General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 259

It wasn't just the sexism though. Did you see the reaction from a lot of Sanders supporters after those BLM women took the mic from Sanders in Seattle? A lot of it was very negative.

I agree that the term "Bernie Bros" certainly got twisted into a political narrative, but there certainly was a sizable brogressive section of Sanders supporters

 

What does "brogressive" even mean?

 

brogressive? is that like white feminism?

 

Yes, I did see that. I critiqued it as well. That's just liberalism responding to black people demanding something very specific from them. It wasn't specific to Bernie. I saw multiple Clinton supporters speak badly of the woman who interrupted her during that high-priced dinner and casting the other three people that had a taped conversation with Hillary as dumb. As I said, that isn't Bernie Bro-Dom, it merely evidence of how shitty liberals in general are.

 

The impression I get from all of this is that, in everyday speech, "bro" to American liberals is essentially what "smurf" is to the Smurfs

 

DNC CEO resigns in wake of email scandal - CNNPolitics.com

 

So, what position will she have on Hillary's campaign board?

 

No, bro has all the normal connotations, but have been attached to a specific type of supporter. It is sort of like how they attributed the window-breaking at Angela Eagle's office to male Corbyn supporters. Just insert bro and that was the narrative.

 

People who claim to be progressive until it comes to stuff like BLM ("I'm against police brutality, but when they start blocking highways it makes it really hard for me to support them") or the gender wage gap.

The difference is that when Clinton supporters do stuff like that, they are really just emulating the Clinton herself. Whereas Sanders himself set a better example that some of his supporters failed to live up to. So when the idea of "Bernie Bros" was turned into a weapon by the Clinton campaign, that is obviously where the narrative broke down due to the hypocrisy in play, but that doesn't mean there wasn't still a 'bernie bros' problem.

 

I understand what you're saying. The point is, in that particular case, it is evidence of a broader racism within liberalism. Both cases are demonstrative of this trend, so I see no point in assigning it a category other than sexism and racism. When I use the term Bernie Bro, I am referring specifically to the Clinton narratives because that is when the term was deployed in the first place. In that context, they did not exist in the way she was portraying them. Obviously, I do not deny that liberal chauvinism exists across the board. To this day, I have to deal with liberals who lecture me about my own interests and how I don't understand how things work, etc., all of whom support Clinton.

 

this just sounds like white liberalism to me

 

When I saw the Young Turks wikipedia link, I thought it was to the show's wikipedia, which I knew not to be helpful

 

And the second link that has direct quotes from him?

Also, assumptions are unhelpful.

 

His being ignorant is meaningless without the context of the show's title.

Had you put as much energy into stating your position or framing your links as you are in expressing indignation that I politely asked for elaboration, we'd all have been better off, yeah?

 

It's striking how analoguous the two seem to be sometimes. Here you have Corbynistas instead of Bernie Bros, and we get that same thing where people who support Corbyn/who'd rather not support the old guard liberals are actually all privileged white people even when that's not necessarily supported by the statistics. I've seen comparisons between Corbyn getting blamed for Brexit with Sanders/Stein/their supporters and abstainers being blamed for Trump as well.

 

Not sure why it's meaningless with or without the show's title. Ignorance is still ignorance.

And no, because this post

...was answered in the very post you quoted. Your incorrect assumption of the links led you to say this - that is not my fault. I "put energy" into finding sources so you would understand. However, it was your choice to brush them off, not mine.

 

There are certainly people, many of them, who are as you describe them. But there are also conservatives who are religious and ethnic minorities, homosexual, female, or transgender. These aren't people who agree with every panel in the Republican platform (as homosexual Republican Peter Thiel put it), but they are people from marginalized groups who are often denied a platform because of their political ideology.

Wouldn't a gay conservative, or a conservative person of color, be swimming against the current of mainstream culture? Wouldn't they be the rebels, in a sense, for being able to separate their sexuality or ethnicity from the system of political policy that they feel would work best for them? Would you argue that conservatives from marginalized groups are advocating for bringing old hierarchies back?

 

Clarence Thomas supported the getting rid of key parts of the voting rights act that were intended to ensure equitable access to the ballot. So, yes, there are monorities who want to bring back old hierarchies, which would hurt others within their group. Just take an issue of states rights. They may believe in it, but objectively, it used to oppress people by not protecting their rights in any universal sense. That matters and it wouldn't make them rebels any more than Clarence Thomas' ruling made him a rebel. It just means they bought into a repressive ideology that hurts more people in their particular communities.

 

I can't speak to the dissent of Judge Thomas' in regards to the voting rights act. Couldn't the consolidation of power at the federal level also be used as a tool for oppression, depending on the individuals which wield that power?

 

Returning things to the state level doesn't disperse the power, it empowers the states to do as they wish. In most cases, the federal government and states work together to provide the framework for oppression. That there has been progress on many fronts is in spite of that concentration of power on both ends. That is to say, because states were challenged on multiple levels.

 

7/10 meme dankness
1/10 meme correctness

 

I am still not convinced Trump actually wants to win. I am sorta convinced he just wants the publicity, thinks it'll make him more money (it probably will), and that the rumors of him telling potential running mates they can basically handle foreign and domestic policy really does sound plausible.

 

Not a chance he ever planned to / thought it was possible to get the nomination, never mind actually become president. I would bet on it.

 

Trump blasts New York Times: ‘They don’t write good’

Everything this guy says is literally a joke