US Politics: Vaguely above average Tuesday

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

Just some food for thought for those are convinced that the Bernie Bros stuff is unique to Sanders.  Not denying shitty behavior online from Sanders supporters, just a better explanation than I gave in the last thread about the prevalence of this among supporters from all campaigns.  

Warning: offensive content, nsfw

[TrueMetis]

I'm not sure that "it's just as bad in the other camps" is gonna have much sway when it's more noticeable among Bernie Bros and the response to the harassment has been really, really shitty.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'm not sure that "it's just as bad in the other camps" is gonna have much sway when it's more noticeable among Bernie Bros and the response to the harassment has been really, really shitty.

Probabaly not.  But none of the other candidates have been asked to condemn any of this stuff.  The narrative is super one-sided, and I don't know at what point you say, well, only this campaign has to answer for this.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Probabaly not.  But none of the other candidates have been asked to condemn any of this stuff.  The narrative is super one-sided, and I don't know at what point you say, well, only this campaign has to answer for this.

Again, when other candidates have things like Chapo Trap House, we can call equivalency.

As it stands, even if you discount things like that, Sanders supporters are still more likely to be negative, have a larger overall negative sentiment, are twice as likely as others to have said very negative things and are 4 times as likely as others to have said negative things. The existence of other negative supporters for other candidates does not excuse this behavior, nor does it indicate that it is equivalent as a problem. 

Another issue is that you keep characterizing it as single followers doing something bad. That is a problem, but in the case of Sanders (and Chapo, really) it's more. It's the sending thousands of people to go denigrate someone online. It's the doxxing. It's the organized harassment from multiple people. This is another phenomenon that is fairly unique to Sanders' support base, and is probably due to more legitimate and loud sources of harassment like Chapo leading the way. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, when other candidates have things like Chapo Trap House, we can call equivalency.

As it stands, even if you discount things like that, Sanders supporters are still more likely to be negative, have a larger overall negative sentiment, are twice as likely as others to have said very negative things and are 4 times as likely as others to have said negative things. The existence of other negative supporters for other candidates does not excuse this behavior, nor does it indicate that it is equivalent as a problem. 

Another issue is that you keep characterizing it as single followers doing something bad. That is a problem, but in the case of Sanders (and Chapo, really) it's more. It's the sending thousands of people to go denigrate someone online. It's the doxxing. It's the organized harassment from multiple people. This is another phenomenon that is fairly unique to Sanders' support base, and is probably due to more legitimate and loud sources of harassment like Chapo leading the way. 

That could very well be the case.  Is there some Chapo instigated instance of doxxing I'm missing?  

What counts as a negative thing?  Is it saying "fuck you" to Trump?  Or is it something way worse to a random person?  There's a big difference.  

I'm not discounting anyone being harassed by Sanders supporters.  I'm just pointing out that it's not unique, and that NO ONE ELSE is being told they need to be accountable for this stuff.  Do you think Warren needs to answer for her staffers getting the tattoos?  

The thread I just linked has multiple instances of organized harassment.  The Biden supporter harassing people while getting compliments and birthday shoutouts from Neera Tanden would be one example.  And I know one anecdote doesn't make a case.  But none of the people pushing the Bernie Bro narrative have shown that this is some unique problem.  You've got one study showing that Bernie has a bigger online following, and that his supporters are more likely to say negative stuff.  That's not evidence that they are more likely to be harassing or doxxing people.

When you says that instance of this in other campaigns does not excuse this behavior you are 100% correct!  But none of the other campaigns have had to answer for this.  And if you can't even speculate as to why Sanders supporters may be more angry (again, the data only talks about negative comments and very negative comments) I don't know what to tell you.  We know that they are younger and more online.  Would love to see some data on how Sanders supporters are the big doxxers or harassers vs just posting pictures of a pig shitting on its own balls.  But that hasn't happened yet.  

Edit: to the bolded, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is unique to the Sanders campaign.  If that's the case, please demonstrate it 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That could very well be the case.  Is there some Chapo instigated instance of doxxing I'm missing?  

There was when they encouraged all their supporters to en masse tweet snakes at specific Warren supporters, as an example. Or the guy writing about another really horrible anti-Pete person who got doxxed. 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What counts as a negative thing?  Is it saying "fuck you" to Trump?  Or is it something way worse to a random person?  There's a big difference. 

It's based on the system for measuring positive and negative sentiment, which is pretty common. There are a lot of ways. And yes, saying 'fuck you' would be negative, but probably not very negative. 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm not discounting anyone being harassed by Sanders supporters.  I'm just pointing out that it's not unique, and that NO ONE ELSE is being told they need to be accountable for this stuff.  Do you think Warren needs to answer for her staffers getting the tattoos?  

Yes! Absolutely, 100% yes I think she should answer to that and tell her supporters 'don't do this sort of thing'. Why wouldn't I?

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The thread I just linked has multiple instances of organized harassment.  The Biden supporter harassing people while getting compliments and birthday shoutouts from Neera Tanden would be one example. 

Getting birthday shoutouts is hardly organized harassment.

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

And I know one anecdote doesn't make a case.  But none of the people pushing the Bernie Bro narrative have shown that this is some unique problem.  You've got one study showing that Bernie has a bigger online following, and that his supporters are more likely to say negative stuff.  That's not evidence that they are more likely to be harassing or doxxing people. 

It is entirely evidence of that, as is the actual harassment and doxxing. 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

When you says that instance of this in other campaigns does not excuse this behavior you are 100% correct!  But none of the other campaigns have had to answer for this.  And if you can't even speculate as to why Sanders supporters may be more angry (again, the data only talks about negative comments and very negative comments) I don't know what to tell you.  We know that they are younger and more online.  Would love to see some data on how Sanders supporters are the big doxxers or harassers vs just posting pictures of a pig shitting on its own balls.  But that hasn't happened yet.  

I just got called a bot because I liked a Neera Tanden tweet about where the new voters were coming in from New Hampshire, so that's great.

To my knowledge no other high-profile doxxing or harassment has happened under other candidates running for the Democratic primary (plenty has happened under Trump mind you). Is there anything like what happened with the Nevada Culinary Union? Anything like what happened to the reporter I mentioned? I'm willing to believe that there is, but the other issue is that this was also something that happened in 2016 as well, and it sucked then too. And again, Sanders and his staff have gone on Chapo again and again, and have gone on Rogan's show again and again. Has Biden done something similar? Has Warren? 

[Week]

I forget if this was posted before:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/9/21168312/bernie-bros-bernie-sanders-chapo-trap-house-dirtbag-left

"Fundamentally, if Sanders and his movement want to succeed in remaking the Democratic Party in their image, they can’t just drive out every person in a position of power. To go from insurgents to party leaders, they need to figure out a way to persuade the rest of the party to join its cause. Right now, it seems like pro-Sanders online brigades are making that harder.

Some online Sanders supporters have dismissed this attitude as childish: that Warren and other progressives are letting their hurt feelings get in the way of their own political goals. What matters more, they ask rhetorically — your mentions or universal health care? Are you really concerned about mean comments, they ask, or just playing into a smear campaign led by moderates?

This response, in the mind of Sanders’s critics, is in some ways the problem. The dirtbag left sees the race in such starkly moral terms — either you support Bernie or you want poor people to get sick and die — that they’re willing to countenance abusive tactics in order to get people on board. They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with Sanders in good faith, or how treating someone viciously might be counterproductive to the cause they profess to care about."

Pretty much right on. The fury on my FB feed continues - "THIS is why Biden is unelectable!"

Buddy, we're approached nail in the coffin day and Biden will need to be elected to defenestrate Trump. All the rage now is tilting at windmills.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, I posted that earlier @Week. I thought it was a good read in that way. 

Ultimately whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Sanders supporters are more likely to doxx or harass or be jerks is largely immaterial, because that is the current perception. There are a LOT of people who are simply voting for Biden because they do not want Sanders to win, and part of that is because of how they've been treated. Folks can say that it's stupid or unfair or any number of other things, but that doesn't change the actual thing that's happening or their perception, and ultimately the Sanders team and their supporters are the ones asking for that support. They're the ones who need to figure out how to get those votes, and so far screaming at people that they are bots or fuckwads or asking others to harass them is not working.

[Kalbear]

In other, other news Trump's polling has dropped down to pre-Impeachment news levels (53.1% disapprove, 42.7% approve) as his handling of the coronavirus appears to not be all that awesome and the economy isn't doing so hot. Just gotta make sure I get that in so I get that tasty check from @DMC

[OldGimletEye]

23 minutes ago, Week said:

They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with Sanders in good faith, or how treating someone viciously might be counterproductive to the cause they profess to care about."

Frankly, though, I worry this is a broader issue on the left in general.

And this isn't an ardent defense of Sanders. I pretty much have mixed feelings about him. I in good faith disagree with Sanders over MMT.  And I disagree over his plans for healthcare. Not because I fundamentally disagree with the policy. But, think it will be a political disaster. Some people are hail mary sorts of people. Others are more 3 yards and a cloud of dust sorts of people. I prefer steady progress over taking big risks.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Frankly, though, I worry this is a broader issue on the left in general.

I think it's an issue for everyone. It is a bigger problem potentially on the left because the left tends to have more obvious allegiances to multiple groups, compared to conservatives which in general fall in line. But you could easily substitute Sanders for Trump in the above and it would largely be accurate for almost anyone voting Democrat (and to be fair, I'd agree with them!)

Ultimately we have lost the singular purpose of defeating the Soviet Union and everyone obviously wanting to work together towards that goal. Without that sort of defining purpose the US gravitates towards this kind of fractious infighting and partisanship - both now and before WW2. 

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's an issue for everyone. It is a bigger problem potentially on the left because the left tends to have more obvious allegiances to multiple groups, compared to conservatives which in general fall in line. But you could easily substitute Sanders for Trump in the above and it would largely be accurate for almost anyone voting Democrat (and to be fair, I'd agree with them!). 

I actually think the right has its own version that is just as bad or worse. You know, "He wasn't conservative enough!" And I think the Rush Limbaughs and other assorted loud mouths pretty much drowned out and bullied any reasonable person that was right of center. And I think we know what the result was. The Republican Party going crazy, ending up in Trump.

And though, I don't think the left is necessarily destined for the same thing, I do worry about it at times.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There was when they encouraged all their supporters to en masse tweet snakes at specific Warren supporters, as an example. Or the guy writing about another really horrible anti-Pete person who got doxxed. 

It's based on the system for measuring positive and negative sentiment, which is pretty common. There are a lot of ways. And yes, saying 'fuck you' would be negative, but probably not very negative. 

Yes! Absolutely, 100% yes I think she should answer to that and tell her supporters 'don't do this sort of thing'. Why wouldn't I?

Getting birthday shoutouts is hardly organized harassment.

It is entirely evidence of that, as is the actual harassment and doxxing. 

I just got called a bot because I liked a Neera Tanden tweet about where the new voters were coming in from New Hampshire, so that's great.

To my knowledge no other high-profile doxxing or harassment has happened under other candidates running for the Democratic primary (plenty has happened under Trump mind you). Is there anything like what happened with the Nevada Culinary Union? Anything like what happened to the reporter I mentioned? I'm willing to believe that there is, but the other issue is that this was also something that happened in 2016 as well, and it sucked then too. And again, Sanders and his staff have gone on Chapo again and again, and have gone on Rogan's show again and again. Has Biden done something similar? Has Warren? 

I'm not sure that a reporter who published leaked stuff front the private account of a Sanders staffer counts as getting doxxed.  You've got an LGBTQ youth talking shit in a locked account getting this revealed to the world by a trust fund journalist.  That the reporter's phone number is getting blown up with by text messages does not really seem that bad to me compared to the kid losing his job for making a bunch of shitty jokes in private.

And sorry, but tweeting snake emojis at someone is annoying and shitty, but it's not doxxing and it's probably not even harassment.  And yes I worded it poorly but the Neera Tanden has several times posted links to super low follower accounts of Sanders supporters and they've been spammed by her mass followers.  Not any different than someone getting a bunch of snake emojis.

And nope, sorry, you don't get to say that because Sanders supporters were more likely to make negative comments that they are more likely to doxx or harass unless you actually have evidence of it, or evidence that those things were somehow factored in to that study.  That's complete extrapolation that isn't supported by anything.  

I've been called a bot and a fuckwad too.  By all different types of people.  Are there really that many people wandering Twitter looking for a mentor to show them how to vote?  Is this a thing people do?  Wander the hellscapes of the info superhighway looking for a candidate with polite followers?

The Culinary 226, am I missing something?  Was there any info that wasnt public that was shared? There's also a strong case that it was rank and file union members doing this because of stubborn leadership, in which case, I say Booyah to the rank and file.  I'm not about to tell people they can't call their bosses or lousy union reps out for not sticking up for their interests. 

@Week, I hear what you're saying, I just disagree.  Yes, it's in anyone's best interests to be diplomatic in trying to win support.  But I think it relates to the geta at the general level of comfort and complacency in the US that we take criticism of our candidates personally, or are looking to be persuaded by other people rather than the issues at hand.  I think part of this is the online effect; people are generally more polite online.  I think part of it is the fact that Sanders supporters are often from the margins of society and maybe aren't going to be as polite as others.  

After tomorrow I'll likely stop with the Biden bashing if he wins big.  If Sanders still has a shot, I probabaly won't.  And in the meantime am going to try to show that Sanders is catching a lot of assymetrical flak here.  

Maybe I'm just selfish.  If Sanders got even a quarter of his ideas out into action my life would change drastically.  I am looking at massive student loan debt, for a degree I didn't finish, a bunch of other financial issue related to that, siblings who currently have to carry photocopies of their passports in case they get stopped by ICE, and the opportunity to go to the doctor when I need to without skipping out in a rent payment.  And I know millions of people have it much worse than me.  I'm fine.  So I don't think it's that crazy to think that the bulk of the youth in this country gets a little pissed sometimes and might say some bad words to defend someone who is actually fighting for then, not dismissing then or telling them their votes are t even worth courting.

Or maybe not, maybe it's just comung from white suburbanites like the shit pouring forth from Biden supporters and former Warren and Harris and Buttigieg supporters.  I'm just sick of hearing this narrative that this is a Bernie problem and that it's so offensive as to turn people uniquely away from the candidates, when it's clearly coming from other camps as well.  

It all sounds a lot like post hoc rationalizations.  

And I'm not applying that to anyone posting here.  It's just tough to out this narrative in a window of 'good faith' when it's portrayed as so singular.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I actually think the right has its own version that is just as bad or worse. You know, "He wasn't conservative enough!" And I think the Rush Limbaughs and other assorted loud mouths pretty much drowned out any reasonable person that was right of center. And I think we know what the result was. The Republican Party going crazy, ending up in Trump. 

The difference is that that is still their identity, and they would much rather vote for any Republican than think about voting for any Dem. 

And at least in the US, chances are good (for now) based on psychological profiles of who is liberal and who is conservative that this won't happen. Liberals are simply not caring nearly as much about authority and ingroup as conservative voters are. That could change based on a lot of things, but right now it's not happening. 

[Zorral]

38 minutes ago, Week said:

They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with Sanders in good faith

Just sayin' that's exactly how the trumpistas think too. On the other hand, it's the trumpistas with whom I've had a lot of interaction, not these Bernie Bros, with whom I've never personally had an encounter. I do believe they exist, but I've never encountered any, which is quite odd, considering where I work and live. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

I'm not sure that a reporter who published leaked stuff front the private account of a Sanders staffer counts as getting doxxed.  You've got an LGBTQ youth talking shit in a locked account getting this revealed to the world by a trust fund journalist.  That the reporter's phone number is getting blown up with by text messages does not really seem that bad to me compared to the kid losing his job for making a bunch of shitty jokes in private.

Excuse excuse yadda yadda

Just now, larrytheimp said:

And nope, sorry, you don't get to say that because Sanders supporters were more likely to make negative comments that they are more likely to doxx or harass unless you actually have evidence of it, or evidence that those things were somehow factored in to that study.  That's complete extrapolation that isn't supported by anything.  

 

Other than the evidence of it happening?

Just now, larrytheimp said:

 @Week, I hear what you're saying, I just disagree.  Yes, it's in anyone's best interests to be diplomatic in trying to win support.  But I think it relates to the geta at the general level of comfort and complacency in the US that we take criticism of our candidates personally, or are looking to be persuaded by other people rather than the issues at hand.  

Emphasis mine here. This, IMO, is the problem. Are you talking about people in general (which I agree with) or Sanders supporters crticizing other candidates? Because right now, the issue is that if you support someone who isn't Sanders (or even if you do support Sanders, just not as loudly and uncrtiically as others) it isn't your candidate who gets attacked - its you that gets attacked. 

Just now, larrytheimp said:

And in the meantime am going to try to show that Sanders is catching a lot of assymetrical flak here.  

Again, whether or not it's fair doesn't matter. Ask Warren if it was fair that people thought she was unelectable. Ask Harris. I agree that it's probably not fair given the level of negativity - but at the same time Sanders has done fuck all other than say 'nuh uh'. 

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Maybe I'm just selfish.  If Sanders got even a quarter of his ideas out into action my life would change drastically.  I am looking at massive student loan debt, for a degree I didn't finish, a bunch of other financial issue related to that, siblings who currently have to carry photocopies of their passports in case they get stopped by ICE, and the opportunity to go to the doctor when I need to without skipping out in a rent payment.  And I know millions of people have it much worse than me.  I'm fine.  So I don't think it's that crazy to think that the bulk of the youth in this country gets a little pissed sometimes and might say some bad words to defend someone who is actually fighting for then, not dismissing then or telling them their votes are t even worth courting.

Pity only 13% of them voted.

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Or maybe not, maybe it's just comung from white suburbanites like the shit pouring forth from Biden supporters and former Warren and Harris and Buttigieg supporters.  I'm just sick of hearing this narrative that this is a Bernie problem and that it's so offensive as to turn people uniquely away from the candidates, when it's clearly coming from other camps as well. 

Here's possibly another way to think about this. Sanders has to show that he can unite the democratic party with something that hasn't worked before. Various iterations of full medicare or full healthcare have been floated and attempted and all have failed in the past, and the one that worked was an electoral pain point. This means that Sanders has to go above and beyond what the status quo is in order to show that it's able to work. This is entirely unfair! It sucks. In a perfect world ideas and policy would be enough. 

But they are not. And now you know what it feels like to be a woman in politics, where you have to be significantly more prepared, smarter, nicer, meaner, and attractive than the default male candidate does. 

Him just showing up and spouting ideas is simply not going to work to unite anyone, and getting mad at humans for being humans isn't going to get it done. Obama required a recession and absurd threading the needle to get people over the hump of electing a black man, and Sanders (or some other left candidate) is going to have to do the same thing. It sucks, it really does, but proclaiming the suck doesn't make it less accurate. 

 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Just sayin' that's exactly how the trumpistas think too. On the other hand, it's the trumpistas with whom I've had a lot of interaction, not these Bernie Bros, with whom I've never personally had an encounter. I do believe they exist, but I've never encountered any, which is quite odd, considering where I work and live. 

"I don't think sexism happens because I've never experienced sexism as a white man" is quite the good take fine sir

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Just sayin' that's exactly how the trumpistas think too. On the other hand, it's the trumpistas with whom I've had a lot of interaction, not these Bernie Bros, with whom I've never personally had an encounter. I do believe they exist, but I've never encountered any, which is quite odd, considering where I work and live. 

They're actually much worse - Bernie supporters at least actually understand what he stands for. Trumpets regurgitate his asinine slogans. 

[OldGimletEye]

We're all Keynesians in foxholes.

Trump evidently thinks that "expansionary austerity" isn't the key to his reelection. Will be interesting how the Republicans respond to this.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/10/21173391/trump-coronavirus-economic-stimulus-election

[Fez]

So looks like a Biden blowout night. He's already up 10 points in Michigan with nothing from Detroit reporting in.