It was inevitable, I guess. Because I said that the Democratic field has narrowed to a couple of old white men, and that all candidates are flawed, the Bernie Bros have decided that I am anti-Semitic. It doesn’t matter that I voted for the guy, or that I think Biden is far worse, just the fact that I question his perfection means I must hate the Jews.
I can’t even.
It’s objectively true that they’re not perfect. All of the remaining candidates are too freakin’ old. This is a worry, because we don’t have a very deep bench that will inevitably be truncated by death. Bernie Bros should definitely be concerned, because I don’t see any sign that Sanders has established any kind of plan for a succession. When he dies (is it anti-Semitic to point that out?), will his movement die with him? All signs say yes. This is another of those systemic problems in the political system that won’t be addressed by the current crop of candidates. I sure hope the next generation of Democratic Socialists isn’t coming from the ranks of the Bernie Bros.
It’s delusional to pretend all of the candidates aren’t obviously flawed. Think back to months ago when we had a milling mob of potential candidates. Every one had strengths and weaknesses, and the process, in our perfect world, was supposed to filter them to select the very best. And who did we end up with? Biden. This is no meritocracy, since we ended up with one of the weakest, least inspiring candidates leading the field. If we selected our choice by a process that picked the most competent, smartest, strongest person, Elizabeth Warren would be the last person standing, no question. Instead, I’m probably going to have to cast a ballot for a blithering ninny in the pocket of the financial industry.
So don’t try to tell me I have to worship the products of this broken system. I’m not gonna.
So, what, AOC and “the squad” are chopped liver?
FFS, has anyone said this?
I’m tired of the Bernie Bro crap. I pointed out that he probably isn’t considered white by a large proportion of the population in this country. I also said his joke was probably less a joke that it sounded. That is it. Mild criticism is now attack, I guess.
Yes, they really said that. I’ve received multiple emails from multiple annoying Bernie fanatics.
PZ: Okay, that’s useful information. And that’s bizarre.
Sanders should have a young, progressive running mate, and I’m sure many in the campaign think the same thing.
If it’s Warren instead, that would be good too. (Assuming she ever endorses the non-awful candidate who’s actually fighting for most of her platform…. But there’s only a few days left before 6 more states vote.) If you ask me, it seems like she’d be more valuable as Treasury Secretary, since that fits very well with her background and since VP is hardly an interesting job. But that’s for them to work out.
I should mention that being a Bernie fanatic isn’t necessarily bad — my wife is one, she’s been phone banking/texting for Bernie, and she’s been pretty insistent with me. But she would never accuse someone of anti-Semitism for having doubts about Bernie’s effectiveness or having reservations about some aspects of his policy. There are good Bernie Bros, and there are some very bad Bernie Bros, and they’re the ones who, with their persistence and obnoxiousness, taint the whole movement.
I voted for Bernie in the primary after weighing all the pros and cons. That I would even think there might be some cons is enough in the minds of some of his acolytes to question my sincerity. Those are the ones who are now making me regret my vote a little bit.
I hang out with a lot of very left/liberal woman. Bernie is more pro-woman than Hillary, I would argue, but some of these friends were bending over backwards to criticize Bernie, thereby justifying their voting for Hillary. Rationalization can be powerful on the left as well as the right….
Trolls. In the future when anyone rips on your godlessness, accuse them of anti-Lutheranism. You’re entitled.
PZ, fuck them and have no regrets.
If anyone wants or needs another pep talk, then Cornel West does it like nobody else.
Yeah, “Bernie Bros” or whatever need to save their ire for the Trump boosters… rip the support right out from under the son of a bitch. Maybe knock down some of those back stabbing, masquerading fascist trolls in the process.
Hot heart, cool mind.
They’ll also accuse you of Antisemitism if you criticize Israeli government policy or their treatment of Palestinians.
“Bernie Bros” (or whatever) keep your eyes on the real problem:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/06/bernie-sanders-nazi/
PO’d? Rip the base out from under Tump.
Meh. Criticize any of the candidates and you’ll face some backlash that blows your criticism out of proportion. Some supporters of Harris, Klobachur, Gabbard, and Warren attacked critics as sexist. Some supporters of Booker, and Harris attacked their critics as racist. Some supporters of Buttigieg attacks his critics as homophobic.
Some supporters of any candidate are just not deep thinkers. Yes, there really is a lot of sexist treatment towards the women candidates, yes there’s a lot of racist treatment of the candidates of color, and yes there is some antisemitic attacks against Sanders. But for a small segment of all of their supporters, that’s all it could possibly be. How dare you suggest their favorite is imperfect, it must be because deep down you’re (sexist/racist/anti-Semitic/homophobic). Comes with engaging in politics. Some only engage at the most superficial level. It sucks.
This is depressing:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235747743005642753.html
TLDR: The Black Southern Democrats are politically aware and active — and while they don’t trust white men in general to solve their problems, Biden has been a Democrat for many years. Bernie rails against the “establishment”, but to them, the local active Democratic organization is the “establishment”.
Do they really think that the upper national levels of the party are the same as the local orgs? Maybe not, but I guess the national level sends some support to the local level. Maybe. I don’t know enough about how it all connects together.
No one should be accusing you of Antisemitism. You are clearly at least Bernie-curious, so any kind of hateful emails you’re receiving could only be counter productive if the goal is to bring you on side. I’m a Bernie supporter and it pains me to see awful trolls tarnishing the movement.
I disagree with your assessment that “the movement will die with Bernie.” Instead, I believe that the leftist movement has always existed, constantly forced to pick the centrist candidate, and was ready to rally around a true leftist figure who might emerge. And until Bernie, they simply did not have a national figure of such charisma and moral clarity. For whatever reason, Nader and Dennis Kucinich did not suffice. Jesse Jackson came close. Also, beyond Bernie’s specific personal qualities, I think the financial crisis, Trump, and the internet have a lot to do with it. The time was just right.
It’s true a band-wagon effect has developed as it appeared possible that Bernie could win, and I expect those fair-weather fans to disappear should Bernie lose or pass away. But the leftist movement will live on without Bernie, since it is one based on human decency and social justice.
Warren is a piece of the progressive puzzle, one that can appeal so sectors of the electorate beyond Bernie’s reach, so I really hope all of their supporters can come back together and stop this ugly behavior that helps no one. I’d like to vote for a progressive in November, not Biden.
Ronald Couch @3:
At the same time, until Trump reminds them, lots of people don’t realize he is Jewish.
Oh shit. This doesn’t have anything to do with my conversation with John Morales over on the “No! I don’t want to say bye-bye to Elizabeth Warren!” post?
I never said you were anti-semitic. If that’s what you took from that back and forth I apologize. Sincerely.
Okay, I should read the comment thread before opening my fat mouth. They sent emails. Whew. I don’t mean whew that’s good. I mean whew you weren’t talking about me.
@1 numerobis
Apparently not. Guess the squad and others like Nina Turner Ro Khanna et al don’t make it onto PZ radar. Though it’s always a good idea to check into the campaign of anyone you’ve voted for to see what’s what and who’s who.
Warren was my second choice right up until she betrayed any semblance of progressive policy to “triangulate” a “sensible” position.
That you still like her, and think she’s “the best” kinda sucks. Just a little.
A lot of Bernie fans are extremely sensitive and over aggressive to those who minimize Sander’s to “old white men”. Unfortunately a lot of people who constantly dismiss Sanders as “just another old white man” also try to do the anti-Corbyn playbook of claiming that he’s a raging antisemite because of the Muslim women he’s been supporting, so lots of people preemptively attack instead of properly analysing things.
@MattG “Bernie is more pro-woman than Hillary, I would argue” You’re wrong. No argument needed.
The B Bros seem very Russian bot like to me at times. they swoop in at the worst time and act like complete asshats and piss off or alienate their target. I’ve been a Bernie Stan from way back, but this shot has been put me off. I’m not saying they are bots but some of them are so bad at their outreach they might as well be
Bernie has succeeded despite the broken system, whereas Biden is a central actor and creator of that system. And that, I think, is a crucial distinction.
The Bernie Bro label was deliberately and cynically created by the HRC campaign, which then promoted it via a compliant press. In 2008, the same actors created the Obama Boy myth. There are bad actors in all campaigns – and I personally have been shat on and abused by plenty of Warrenites.
Try not to buy into it, PZ.
I don’t think the comment was anti-Semitic at all, but I do think there is a sad truth being skipped in all this, that to racists Jewish people are always only provisionally white. Sanders has been treated as an old white guy while the women and other minorities were still there. Now that the field has narrowed, the swastikas have started showing up at his rallies.
@20
Nah, MattG is right. No argument needed.
(The argument can be made, but why bother if you won’t?)
Comments like those from kome (#12) and ikanreed (#18) are the ones that really depress me. They say to me that the progressive movement is a farce, much like the atheist movement was. This two-faced aspect makes me not want to be a part of it anymore.
On one hand, we have people trying to make a moral argument. E.g, “You need to support Bernie because people’s lives are literally at stake!” And, similarly, the comments that if we don’t think Bernie is the best candidate for actually protecting people’s lives, we’re shamed for it, which is where ikanreed’s comment comes in.
But then on the other hand, we get the likes of kome who tell us this is all part of the process. kome at least has the decency to acknowledge that “it sucks,” so kudos for that, I guess.
That leaves me wondering who we actually are supposed to be. Are we supposed to be people fighting for justice and righteousness? Or are we just as shitty of people as everyone else?
The reality is the story seems to change based on which one is convenient at the time. We’re the people fighting for justice and righteousness when it comes to comparing ourselves against other people and their candidates who aren’t Bernie. But we’re just like everyone else when asked to tidy up our own house.
The hypocrisy has become blatantly obvious and I am getting sick of it.
I’m also really getting sick of the self-defeating attitudes of the likes of ikanreed. The President is not a dictator and should not be a dictator. That you seem to think they should be kinda sucks. Not just a little, a lot. If you’re too stupid to realize that’s what you’re asking for, that sucks, too. I’m tired of the Bernie supporters who imply (though I have yet to hear one explicitly acknowledge this) that he has a “mandate” if he gets elected. He doesn’t. No more than Trump has. That Bernie has this diverse voter base does not mean he has a mandate. And so he needs allies in Congress. Telling people that they suck is a great way to make allies! (That was sarcasm, obviously?) Sorry that some of us do not believe he’ll have enough allies and don’t want him to act as a dictator in order to get legislation passed without those allies. Sorry that some of us thought Warren would have had a better chance of getting somewhat progressive policies passed because she’s willing to “triangulate” and not be a dictator. If that means we suck, then I’m proud to suck.
@25
Well, I do agree that the progressive movement is a farce, insofar as it’s just the reformist wing of capitalism and I only support it insofar as it might be someday supplanted by something actually left-wing. Couldn’t really care less about the Chris Matthews “Central Park” tirade though.
I’m emphatically not a democrat, and I do not terribly care about what Sanders might have to do to make things happen. If him acting unilaterally through executive orders gets a good chunk of his platform into play, rad. I’m all for it. It won’t avert the inevitable necessity for the capitalist system to be torn down – violently, if need be – but it might make things more comfortable in the meantime. Given that I whole-heartedly advocate for the aforementioned potentially-violent governmental overthrow, I can’t really be bothered by a politician violating the norms of bourgeois electorialism.
#26 Leo Buzalsky
I depress you??? For expressing a concern for my principles being betrayed?
The fucking gall. The pretension and supercilious condescension of you fucking people. Holy hell. Like we’re incapable of having sincere positions that we actually cannot have shoved asside for another 40 years of “good sense” and “pragmatism”?
Do you know why warren lost? Why she went from 40% to 5%? Why no one actually went out and voted for her? Do you understand what happened besides just blindly hating us?
Porivil Sorrens,
Uh, would you like a recommendation of a book about how government works? Or maybe some links to some old “Schoolhouse Rock” cartoons? Because, that shit @26 is just fucking sad.
@28
Feel free to demonstrate so. That said, I don’t put a particularly high value on the political insight of someone who thinks “darth cheeto” is some biting blow against an actual fascist in the most powerful position on the planet.
Says the person who gets all cranky whenever someone even hints at a preference for one-person/one-vote democracy, because what matters is “the party” or “the system” or the rulership of those who make “the rules.”
Fabulous tone, by the way. No clue where the dictator stuff comes from, but that’s par for the course.
oddie wrote:
A lot of them are fighting a battle that ended long ago in 2016. The hostilities in that undying war are not one sided, with the Donut Twitter/”#StillWithHer” (Hillary Clinton fans) and K-Hive (Kamala Harris fans) doing a lot in keeping the battles going. The latter groups have avoided taking much popular blame for their behaviour, but are no less unpleasant or abusive than worst Bernie fans.
Not entirely sure anything can be done to stop these two groups.
Oh, yes, unlike brave, brave, Sir Porivil, but at least I can write a simple, declarative sentence. Seriously, Dude, a 12-year old paint huffer thinks more clearly than you.
Remember the trolls are the ones who aren’t randomly accusing people of huffing paint.
Once again I plead for acronym definition. HRC (Hillary Clinton, or just Hillary). Obvious? Try googling HRC. Bet you’ll see a lot of alternates you didn’t mean to say.
jack16
Yawn. Do you actually have anything to say beyond playground insults? Might want to respond quickly, before the lunch bell rings and you have to return to homeroom.
Oh, golly, “I know you are, so what am I?”
Devastating! I’m sure you have the capitalists all quaking in their boots.
The hits just keep coming. I know I’m certainly put in my place. I might not ever recover.
Rather than trying to snark on some awful Warren supporter, whose contempt for human suffering is pretty obvious, we should be looking for ways to reach out to the non-awful warren supporters.
@Ronald Couch
Well, we could quibble about what your definition of “large proportion” might be, but I suspect I disagree.
There’s a difference between whether Jews, generally, are defined as white in someone’s head and whether a particular person, in this case Bernie Sanders, is defined as white in someone’s head. If you took his photo around the country and showed it to one person at a time, asking “Is this person white?” my guess is that the vast majority would answer, “yes”.
In my congregation, the non-converts among us all generally speak of themselves, think of themselves as white. I know this because my congregation actually discusses racial justice as part of figuring out what problems we see in and what volunteer efforts we want to undertake for our community and how we want to address the needs we’ve identified. Our world-healing work requires us to understand our relationships to others, and in British Columbia and Oregon others relate to use as if we are white.
While it’s definitely true that Jews have been treated as non-white in the past, so have Italians and Slavs and Ukranians. That legacy exists, but you’re not making a claim about the legacy. You’re making a claim about how Sanders is perceived in the US right now. My lived experience might be largely limited to the PNW, but all my lived experience says you’re wrong. So you’re going to actually need to put forward some evidence for your claim if you want me to believe it.
ikanreed:
” whose contempt for human suffering is pretty obvious”
So clever. Such a snappy little phrase.
@38
Indeed, it’s an interesting conundrum. Any that actually care about the issues should be able to recognize that Bernie is far more close to Warren’s platform than Biden’s conservatism is, but in my experience many of them assert electability and then turn into poll-denialists when favorability polls are brought up in favor of a non-Warren candidate.
For some, I think that there’s an insurmountable wall of thought terminating cliches like “no one in the US will vote for a socialist” or “Biden has more policy experience” or “I saw a Bernie fan be mean online so I’m going to vote for a conservative over a progressive out of spite”, but pushing the issues and Biden’s fundamental unfitness for any kind of political position has been somewhat effective in my experience.
It’s going to be amazing to lose 2020 the exact same way we lost 2016, and when the people at fault see it, they’ll blame us.
Again.
Let’s go over some of the (apparently necessary) evidence that Sanders is perceived as Jewish in the US right now. (I’ll just link to the recent “Warren” thread, if anyone wants several more links.)
A Trump supporter waving a Nazi flag at his rally yesterday.
Getting support as the potential first Jewish president, from “Jews for Bernie” and making a campaign ad about it.
Some of his family escaping from Poland, while many others died in the Holocaust.
Talking publicly about it for many years (for example, in the context of his views on Israel/Palestine, the time he spent in Israel, etc.) in numerous articles, shows/videos, debates and so forth.
I donated to Warren and voted for her in the primary. But with regard to Sanders being an old white man, Warren is two of those.
I am, from a certain point of view, a single-issue voter. I support the candidate who seems most guided by a genuine sense of compassion.
People love to shit on compassion, calling it “weak” and “soft,” positioning pragmatism as its clear-eyed opposite. Those people are fools. Compassion is the most pragmatic of all qualities, because there’s nothing better than compassion for getting us to work together and actually get shit done. It builds trust, and it encourages us to work together for the common good. It allows us to see past ourselves to the systemic problems that drag us all down. Compassion is both an emotional and rational force, and it is, I believe, the one thing that can drag us out of the hole we’ve dug ourselves into.
That’s why I supported Warren from the very beginning, without wavering- she clearly comes from a place of compassion, first and foremost. That she engaged in triangulation and adapted to the changing circumstances doesn’t bother me, because so far as I can tell she did so out of a desire to spread as much compassion as possible. She is willing to compromise a lot of things, but not compassion. I saw a lot of compassion in Castro as well, and I was sorry to see him bow out so soon.
I don’t really see a whole of compassion personified in the remaining 2 frontrunners. However, it’s easy to look at their policies and see which best serves the interests of compassion. That would be those of Sanders, obviously. I’d still prefer someone who evinces a deeper understanding of why it’s necessary to provide a social safety everyone, and how that net will have to adapt for people with different lived experiences, but I am satisfied that compassion underlies Sanders’ platform.
Biden, in contrast, obviously does not think deeply about right and wrong. He lacks a basic understanding of the place in which we, as a species, find ourselves, as well as of what needs to be done to save us from ourselves. His “ideology” is based on trying to placate different groups with the minimum necessary effort, so that the money can keep flowing up to the people who got us into this mess. His moral compass is underdeveloped, an unfortunately common problem in our society, and he confuses short-sightedness for pragmatism.
I’ll still vote for Biden if he gets the nomination, for reasons of compassion. He’ll buy us all some extra time to prepare for what’s coming. A lot of people are going to need help when it gets here and, if we’re not going to try to stop it, we’re going to need every moment we can get to save as many as we can.
70 is not 80. Both men are pushing the latter age, and will exceed it before their first term is done. Also, she has not had a heart attack, nor does she appear to be showing signs of senility. Not only were her chances of surviving her first term far better than either of our current top choices, the likelihood of her being able to get through a second term was much, much higher. I don’t think either of the men will last that long given the incredible aging toll we’ve seen the Presidency take on much younger men again and again, and we’re going to have to start again from scratch without the advantage of incumbency in four years (unless they die in office and their VP can take up the mantle before 2024).
That said, I’d rather gamble on Bernie’s heart if he chooses a young running mate, than Biden’s evident senility, which the right is already making hay over (not to mention his handsiness, which is not getting better despite his being made aware that it’s a problem). Also, I hate Biden’s platform.
I voted Bernie in 2016 primaries and Hillary in the general. I voted Warren in the 2020 primary. That makes me a defector or apostate, the worst sort of subhuman. I won’t say anything negative about Bernie so as not to feel the Bern from his most ummm…hmmm…enthusiastic (???) followers. From a story on Vox there seems to be a bit of that going on:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/6/21167830/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-rachel-maddow-bernie-bros
Which is a shame as I like Bernie more than the Senator from MBNA though his hand gestures come across as orchestra conductor.
If PZ were a woman, Bernie Bros would have doxxed him to 4chan/hell and back. Maybe they already have.
You know, as is is their habit.
Oh, look they’re diverting their portfolio; now they’re going after reporters.
If it comes as a shock to anyone that PZ (of all people) is being called anti-semetic for having the slightest criticism/doubt about the good Senator, they’re either been living under a rock or in fucking denial.
Also worth noting: if any other Democratic candidate’s followers had engaged in any close to resembling this behavior, most people on this blog would have been (rightfully) angry to the point of violence. Bernie’s gang, though? Eh, just a few bad eggs, shruggy emoji, whaddya gonna do?
I will absolutely vote for Sanders if he gets the nom, and is many ways preferable to Biden (unlike Joe, he doesn’t appear to bel laboring under the delusion that Republicans can be reasoned with.)
FWIW, I was backing Warren.
But goddamn, when he has followers that are basically MAGAts that can read above the third grade level, it makes it really hard.
From hemidactylus’ link:
Of course, the only possible reason for Warren to hem & haw about endorsing either an asshole who disavows all of her policy priorities or a guy who embraces her policy priorities but supports attack media is that she’s actually a shill for the DNC that never intended to do anything but hurt Bernie. Because facts, duh.
I’m watching Shahs of Sunset and some of the regulars are Persian Jews or better put Iranian-Americans who identify as Jewish. Kinda brownish? Israel brought some Ethiopian Jews into their country. There is also an old distinction between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. I hesitate to map a similar spread to a Latinx analogue as Jewishness is somewhat religious and ethnic where Latinx is largely ethnic. But where I’m going is that both Jewish and Latinx people can fit into a diverse range of skin tones. Introducing some complexity into the mix are the Ladinos who were Jewish or converso Andalusians or Iberians who made their way to the Americas. I had a conversation once with a Cuban exilio who has relevant Jewish ancestry and was amazed I was aware of that migration.
Didn’t Reza Aslan at least joke about identifying as Hispanic in his youth maybe as a cover for being Iranian in the aftermath of the hostage crisis?
Bernie is on the pale end of the spectrum for what that is worth. Whether that makes him a white guy or not I dunno. Skin tone seems to put privilege into the equation even amongst Latinx, African American and Jews in Israel. Are Ethiopian emigres having an easy time?
I probably rambled enough but these things are fascinating and problematic at the same time.
@hemidactylus:
While there are certainly white supremacists who consider Jews anything but “white” regardless of skin color, for most people, probably the vast majority of people Jews are white if they “look white”. When Couch asserted that a “large proportion” of USA residents would consider Bernie non-white, that simply doesn’t jibe with my personal experience. As Jews sitting around talking to other Jews about race, those of us in the Pacific NorthWest areas I’ve lived have rarely spoken about being taken as anything other than white in racial terms. It’s about intersectionality. You can be a Jew of color, but you can – for what appears to me to be the vast majority of people – also be a white Jew.
Now, if Couch had said a large number of persons, rather than a large proportion of persons, that I wouldn’t bother contesting. While 1 million people is a small proportion of 330 million, no one doubts it’s a large number in absolute terms.
White is, and has been for scores of years, an evolving category. In the same NYC spaces where Jewish persons might not have been considered white 60 years ago, Italians weren’t considered white 100 years ago.
Maybe I’m wrong about Bernie as a person and whether or not he’s perceived as non-white by a “large proportion” of the US population, but the question is intersectional and complicated. It’s not answered by saying that he is Jewish – which he is – or that some Nazi group thinks he’s part of a Jewish plot to commit genocide against the white race (which would necessitate thinking that Bernie specifically and Jews generally are not part of “the white race” as those Nazis define it).
Jewish whiteness has been a topic of serious conversation for decades and will continue to be one for as long as Nazis exist. But the Jewish communities where I’ve made a home are largely white and are for the most part instantly perceived as white even when we are simultaneously perceived as Jewish.
Being perceived as Jewish, in short, doesn’t preclude being perceived as white by others or by yourself.
Why didn’t Warren endorse Sanders in 2016?
@52 – Khantron, the alien that only loves
I’ll take a stab at it. So, to preface, no one can know why another person acts as they do except that person, and even then, human minds being what they are, that person might be wrong about what they think caused their own action. If we are feeling aggressive, we might guess that Warren waited until she saw how the 2016 primary was going to play out because it would benefit her and she’s a selfish person who doesn’t care about the world. If we are charitable, we might say that Warren was trying to maximize the chance that she could use her power to make the world a better place, and that endorsing a firebrand who was likely to lose, was not even a member of her party, and was alienating the figures in her party that she would need to work with to use her power to make things better, was not a wise choice. Or maybe she was high on blue-flake cocaine the whole time and listened to the unicorn that was whispering in her ear.
@Khantron:
I don’t know if anyone other than Warren knows for sure, but he was a non-democrat running for the Democratic nomination. While I don’t consider loyalty to party to be a virtue given the state of the two major parties, it’s not out of the realm of conceivable that she might have thought that since he wasn’t a Democrat she wouldn’t endorse him for the Democratic nomination.
I’m sure there are more detailed investigations of this than I’ve read, but what I did read treated it as more or less a mystery, so you should take what I’ve said as speculation only.
@25
There’s always going to be at least some small portion of any candidate’s supporter base that are low information, superficial, shallow thinkers. It really sucks, but unless you think it’s feasible to get everyone to be more sophisticated, you have to accept it. The focus in particular on that segment of Sanders’ supporters – to the exclusion of every time some segment of Harris supporters, or Clinton supporters, or Booker supporters, or Obama supporters, or Buttigieg supporters or Warren supporters who’ve done the exact same thing (changing out only the specific prejudice being accused) – just strikes me as kind of odd.
This isn’t like Trump’s base who fall into the camp of either loving the racism/sexism or tolerating the racism/sexism by pretending it isn’t racist/sexist. This really is a drastically small number of bad actors, who exist almost entirely on the internet, who happen to support a candidate, and likely for reasons completely orthogonal from the values that candidate expresses. If the way a few idiots on the internet act makes anyone question their support of a given candidate, that’s an enormous amount of power that person is giving to complete strangers. If anyone questions their support of an entire political movement on the basis of a selective emphasis on a few morons… that depresses me.
This doesn’t make the progressive movement as a whole is a farce. It means the internet is a haven for assholes, everywhere, and focusing only a few of them and from only one one place of many that they come from is a recipe for disaster. I really do not wish anyone ever to fall into the trap, even for a moment, of thinking that a few idiots’ behavior online is somehow more representative of a politician’s base / supporters of a political ideology than the behavior of the mass of people acting offline when championing that politician / ideology is.
As far as judging a candidate by their worst advocates, I think it is a mistake. My two most preferred candidates this time were Warren and Sanders, just marginally in that order, and whenever I have been in a forum that was dominantly in favor of one and saw the dishonest trashing of the other, I admit I felt it and thought somewhat less of the the candidate whose proponents were acting so poorly. Most of the online forums I frequent are more slanted to Bernie, so I have seem more shitty behavior by Bernie supporters, but check out the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog comment sections if you want to see what Warren supporters can get up to when left on their own.
@22, Not so much. The term Bernie Bro was made up by Robinson Meyer in 2015, in an article for the Atlantic, spelled “Berniebro”.
@kome:
I would say strikes me as wrong, but sure. I get why if you’re on the receiving end you might want Candidate X to do more to try to curtail the behavior, but as far as voting goes, it doesn’t matter how nasty any one supporter gets (or even any small group of supporters). I’ll vote on the candidate, the candidate’s policies, the candidate’s qualities, the candidate’s behavior.
Still sucks when you’re in the middle of it.
@psychomath
Right with you, as I think we both are with kome.
Wonkette also, too. I hang out on Wonkette more than here on FtB, and though they have Bernie supporters, overall they were leaning much more toward Warren. I’ve had to speak up now and again there about just that kind of thing. I actually don’t think it’s as bad there with anti-Bernie stuff as it has been on FtB lately with anti-Warren stuff, but every single thread there gets 300+ comments and a lot of open threads of liveblogging-the-debate threads get over 2000+ comments so there could be more extreme stuff there that I haven’t seen.
Either way it’s fucked. And the worst part is that we can try to block it out when we’re asked to go vote for the nominee, but we’re all human beings and some people won’t be able to do so.
Most Berniebro apologists make the same mistake as Gamergate apologists. If you grant that Bernie is the face of a mass movement, then the fact that that mass movement has a lot of unsavoury types in it is a valid reason to be wary of it.
Just like ‘moderate’ Gamergaters couldn’t say ‘not all Gamergaters’. If you’re part of a voluntary mass movement, those who take part in it, claim membership, and are seen as problematic, will taint the movement. If there is not enough mass in the movement to throw out the assholes, third parties are free to think the worst.
The other view is that Bernie is a leader of that movement. In which case he is responsible for policing it (or delegating that). Given that he can be seen as allied with the less savoury part of that movement (Rogan endorsement, Chapo Trap House, his staff appointments), it is on him to clean house. The best he did in this campaign was a mealy-mouthed both-sides non-apology and suggesting they were Russian trolls.
Neither is good optics.
mvdwege:
But that conflates Bernie the politician with the mass movement using his face.
Two different things, but you only speak of the movement.
Quite possible to vote for Bernie without supporting the movement, no?
That would count as supporting him, BTW.
oh, yeah:
Optics are worrisome for some, I know. Are you one such?
John @70:
No, that’s the point. If the mass movement claims Bernie, then the assholes in that movement do, ipso facto, too. Hence my comparison to Gamergate. You can’t say you’re a movement open to everyone and then go “oh, no, they’re not members” if some assholes pop up. You have to police that shit from the get-go.
So if it’s a leaderless mass open to anyone, assholes claiming to be Bernie supporters do get to claim that.
And yes, it is quite possible to be in favour of Bernie but not his movement. However, if he does not distance himself enough from the assholes, then that is a legitimate criticism to make. It may not even be a disqualifying criticism, but simply denying that the possibility exists is something I see a lot of Bernie supporters do as a reflex.
Also note that some Bernie supporters have a tendency to sell “he leads a movement” as a positive selling point when facing criticism that Bernie does not draw enough support from Democrats, only to then turn around and disclaim anything bad in that movement when criticism comes.
While I do think it’s important to recognize it’s a pretty small minority of his supporters, there are some REALLY toxic Bernie Sanders supporters out there and, justified or not, they’re seriously hurting his campaign. Furthermore I’m getting really annoyed with the less-toxic parts of his online following acting like it’s no big deal that a couple hundred thousand people go around viciously attacking anyone who so much as glances at another candidate and like I’m crazy for thinking it might hurt the general public’s opinion of Sanders.
No I don’t think that’s important to recognize at all.
And not particularly true, either.
Of course none of this could be the work of intentionally divisive trolls. And we know for a fact that bad actors like Putin have absolutely no interest in what’s going on with the Sanders campaign. And common sense tells us that even they did, there would be absolutely no way that some jerk Bernie supporters or Bernie opponents could fall into the trap of becoming inflamed by propaganda; so the spread of division is all Bernie’s fault. Plus it’s a proven fact that the words ‘Democatic Socialist’ are evil.
Oh wait.
It’s hardly surprising that things are getting hot. So criticize, but don’t use it as an excuse to hate on Bernie. Insinuating that there is some secret message in the Bernieverse that turns people into asshats is not helpful. We know from watching Trump what it looks like when a campaign turns people rancid.
Hey, don’t criticize me just because I’m the world’s most credulous rube with no actual political convictions. I used to support free healthcare and green environmental plans, but I saw someone send a mean animal emoji on Twitter so now I’m a neoliberal centrist.
Plus, Bernie was endorsed by people I don’t like and didn’t turn down the associated voting blocks, so now I have to vote for a dementia-ridden racist zombie.
@59 and @61
That’s not a fair comparison at all. GamerGate was an online movement, so the behavior of people online was representative of the movement. The Sanders campaign – and for that matter, any politician’s campaign, including Trump’s – is not restricted to being online. It is a blatant category mistake to assume the way people online act in those capacities is necessarily how the movement acts offline. In the case of Trump, we see their offline behavior is on par, or in some cases worse, than their online behavior. In the case of Sanders, the offline behavior is nowhere near aligned with how a few people online are acting.
Also, to be perfectly clear. I’m not acting as an apologist for anyone’s behavior. When people viciously attack others on baseless grounds for the crime of being critical of a candidate, that’s some messed up bullshit. It should be called out. It should be repudiated. It’d be even nicer if it wasn’t only being called out in regards to Sanders, but one step at a time, I suppose (still, kind of noteworthy that this only ever comes up with regards to the most anti-establishment candidate in a given election and not for any of the bullshit being pulled by more establishment-friendly candidates). I’m only attempting here to draw attention to the fact that generalizing to an entire political movement, which exists primarily offline and not online, from the behavior of a few pricks online is also some messed up bullshit (albeit a different kind of messed up bullshit).
I’d also disagree with your presumption that Sanders has attracted “a lot” of bad actors, either as an absolute judgement or a relative-to-other-candidates judgement, but that’s a separate issue. Still, I would generally recommend you be a little more cautious as you appear to be making a lot of hasty generalizations. That does not do anyone any favors in political discourse.
Let’s talk about some of the things which hurt Biden’s campaign, since that’s what Republicans will certainly do if he becomes the nominee.
His radical centrism, corporatism, militarism, authoritarianism, and bigotry have terrorized countless people for decades, in this country and around the world. He is the real radical, not “moderate” in any sense worth caring about.
What’s radical? The Iraq war, the war on drugs, his crime bill and capital punishment, the Patriot Act, don’t ask don’t tell, DOMA, NAFTA, border fences, his anti-choice record including the Mexico City policy, etc, etc. Each of these is vastly more harmful than whatever some Bernie supporter said on the internet, which of course has also been clearly and repeatedly denounced by Sanders himself.
Biden has given just about everybody except his wealthy donors, regardless of their political affiliation but especially Democratic and Independent voters, all sorts of good reasons to reject him as a candidate. And in the end, a voter really only needs one to tip the balance against him. What prevents many from rejecting him is that they simply don’t know much about the dude — he’s just a familiar name with a familiar face.
He’s the same kind of politician who got us Trump last time, only with an even less enthusiastic group of supporters than Clinton had. And his basic promise is to change nothing. It’s hard to understate the stupidity and evilness of that, but “moderates” like him still think this is somehow good “strategy” … or at least they say it and want us to believe this is good strategy.
So if we let it happen, a united and rabid Republican party, backing up a thoroughly shameless Trump, will rip him apart in the general election. You should probably start worrying about that before it’s too late.
In contrast, Sanders has a very solid record. He’s well liked, and people see him as one of the most honest and trustworthy politicians in the country. It’s true that many Trump voters will wail about “socialism,” but they will mainly be talking to themselves. Democrats and Independents typically understand why that is just so much bullshit. It is not hard to grasp the idea that the Sanders platform wouldn’t transform this country into Soviet Russia or whatever, because that kind of thought requires a total lack of comprehension (or craven dishonesty, as with many Trump supporters).
It is built on simple, non-radical ideas like equality, fairness, democracy, and respect for human rights. Except for some folks deep in the right wing who are lost to us, basically everybody finds things like this at least palatable if not absolutely necessary in politics. Beyond that, plain old honesty and integrity go a long way for many people too, which Biden is severely lacking.
Bernie has if anything been way too cordial about Biden (at least so far), because of the severe criticism he gets in the media any time he opens his mouth. Every minute you waste talking about “bros” saying mean things on the internet, aligning yourself with the neoliberal establishment media and party leadership, brings us closer to yet another “centrist” disaster in the general election.
Don’t get me wrong — there certainly are “bros” worth complaining about (in every faction, if we’re being fair). But I propose that you don’t waste any more time on that crap, because right now, we have an election to win.
Because the criticism of “Bernie bros” goes too far. Does some of the negativity attributed to Sanders supporters cross the line? Yes, absolutely. But some of these negative attacks are necessary to hold powerful people accountable for their record. Chapo Trap House is a garbage fire in a lot of ways (Amber specifically) but it’s also where you’ll hear about Biden’s allegiance to the predatory credit card industry by way of Delaware’s unique position. That’s not a narrative the mainstream media will spread, and it’s valuable that they spread alternative narratives favorable to the left.
But beyond that what irks people is that it’s a double standard, establishment Dem sympathizers are often extremely vicious online and cross the line substantially as well. I’ve seen Bidenites saying Ilhan Omar married her brother, that the squad doesn’t deserve to be defended from the racism they get because they support Bernie, or that the Squad supports Sanders, an alleged misogynist, because they come from backwards cultures. And that’s just what I’ve seen personally. I’ve heard rumors the “Khive” is particularly vicious, though I cannot personally confirm.
The berniebros didnt turn me off from voting for Bernie, but they did turn me off from engaging with any left organization. Bernie sanders supporters are insufferable in my experience which I admit might just be my experience alone. They are part of the reason I feel the movement has a big poser problem. An excuse to act like dipshits.
And its not hard to believe it turns off potential voters. Those on the fence which are the ones we need since the diehard fan base is notorious for attending rallies but not actually voting.
@Stroppy, #64:
I haven’t seen anyone here use the bad behavior as an excuse to hate on Bernie. At most some folks here – not me – have said that they like Bernie less because they thing that Bernie’s response to these people is undesirable in some way (like consenting to be a guest on a radio program that engages in this kind of thing – that’s his choice, he doesn’t have to support the people acting like assholes). I’m sympathetic to that perspective in the sense that I see how someone’s feelings about Bernie’s choices in this area could cause them to like Bernie less. It may be my distance from the campaign (including knowing nothing about what the specific bad things are that the radio show is said to have done) and the fact that as a non-democrat I don’t have to vote in the primary, but even Bernie’s own behavior and choices that others reasonably criticized has not actually made me like him less.
I went into this process thinking that Bernie was a flawed human being and a flawed candidate, but if someone looked too perfect, I’d be suspicious. We can try to package our images, but none of us actually are perfect. The amount of flawed-ness, whatever you take it to be, that he might demonstrate by going on a radio show run by (worst case) harassers and bullies just isn’t sufficient to make him a less desirable candidate to me. It would be different if he participated in the harassment and bullying, but I haven’t seen any of the critical writers allege that, just that he went on the show.
The Bernie proponents like to point out that Bernie is a separate person from his supporters, and I agree. I think everyone here agrees. So why, then, is criticism of Bernie’s supporters seen by the Bernie proponents as criticism of Bernie himself?
In short, it doesn’t actually seem like you should have a problem with people criticizing Bernie’s supporters. It seems like you should have a problem with the people jumping in to defend Bernie against attacks that aren’t leveled at him. Those are the people who, apparently, have trouble separating criticism of supporters from criticism of a candidate.
Congratulations to Porivil Sorrens for the single whiniest, least useful comment in this entire thread. Your #65 is a masterpiece of froth, a true subtlety, engaging with literally none of the other participants in this thread. Is it outstanding in the field in a very true sense.
==========
@kome, #66:
I don’t think you’re getting mvdwege’s point. mvdwege is addressing the question of whether or not it’s legitimate to simply assert that the assholes are somehow “not part of the movement”.
The question here is whether there was a pre-existing movement that Sanders jumped in front of, calling himself the leader. If this is what happened, then it’s at least a legitimate argument to say that Sanders has no right to determine who is in or out of that movement, and thus picking a movement full of assholes to join and lead is a choice for which Sanders can be held accountable, and Sanders’ attempted defense by insisting that the assholes aren’t part of his coalition is non-responsive to the criticism. The choice for which Sanders would be criticized, in this hypothetical scenario, is picking a group full of assholes as the group he wants to be part of. Declaring the assholes personae non grata after the fact does not in any way negate the legit questions that would exist about what attracted him to a group full of assholes in the first place.
Not only that, but since it was the mob that formed the movement, not Sanders, then the comparison with Gamer Gate kicks in: a movement without a leader has no one empowered to say who is in or out of that movement. Anyone could say that they were a gamergater, and anyone (in this hypothetical) could say that they’re part of whatever movement it is that Bernie chose to lead.
There are two things being compared here – if this is a mass movement that predates Bernie’s leadership that Bernie chose to jump in front of, then first both gamer gate and the Bernie related mass movement would be effectively leaderless, and secondly Bernie could be criticized for choosing to be associated with either one since he knew or should have known that he was jumping in the middle of a bunch of assholes.
The online character of the situation doesn’t enter into it.
This doesn’t mean that I agree with mvdwege. I just think that you misunderstood mvdwege’s point and am thus attempting to clarify what that point was so that productive discussion could move forward.
People address the problems which affect them. Biden’s supporters might be complete asshats, but I don’t hang out with any Biden supporters. As far as I can tell, there are no true Biden supporters on FtB, only some (and it doesn’t seem to me to be many) who think that both Biden and Sanders are terribly flawed and see Biden as the least bad of the remaining 2 choices. (I think they’re wrong, of course, but I’m only pointing out that it’s possible to think that Biden sucks less without actually enthusiastically supporting Biden.)
Since there are no loudmouths asshats on FtB screaming at others to vote for Biden, we lack this potential motivation to criticize Biden supporters here.
We also tend to criticize only relevant choices. If I’m at a confectioners and waffling back and forth between the good and bad of two different desserts when trying to pick my order, I might say something negative about each while not saying anything negative at all about all those other sugary treats. So if I then pick one of those two treats I said something bad about, does that mean I picked a worse treat than all those others in the display case? I mean, I didn’t even mention anything negative about them, right? So if I didn’t criticize them, that means they must be better, right?
No. It means that they aren’t good enough to even fucking consider. If I criticize the way that some Sanders supporters act but don’t criticize the way some Biden supporters act, it could be that the relevant distinguishing factor is that my criticism is offered because I’d like the Sanders campaign to be better because I’d like the Sanders campaign to actually win. I don’t give a fuck about Biden. In this election my minimum standards are that the winning candidate should be non-Republican and non-Trump. But that doesn’t mean I want Bozo the Clown to win, and it doesn’t mean I want Biden to win.
So when you’re wishing that people were criticizing Biden, ask yourself, “Do you really want a better Biden campaign, or do you just want Biden to lose and go away?” Because maybe you don’t want Biden to get criticism from which he could learn and become more successful. Maybe you, like me, already think he’s too damn successful.
Putting those two things together, allow me to sum up:
In other words, maybe its actually a good thing that people care enough to criticize the Sanders movement instead of dispensing with it altogether like I do Biden and Gabbard.
@logicalcat:
And this is a huge problem. If you go to phone bank for Bernie, you’re not hanging out with Bernie, you’re hanging out with Bernie supporters. If you’ve never been to a phone bank event, you might never even show up if your opinion of Bernie supporters is shaped by their bad behavior, not the good things that they are doing. If you get over that and go to a phone bank, but the asshats are showing up to phonebank as well, you might never transition to consistent volunteer. You might be turned off and give only 3 or 4 hours to a campaign that you might otherwise have given 40 or 80. That’s a serious loss to the campaign, in both scenarios.
If the only thing we do is vote, we aren’t really doing enough. We should care about whether or not the Bernie movement and the Bernie campaign are full of asshats. It makes a difference.
Another less talked about issue with bernies fanatics is their penchant for conspiracy theories. Who spread the Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary conspiracy? It started with bernie supporters.The dnc rigged the primary is a pervasive one that continues till today. I remember the fake ass “study” from ElectionJusticeUSA and spread by Lee Camp. His videos about the “study” confirming that she stole delegates. It was a Russia Today piece which we now know was part of their russian propaganda. And it was spread by bernie supporters.
And then theres the outright lies. There is a lot to say negatively about Clinton, but most of the anti clinton stuff was flat out false, conspiracies, or distortions of the truth. It turned me off greatly.
I was a Warren supporter. I tried to explain to my bernie supporter family how I saw Bernie’s fight with Warren, which he started by subtly attacking her in violation of their no-fight agreement by couching an implication that she is an elitist within flowery language about her. It was subtle, but clear, and Warren certainly took it as an attack because she made a statement of disappointment shortly after the news of that broke (Bernie went on to cancel the new strategy saying it was poorly worded) and then a day or so later she leaked what he told her in their meeting to draw up that agreement. Like a general on the battle field she decided her best move to counter this breech and change in Bernie’s tactic against her. Bernie initially responded with a halfway admission but sort of denial and by the time of the debate he went all in on implying she was lying–straight up denial–and she confronted him about that immediately after that debate. Now I pointed out how Bernie had no problem setting up the fight as a he said/she said fight where he gets to benefit from his male privilege of being believed while women are seen too easily as liars. And no one cared. Media stopped reporting on what Bernie did to initiate the fight, they simply reported Warren’s leak and some folks thought she had no reason to do that. All of that showed how easy it is for male candidates to fall into default behavior that relies on sexist assumptions, taking advatange of how their privilege helps them as a man. There was no expectation that Bernie should have been concerned about not reinforcing that stereotype about men being more believable than women and should have spent the energy and effort to come up with a response that did not trade on those sexist assumptions. Except, I had those expectations because I know the only way we can stop the forces that made sure all the women in this field dropped out, even the most qualified of all the candidates, is by getting down to the nitty gritty and analyzing what we are doing that might be propping up all the sexist structure around us and figuring out how to do things differently. In that particular situation it was not even hard to do. I wrote out several statements Bernie could have made that did not imply Warren was lying but still functioned as powerful defenses he could use. But when I tried to discuss this I was told it was extremely unfair that I was attacking a man who is not given his due credit and I am dissing his whole campaign and legacy and damn it, he had a heart attack and I still attacked like that! Give him some credit I was told. And then Biden support of Saudia Arabia was brought up as a Dear Muslima type response, saying how bad women have it over there! Never, not once was my specific complaint ever acknowledged as a fair reading of what happened nor did they try to say why they disagreed and thought they had a better reading and certainly not admit that yeah, hey, that was a serious lapse in putting our belief in ending sexism into practice. Nope. No criticism can be tolerated.
But today, I happened onto a site of Biden supporters, first time ever. I was dumbfounded by what I found there. They were discussing various problems they each had with Biden’s record and how they were weighing those flaws against what they saw as his pluses. One guy asked why he was reading so many complaints about Biden on a support site for Biden and multiple people answered because there were legitimate criticisms to make, like how he treated Anita Hill, etc. Do you realize how welcoming that was? How refreshing? I want to encourage that kind of supporter. Not the same sort of mindless followers Trump encourages. I have never supported Biden nor sent him a donation but I will today. In this awful age of Trump where no supporter can speak ill of him, we don’t need a democratic candidate whose supporters believe the same and take ugly actions to enforce that No Criticism rule. We must be able to criticize the candidate we support, otherwise we can never hold them accountable when they get in office. Bernie supporters, even nice family members who don’t do the horrible online threats and trolling, are the pits when they tolerate such guru worshiping among them. I’ve moved over to Biden.
And that just shows how poorly Bernie plans for the support he needs. He couldn’t imagine that not too far in the future he may need Warren’s endorsement? Maybe he should not imply she is a liar on TV when millions are watching? And then Super Tuesday came and all those suburban women came out and voted against him. His revolution youngsters never showed up own the numbers he promised. I took pleasure in that. I remembered what he had done to Warren and I was furious for his unwillingness to give avoidance of participating in obvious sexist assumptions any time or effort even though I was being blasted with texts from his supporters that BERNIE IS A FEMINIST! LOL! His supporters were shocked by his losses. Not me. I will only vote for him if he wins the nomination. I vote blue no matter who. But I will now work hard to make sure he does not get our nomination.
I like how Bernie Bros and Bernie himself completely deny this phenomenon. Yet outside of that the experience with them seems to be universal. Like how many times do people have to report getting attacked and sometimes even physically assaulted by the Bernie Bros for people to just sit down and think, “maybe these millions of people aren’t all lying”? Instead that’s just the establishment rigging the system, I guess.
Enjoy undermining all your so called principles then, and the well deserved hatred of everyone crowdfunding insulin right now. I have friends online starving, without care, without help, and you’re helping screw them in a fit of pique.
For crying out loud, that should have been 76.
I might add, Warren got her start fighting that scumbag before his brain rotted.
Uh, Feministhomemaker, you do know Biden supporters are being real racist toward The Squad right now.
Why are the Sanders supporters anger at Warren for attacking Bernie (justified or not, you can be upset at someone for such attacks) beyond the pale, but vicious racism against AOC, Omar, and Tlaib is nothing?
It’s just a weird double standard. I can’t qwhite put my finger on it.
Correction to my last comment, I think I accidentally drew a false equivalency between snake emojis and vicious racism. This was a mistake. The racism from Bidenites is unequivocally worse.
@72
I don’t think you’re getting mvdwege’s point. mvdwege is addressing the question of whether or not it’s legitimate to simply assert that the assholes are somehow “not part of the movement”.
Where are you getting that from? Based on mvdwege’s posts, that person seems to be generalizing from a few bad actors online to the larger movement that is Sanders’ political campaign and then trying to justify that generalization. For instance, let’s take this very clear comment:
From @60
If you’re part of a voluntary mass movement, those who take part in it, claim membership, and are seen as problematic, will taint the movement. If there is not enough mass in the movement to throw out the assholes, third parties are free to think the worst.
How is that in any way addressing people trying to pretend that there aren’t assholes who support Sanders’ campaign? That is entirely a justification for critiquing the entire political campaign on the basis of a few people being jackasses online. That is entirely a justification for believing that online behavior of a small subset of people is representative of an offline political campaign. These are critiques that are only levied against Sanders, despite it happening (or having had happened, for past elections) with every other candidate in the social media era.
Assholes are part of every campaign. Period. How come it only comes up to haunt Sanders? Is it really that hard to find legitimate criticisms of his policy positions or his past as an elected official? I shouldn’t think so, because he’s imperfect and flawed* (see note at the bottom for some of my own criticisms of Sanders). But this seems to be the only argument against Sanders that gets any traction: a few people online who support him are mean to the supporters of other candidates. What disingenuous nonsense, and what a pathetic double standard to hold Sanders to.
Back to @72:
The question here is whether there was a pre-existing movement that Sanders jumped in front of, calling himself the leader.
I’m sorry, but where was that the question at all in this thread? And I thought the question was, as you put it just a few sentences before “the question of whether or not it’s legitimate to simply assert that the assholes are somehow ‘not part of the movement'”. Which is it?
*I disagree with him, for instance, for his supporting mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That is entirely a propaganda technique by the anti-science anti-GMO movements and Sanders shows support for it. That worries me.
*I disagree with some of his ideas on gun control. Many gun control policies he supports do have empirical evidence to show that they work to reduce injury/death (background checks, safe storage laws, buyback programs, etc.), but Sanders also supports gun control policies that appear to have no appreciable effect on gun violence, such as assault weapons bans. He probably isn’t doing himself any favors by supporting demonstrably ineffective gun control policies that gun nuts can point to to dismiss all of his more sensible and effective gun control policy positions.
How the crap did my html tags get swallowed in that last comment? Ugh… I need more coffee =/
Apologies.
@Khantron.
No one is defending Biden or his supporters bigotry. We are talking about berniebros because thats where our experience lay. Also because when Bidens supporters act like trash its does nothing to his campaign but when the left does so it hurts their campaign.
I don’t disagree that Biden supporters or Warren supporters or, well, even PUMAs don’t hurt their campaigns even when they act worse.
One reason is that, simply, there are more Sanders supporters. And I think paying more attention to badly behaving supporters of a candidate because they have more supporters is small d anti-democratic.
When those supporters sabotage their candidates chances of winning the primary its not small d anti democratic.
Even worse when those supporters ended up trying to sabotage other candidates chances of winning because they were sore losers. Dont forgrt that sanders supporters acted as another wing of anti democratic propaganda during 2016 general election pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories and outright lies about Hillary Clinton.
So uncharitable narratives about Sanders’ supporters are okay in 2020 as revenge for 2016? I think whatever your moral stance on whether that revenge is justified, it certainly seems like a tactical mistake.
It seems these actions by mainstream Democrats going to cause much of the same environment that caused the election of Trump in 2016. And I think that people aren’t taking seriously how dire the consequences of a second Trump term can be. So far his administration has been a Reagan-like in its fascism but I expect it to ramp up in a second term. Provoking the “Bernie bros,” because of mistakes they made in 2016 is a just too dangerous.
@Khantron:
I have no idea what you mean by this. I mean, it’s objectively true since there actually exist people who support Trump. But that’s a trivial truth. He wouldn’t have gotten elected in the first place if he didn’t have some number of supporters. So… congratulations on saying something true, I guess?
But once you get past the completely trivial sense in which you’re correct, the really useful sense would have to be interpreted “I think that people in this thread…” If you’re talking to people who aren’t reading you, then it’s hard to see how your statement is useful in any way. I mean, it could be useful as background information in some longer argument, but I don’t see a longer argument in your #88 into which that information fits. If you are trying to address people who are reading you, how would they know? You’re criticizing a mental state, and you’re doing it without even defining it. How “seriously” does one need to “take” the “direness” of the consequences to evade your criticism? There’s not even an attempt to tell us.
So how are you saying anything that’s actually useful? If that’s your problem, shouldn’t you either
a) go to where people are doing that so your criticism falls on the ears who need it, or
b) quote some specific part of someone else’s comment so that we know what behavior (rather than what invisible, undefined mental state) you’re actually criticizing.
If you don’t want people to think that you’re engaged in pure victim blaming, you’re going to have to explain your admonishment to others to avoid “provoking” the Bernie bros b/c they are “dangerous”.
CD, it’s self-explanatory.
P1 It seems these actions by mainstream Democrats going to cause much of the same environment that caused the election of Trump in 2016.
P2 And I think that people aren’t taking seriously how dire the consequences of a second Trump term can be.
P3 So far his administration has been a Reagan-like in its fascism but I expect it to ramp up in a second term.
C Provoking the “Bernie bros,” because of mistakes they made in 2016 is a just too dangerous.
(Note that what is said to be dangerous is the provocation, not the BBs themselves)
I think you’re missing the fact that P2 plays no role in the logic chain. There’s nothing in the argument that says that if people just felt differently about a Trump second term, then creating the same environment wouldn’t lead to a second term.
There’s an unspoken argument that if people felt differently about a Trump second term, then they wouldn’t take the predicted/current actions and if they didn’t take the predicted/current actions then the “same environment” wouldn’t be created. But what makes the difference is the set of actions taken, not the feelings people have in their heads while they’re taking those actions. P2 simply has no effect on the outcome.
Now, it might be that convincing people to have more fear of a Trump 2nd term would have an effect on their behavior, but who knows? The point is that behavior changes, not feelings. So why p2 at all? Who is this for? To whom is Khantron speaking? It’s not at all apparent.
Also, while the conclusion might seem to flow, what Khantron appears to be arguing is that some asshats are going to not support Trump’s opponent if they aren’t happy, thus we should coddle the asshats.
Maybe that’s even true, but since we’re dealing in hypotheticals it’s equally true to say that if the asshats weren’t asshats and insisting on being coddled, then we would be more likely to prevent a Trump 2nd term. Khantron’s version blames team 1 for team 2 pouting and taking their ball and going home. Even if the logic was airtight, Khantron is proposing a sufficient change to defeat Trump, not a necessary one, because the alternative – asshats could also just stop being asshats – is just as effective in the hypothetical.
So between the two, I’m going to go with the one that doesn’t take the same form as “Don’t provoke the mass shooter, it’s too dangerous”. I think that places an immoral responsibility on one actor for the choices of another actor, where I believe that moral responsibility is only properly placed on the person who makes the choice.
So if people are making a bad climate through their choices, criticize those choices, not their feelings. If “Bernie bros” or anyone else is “dangerously” threatening efforts to defeat trump, criticize their dangerous choices.
It’s not that hard.
CD,
I merely clarified the claim by shoehorning it into a syllogistic frame, so the form of a logic chain is an artefact of my manipulation.
I do imagine P2 is there for a reason.
This site’s readership, I presume. :)
What if those choices are avowedly based on those feelings?
(This seems analogous to the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality — you can have the feelings, just don’t act on them)
This is certainly analogous to my stance on the Catholic Church: They can feel negatively toward licking clits all they want, but when they outlaw sodomy (or try to) or tell vulnerable people not to use condoms that behavior concerns me.
I’m against thought crime, and if the Catholic Church church ever got to the place where you describe (It’s okay to think gay stuff, just don’t do the gay stuff) I would consider that a major ethical step forward for the organization. As it stands, however, I think they’ve merely downgraded “thinking gay stuff” from excommunication-worthy to a lesser level of sin equivalent to actually raping children – not good, and certainly nothing you wanna tell anyone about outside of confession, but totally forgivable.
[OT]
“Catholic teaching on homosexuality is laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a number of magisterial documents. The Church teaches that while homosexual sexual acts, like all sexual acts outside of marriage, are sinful, having a homosexual orientation itself is not a sin. It also teaches that LGBT people, like all people, are to be treated with respect. ”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teaching_on_homosexuality)
… so maybe I don’t understand Catholicism, but as I had thought that thinking about boinking your neighbor (to whom you are not married) was still something you were supposed to admit in confession. “Having a homosexual orientation” may not be a sin, but unless I’m wrong (which I could easily be, not being Catholic) fantasizing about gay stuff would still be a sin. This is the whole, “committing adultery in your heart” bit extrapolated to bumping gay bits.
Have they decided that committing adultery in your thoughts is no longer something one is supposed to confess? If so, that’s major improvement in Catholic doctrine. Unless more info develops, I’ll lean toward your interpretation, John Morales, out of deference to the fact that you obviously care enough to research this which is more respect than I have for things the RCC says.
kome @83: because, like Gamergate, if you’re a movement open to all, you don’t get to claim it’s just a few assholes. The assholes are free to claim the movement in absence of clear opposition.
If it’s a leaderless movement, that makes the movement suspect, because it gives cover to assholes, and you shouldn’t associate with it.
If it is a movement actively being led by someone, they have a responsibility to disclaim the assholes being members, or they will be (rightly!) be seen as okay with it.
CD had my meaning correctly.
And the best Bernie has done is a mealy-mouthed ‘both sides have assholes, and besides, mine are Russian plants’.
Not. Good. Enough. Criticism for that stance is warranted, and simply denying the problem exists? Well, I would not have expected Messianic fervour on a site dedicated to rationalism.
He’s criticized them (his own supporters) on multiple occasions. Evidently, you haven’t paid attention or don’t want to acknowledge that.
Not only has Sanders criticized his own supporters – more than I think is actually warranted – I can’t imagine thinking a person running for president has any obligation to decry a bunch of twenty-somethings posting animal emojis on social media.
That anyone affords that any weight at all goes to show that voting is just an aesthetic choice for most people, even self-described progressives.
I was speaking to Warren voters who used the existence of “Bernie bros” as their excuse to vote Biden. I will submit that voting Biden for this reason could be an admission that they don’t take Trump seriously.
This is because if you’re voting for Biden for this reason, the Warren to Biden (WtB) voter likely thinks the toxic Bernie bros are a substantial enough portion of the Sanders base to negatively reflect on Sanders. I will say I very well might be reading too much into their view on this, but I think it’s a fair assessment.
I will also assume that the WtB voter will also think these Bernie Bros would be less likely to vote for Biden or maybe even vote Trump. I have seen moderate Democrats suggest this was the case in 2016, and that it’s a reason Clinton lost.
Based on these two suppositions if you think Sanders has a serious problem with toxic Bernie Bros then it still suggests voting for Sanders is the right move as a harm reduction measure. It would pragmatic to support Sanders to avoid the Democrats losing this voting bloc. A possible reason a WtB would take this risk is if they don’t think Trump is the threat that he is.
Should read
“it would [be] pragmatic to…”
Yes. You’re reading too much in. When someone says that they really, really like spice cake and of all the cakes at the table it’s their 1st choice, and it’s not even so much that they hate the chocolate cake, but because the asshats surrounding the chocolate cake are being such douchegabbers that they throw up in their mouth a little when they hear what they’re saying while trying to get a slice of the cake and that really kills whatever good taste might come from the chocolate …
… that doesn’t mean that they aren’t taking seriously the possibility that the deviled eggs have salmonella. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t taking seriously the possibility that someone on the other side of the room has COVID-19 and is 8 feet closer to the spice cake than the chocolate.
It means that when they get up for go in search of their next slice of cake, they’re going for the spice cake.
Whether they leave the room through the same exit as the person coughing on everyone or through the same exit as the douchegabbers is another question for later. You don’t get to assume you know what exit someone is leaving through based on which cake they want to eat. These are separate questions.
Just like, “Should I vote Bernie or Biden?” is a separate question from, “Is Trump as dangerous as a border moat filled with snakes and alligators?”
THEY ARE SEPARATE QUESTIONS. If you want to know the answer to the question about dangerousness, you don’t ask who someone is voting for in the Dem primary. You go up, introduce yourself, and say, “Hi! I’m very curious as to how dangerous you find
someone coughing in publicDonald Trump’s possible second term?” Your telepathic powers aren’t what you imagine them to be.We know you think it’s a fair assessment, because you actually made it and you didn’t surround it with qualifying language like, “I know this is entirely stupid, but I can’t help but feel I have telepathic insight into how this person might answer a question about Trump’s danger based on whether or not they support Bernie.”
We get it. You believe in your position. That doesn’t change the fact that, like a Wiccan claiming her spell stopped the earth’s rotation for a minute after Trump was elected to give his opponents a moment to breathe and get ready for the next political battle, your belief is entirely unwarranted.
If you want to know the answer to the question, “How dangerous do you think the possibility of Trump’s second term might be?” have the courage to actually ask the question and honestly report (to yourself as well as to others) the results of your investigation.
If all you want to do is lecture other people about how terrible and stupid their reasoning is when deciding whom to support in the primary, then go ahead as you are. But as terrible and stupid as you think their reasoning is, your reasoning won’t be any better.
I don’t understand, are Bernie Bros a substantial problem or not, Crip Dyke. You seem to be both explicitly disagreeing with my first point while implicitly agreeing with it.
If Bernie Bros are as serious a problem as you seem to acknowledge, does it not stand to reason they’ll be a serious problem in the general?
I have been quite clear about the fact that I am not a political scientist. I am not pretending to know the answer to questions when I don’t actually know the answer. It’s easy to acknowledge that a problem exists because we have first hand testimonials from people here on pharyngula that say they won’t support Sanders in the primary.
Q: Is there a problem with Bernie Bros?
A: Obviously, yes.
ENTIRELY SEPARATE QUESTION:
Q: Does the sum total of Bernie’s assets and liabilities make him a better or worse candidate than Biden to face Trump in the General?
A; I have no fucking idea. Ask someone who actually studies this for a living and who can read up on Biden without getting distracted by their own vomit.
Also, too, this question is irrelevant if the “worse” candidate wins by 5 percentage points and the “best” candidate wins by 15 percentage points. All that really matters in preventing the deadly danger of a Trump second term is the answer to the question, “Is Bernie a good enough candidate?” But do I know the answer to that question? Nope. Again, ask a political scientist. It seems like he’s probably good enough based on head-to-head polling questions, but we won’t actually know until November, not least because beating Trump in a general election means beating Trump + Putin’s interference and that interference hasn’t ramped up yet.
So do I say that Sanders is a good candidate? Yep. Do I criticize areas where I think he could do better? Well, almost never, but yep. I have done this. Do I criticize more often the people with whom I actually interact, which are Sanders supporters and not Sanders himself? Yep, although I hope I focus my criticisms on the things that Sanders supporters are saying and doing rather than on the people themselves.
But why is that? Why would I criticize arguments like, “I know the answer to question A through telepathic examination of someone internal mental process in answering question B?” Because it’s a stupid argument. And if there’s one thing on Pharyngula that catches hell, it’s stupid fucking arguments. Also, too, because I assume that I’m not a super-genius who is the only one who will ever cotton on to the fact that that’s a stupid argument and, being a Bernie supporter myself now that my divided loyalties have ended with Warren’s withdrawal, I want Bernie to win. Therefore I prefer good arguments in favor of Bernie than truly, terribly stupid arguments in favor of Bernie.
But this is all simply reinforcing my point from comment #101: you clearly can’t read what other people are actually saying. My comment #101 wasn’t about whether Bernie would win or Biden would win. My point wasn’t that I’d analyzed polling data and historical trends and found that Bernie Bro behavior would shave 2.38% off the pro-Bernie vote in crucial midwest states in November.
My point was that you listened to people say, “I’m going to vote for Biden in the primary,” and you heard, “I don’t think a potential Trump second term is a danger that should affect my Dem primary vote.” But they didn’t say that, and you don’t know that. You act as if you have telepathy – or possibly precognition.
Why not listen to what people are actually saying? What harm is there in a future where you do NOT make wild speculative leaps? What if you only asserted to be true what you have good reason to believe is true? It’s a wild, wild world I’m proposing, but trust me … it could be accomplished in your own lifetime!
I don’t think it’s completely out of the realm of possibility to intuit intentions, it’s not as ridiculous as telepathy. I did it —accurately I’d venture — during elevatorgate and gamergate. Or with crypto fascism. But your point stands, I’m not overly familiar with the thought processes of Biden voters the same way I am with reactionaries (shudder).
It was just the reasoning, and that was the supposition I made to make that particular comment.
And I was using (humorous?) exaggeration in the process of making a point. Now that we’re on the same page, I won’t belabor it.
I really do wish you and others good luck as you encourage people to vote for Sanders in the primary.
@conciousness razor and @Porivil:
So far I haven’t seen any Bernie statement about Berniebros that didn’t include the equivalent of “but all campaigns have assholes”.
If you have links to the contrary, I’d like to see them. Even if I don’t get to vote for him (obviously, not being American), I don’t dislike Bernie, and seeing him take a clearer stand would help.