted Bernie, not because he was the most deserving of criticism (that’s the Republicans) or the most powerful (that’d be Clinton). They targeted Bernie because he was actually accessible. He was the one with whom they ran 0 risk of getting their heads bashed in. They targeted him because they knew he would be friendly. That’s pretty fucking damning.

      Even more, watching the video, Bernie is warm to them. He offers to shake their hand. He surrenders the stage to them as soon as he knows what’s up. He gives them all the time in the world to voice whatever it is that’s upsetting them. He gave them his platform to speak their minds and they were nothing but demanding and confrontational at all points. What the fuck else was he supposed to do? Get on his knees and lick their shoes?

      That protest was unreasonable. The behavior of those two women was damaging. What the fuck is she thinking yelling “You are a bunch of white supremacists!” at an audience that just spent the last 10 minutes listening to the rambling speech of the self-righteus ass that just hijacked their Medicare event and has been nothing but rude to everyone around her and whose introductory act was to bully an old man off the stage?

      There is nothing racist about rejecting that jackassery. Had they been white dudes fighting for GamerGate, muslims fighting for Palestine, TERFs fighting for white feminism, whatever the fuck their cause and their identity. Rejecting them doesn’t come from or promote anything but them being unlikeable dipshits doing more harm than good.

    • says

      How helpful is this remark in getting anyone to take you seriously? Or this:

      I tend not to believe everything that I’m told under the rubric of faith. So when someone gives me a faith-based justification for a political act, I see it for a political act and dismiss the faith-based explanation.

      or this:

      You and Harris are paying too much attention to their words

      or this:

      Why privilege islam? It’s just another religion among many, and it makes similar claims on the here-and-now as other faiths.

      or this:

      I reject islam, of course, because it’s just another silly religion.

      or this:

      I think Anjuli’s got cause and effect backwards regarding islam.

      I shan’t dignify the slander. As for Islam, you’re saying you’ve already made up your mind about it, so there’s not need for you to actually look at it. The word for that is prejudice. This isn’t something that either Harris or I can be accused of, though many who should know better regularly do so. As for flaws in my logic, I’m always looking for them so I can correct them, and I always thank those who point them out. What say I put money down that you’re never going to show me how I got cause and effect backwards? I’m confident of this not because I think I don’t have it backwards, but because you can’t be taken seriously.

  11. says

    @polishsalami
    Kreator’s claim:

    Bernie Sanders did not march with MLK

    The Snopes article that Kreator used as evidence of said claim:

    …Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington

    Attended MLK’s March to Washington =/= Marched with MLK. DaFuck?

    Words have no meaning to these people, only narrative (as long as it is the narrative they already believe in). If Kreator responds to you at all it will be only to call you a racist or something of the sort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *