2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome"
Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 09:01 AM - Edit history (2)
by Peter Bloom
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
4/20/2016
Published by Common Dreams
New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive
After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last nights New York Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the states counties, she won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders progressive momentum and a just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the nomination.
......snip.......
Yet the fate of Sanders candidacy pales in comparison to the future success of the political revolution he is trying to create and ferment. What does losing the Empire state mean to the progressive movement he is helping to inspire? What does it say about its own long march to changing the country and the world?
A key takeaway from the Primary is that regardless of where the movement goes from here it must recognize the affective hold that establishment Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and desiring of real change.
............A crucial narrative driving the Sanders candidacy is that he and his movement are the real standard-bearers for 21st century progressive values. While this may be substantively true, it misses how and why so many see Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its idealistic ambition but its clear eyed realism.
.....snip......
While supporters justify an establishment politics of working within the system as rational and pragmatic, its appeal largely resides as a progressive fantasy. Even after three decades worth of evidence of the profound limitations of such a strategy it remains emotionally resonant. Hollow victories such as the compromised legislation of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare are celebrated as landmark progressive achievements. Centrist candidates are hailed for their courage in standing up to an intractable Republican enemy doing what little they could to make things better in a political war that has already been lost.
It plays into a belief that all that is needed is to elect more Democrats. That they have the best interest of the country at heart even if they regularly feed from the same corrupt cesspool as their Conservative rivals. That to dream big means to consign the nation to a century of failed idealism rather than hard won compromise.
.........However, there is something else at play as well. She is heralded for her promises to continue the progressive legacy set by Obama. Suddenly the President who has pushed for Drone Wars, further Wall Street bailouts and the TPP is a paragon of modern progressivism. The New York triumph of his all but publicly endorsed predecessor Hillary Clinton is a paean of love to the very establishment that many of their voters are demanding to be changed.
For progressives to achieve mass success they must do all they can to break up this abusive relationship.
To not accept the myth that Clinton represents incremental change or that she is committed to fighting climate change or that you can trumpet gun control at home and the international arms industry abroad.
This does not mean abandoning the fight to ensure that a more retrogressive Republican alternative does not take power. The reign of a Trump or Cruz would be similar but worse than that of Clinton. Nevertheless, it also means not minimizing the passion felt for the establishment. It may be misplaced but it is real and when mobilized can be potent.
Instead, it demands that even in defeat we continue the struggle to deprogram the victims of the New Democrats. To point out consistently that change only happens from the bottom up.
That one cannot claim to be a progressive and support anti-democratic oligarchic regimes around the world.
That what Democrats and Republicans alike legitimize as national security is really just a bloated corporate security force subsidized by the American taxpayer.
That you may be with her but when the moment it is politically expedient she certainly will not be with you.
The path the nomination for Bernie Sanders undeniably narrowed yesterday.
The path to revolution and genuine progress depends on breaking America free from its Democratic Stockholm Syndrome.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/20/democratic-stockholm-syndrome
********************
EDIT TO ADD
Obviously, the meaning of "Stockholm Syndrome" has been misrepresented on DU & some clarity is called for.
n.
A psychological syndrome in which a person being held captive begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor, simultaneously becoming unsympathetic towards the police or other authorities.
[After Stockholm, where a hostage in a 1973 bank robbery became romantically attached to one of her captors.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stockholm+syndrome
It has NOTHING to do with RACE.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)sustainable life on the planet, monopolies, privatization of everything, public schools crumbling, unions snuffed out, American jobs outsourced or offshored, medical bankruptcies through the roof, outrageous cost of higher education, cut social services, corporations paying Zero Taxes.
Fine.
But at least have the decency to articulate why you are all gung-ho for those things rather than hiding behind your emoticon.
It might lead people to believe you're justified in backing the bullshit, rather than being a republican hack.
brush
(53,776 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)Plus, we've had enough of these insulting "Stockholm Syndrome" posts here on DU.
Seems you don't know that history.
Response to brush (Reply #26)
Post removed
brush
(53,776 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)
If you don't know the history here with that phrase, research it.
And do you even know what race baiting means?
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)funny thing about it, internet is YUUUUUUUUGE
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or until posters stop breaking Terms of Service (however, I fully understand that bit of relevant non-fiction has little to no place in your narrative of DU's oppression and persecution-- it too being rather "YUUUUUUUUGE" .
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)This is their sandbox.
I do not feel oppressed or persecuted.
Do you not agree that one can surf the internet forever?
Rhetorical question.
No reply necessary because I am in the mood today to liberally use my ignore option and you just bought a ticket.
Bye.
George II
(67,782 posts)....never mentioned race at all. You must have been "thinking it"!
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Was misused and could have been construed as racist in that isolated case. But that occurrence does not forever make the term "Stockholm Syndrome" a "racist" one. In this case it refers to a group of Democrats (nothing to do with race) and is correctly applied.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)You knew the history of this term here and you used it on purpose to make the implication without coming right out and saying it.
I've said time and again, Trump hasn't just moved the needle of racism, he's moved the entire spectrum. Some of you Sanders supporters have said things and made implications of things that I haven't seen in thirty years.
When WillyH (and yes, I'm calling him that on purpose in reference to 41's hideous exploitation of racial fears) was banned, I saw how many people came to his defense.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)That's a great album!
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)"Foment" should have been used in that context.
So who is the ignorant one?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)but for those who need to put others down in order to make themselves feel superior, a dictionary won't help.
brush
(53,776 posts)Why do ya think everyone is laughing at the usage?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)look it up
Ridicule always reflects poorly on the person engaged in it.
brush
(53,776 posts)And I was not the first one to do so.
To come here to this site with a screed about "Stockholm Syndrome", with the ugly history that phrase has on this site, and to declare that Bernie is trying to "ferment a revolution" when everybody knows the common usage is "foment a revolution" . . . well, he kinda asked for it.
I'm through with it now though. There are posts up now asking Clinton supporters to be kind to Sanders supporters so I will try from now on.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)The insensitivity of this OP makes me feel nauseous. (adjective)
VS.
I am nauseated by this divisive and mean spirited OP. (verb)
But misuse is so common these days, it is hardly worth arguing. No one can tell the difference.
For instance, hardly anyone would notice the misuse in the phrase "The racial insensitivity of posting an OP with "Stockholm Syndrome" in the title after painful discussions on this site in the recent past makes me feel nauseated." They are pretty much interchangeable now.
I'm with you. I ferment wine, kombachu and sourdough starter. I foment revolution. I would have claimed autocorrect or tired if I made that mistake rather than argue it
brush
(53,776 posts)Do you actually ferment sourdough starter? I lived in San Francisco back in the day and the big bread bakeries there claimed their starters dated from the 1800s.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)(OMG, I FOMENTED a new batch of sourdough starter last week. Nooooooo )
I make a batch now and then, keep it going for a few months until I lose interest, usually during football season. All the mixing and kneading gives me something to mess with during the breaks.
You can keep the fermented starter in the fridge in a closed jar and only feed it once a week or so if you bake occasionally. Or if you bake every day or two, leave it on out, just cover the top of the container with some cheese cloth to keep the dust out. And yes, you can keep a batch going indefinitely.
brush
(53,776 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)but you can use sugar or milk in a pinch. I think it is 1 part water to 3/4 flour mixed into the original starter. Or the reverse. something like that.... If there is too much water, or it sits too long, it separates a bit. I just mix it up and correct the ratio. If the jar is too full, I throw some out. If I am baking a bunch, I get a bigger jar and mix more.
It's not rocket science. If you make a mistake, it is almost always easy to fix. Sourdough starter is VERY forgiving. If the liquid is a bad color, or it smells icky, then you have to throw it out. But that has never happened to me, and I am not diligent in my care at all.
I made a recipe similar to this a bunch over the winter. OMG, the French toast from that loaf was AMAZING!
http://www.food.com/recipe/sourdough-cinnamon-swirl-bread-30602
brush
(53,776 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Bread machines are easy, too. You can mix up a loaf, go out for the day and come home to fresh, hot bread, Nom!
Good luck if you try it. And don't forget to ferment!
brush
(53,776 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)verb
verb: ferment; 3rd person present: ferments; past tense: fermented; past participle: fermented; gerund or present participle: fermenting
fərˈment/
1.
(of a substance) undergo fermentation.
"the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
synonyms: undergo fermentation, brew; More
effervesce, fizz, foam, froth
"the beer continues to ferment"
cause the fermentation of (a substance).
2.
incite or stir up (trouble or disorder).
"the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"
synonyms: cause, bring about, give rise to, generate, engender, spawn, instigate, provoke, incite, excite, stir up, whip up, foment.
brush
(53,776 posts)Most of us know the common, accepted usage.
frylock
(34,825 posts)You're welcome.
brush
(53,776 posts)Nobody says "ferment a revolution" but let's stop making a big deal out of a misuse of a word.
I'm moving on.
frylock
(34,825 posts)intransitive verb
1
: to undergo fermentation
2
: to be in a state of agitation or intense activity
transitive verb
1
: to cause to undergo fermentation
2
: to work up (as into a state of agitation) : foment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ferment
brush
(53,776 posts)If you don't know the first phrase is the commonly accepted usage, I wonder about you too.
frylock
(34,825 posts)That shit blew up in the face you're attempting to save. Fucking own it and move on.
brush
(53,776 posts)
Ferment
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
Also called organized ferment. any of a group of living organisms, as yeasts, molds, and certain bacteria, that cause fermentation.
2.
Also called unorganized ferment. an enzyme.
3.
fermentation.
4.
agitation; unrest; excitement; commotion; tumult:
The new painters worked in a creative ferment. The capital lived in a political ferment.
verb
5.
to act upon as a ferment.
6.
to cause to undergo fermentation.
7.
to inflame; foment:
It's use as a verb, such as in ferment wine, is way down the list and most know that the first usages cited in dictionaries are the more common, accepted usages.
The guy used it wrong, admit it. You foment a revolution, you ferment wine.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Just fucking let it go and move on with your life ffs.
brush
(53,776 posts)I'm bored with this now so truce?
frylock
(34,825 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It definitely helps explain how conservative DINOs have taken over the party.
Mindless sheep to slaughter.
brush
(53,776 posts)Do some research on that and see if it's wise to continue the insults.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Get out of the bubble, people.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)them. They manufacture faux outrages to call out the posse and gang attack. It's not racist to say that so-and-so might suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Only if one says that about the AA community here in DU. Then it becomes a tool to gang attack and ban.
The behavior certainly isn't "politically liberal" it's right wing hatred.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Throw away lines and bumper sticker-speak.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks for making my point.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I know I'll regret this question, but how on earth did I make your point?
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Who told you she was? Bernie?
George II
(67,782 posts)I think some on DU here need to try to understand the origin of "Stockholm Syndrome" before they try to attribute it to everything people say or do that they don't agree with.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Some people need to put their thinking caps on this am.
brush
(53,776 posts)definition post you just put up shows that.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)but I disagree that "ferment" is used primarily as a noun.
"The ingredients ferment to make beer."
brush
(53,776 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)..opinion about something they're suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome"
brush
(53,776 posts)to know what was good for themselves.
George II
(67,782 posts)...know what's "right".
boston bean
(36,221 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Response to KittyWampus (Reply #1)
tex-wyo-dem This message was self-deleted by its author.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that those all died out shortly after Jesus rode them.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Full Definition of ferment
intransitive verb
1
: to undergo fermentation
2
: to be in a state of agitation or intense activity
transitive verb
1
: to cause to undergo fermentation
2
: to work up (as into a state of agitation) : foment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ferment
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that the writer used the wrong word?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)ferment (n. ˈfɜr mɛnt; v. fərˈmɛnt)
n.
1. any of a group of living organisms, as yeasts, molds, and certain bacteria, that cause fermentation.
2. an enzyme that catalyzes the anaerobic breakdown of molecules that yield energy.
3. fermentation (def. 2).
4. agitation or excitement; commotion: artistic ferment; political ferment.
v.t.
5. to act upon as a ferment.
6. to cause to undergo fermentation.
7. to inflame or excite; foment.
v.i.
8. to be fermented; undergo fermentation.
9. to seethe with agitation or excitement.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ferment
I can see why so many miss the other fact here: That the Democratic Party as a Party for the Left & for People no longer exists & has become a softer less evil but still evil version of the republican party. They do talk nicer to us when running for office, but otherwise the entire party is DINO. (With some exceptions, like maybe 5 senators & our wonderful House Progressives.)
But some people just dig in & refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes & even begin to change their world view to fit the paradigm. Stockholm syndrome.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)use of a word as my choice. Particularly when if you were to ask 100 people what word they would use in that instance, 100 of them would say "foment", not "ferment". But thanks for playing.
frylock
(34,825 posts)You tried to make a big deal out of the use this word, and it blew up in your face. To compound matters, you just can't fucking let it go. In any case, I'm done here. Feel free to get in the last word, because this is evidently very, very important to you.
betsuni
(25,481 posts)...wine with my revolution, please.
frylock
(34,825 posts)verb
verb: ferment; 3rd person present: ferments; past tense: fermented; past participle: fermented; gerund or present participle: fermenting
fərˈment/
1.
(of a substance) undergo fermentation.
"the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
synonyms: undergo fermentation, brew; More
effervesce, fizz, foam, froth
"the beer continues to ferment"
cause the fermentation of (a substance).
2.
incite or stir up (trouble or disorder).
"the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"
synonyms: cause, bring about, give rise to, generate, engender, spawn, instigate, provoke, incite, excite, stir up, whip up, foment.
brush
(53,776 posts)There's a history here with that phrase.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Deliberately offensive, IMO.
Sid
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bernie supporters are so much smarter than the rest of us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the candidate with no record of Congressional accomplishments in any of the areas he, now, promises ... in fact, all of the issues he says he will address, either came about or got worse during his time in congress.
Oh, wait ...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)and Organisations at the Open University."
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Ferment. . A state of agitation or of turbulent change or development.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ferment
polly7
(20,582 posts)fer·ment
verb
fərˈment/
1.
(of a substance) undergo fermentation.
"the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
synonyms: undergo fermentation, brew; More
2.
incite or stir up (trouble or disorder).
"the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"
synonyms: cause, bring about, give rise to, generate, engender, spawn, instigate, provoke, incite, excite, stir up, whip up, foment; literarybeget, enkindle
"an environment that ferments disorder"
noun
ˈfərˌmənt/
1.
agitation and excitement among a group of people, typically concerning major change and leading to trouble or violence.
"Germany at this time was in a state of religious ferment"
synonyms: fever, furor, frenzy, tumult, storm, rumpus; More
2.
archaic
a fermenting agent or enzyme.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ferment
verb (used with object)
5.
to act upon as a ferment.
6.
to cause to undergo fermentation.
7.
to inflame; foment:
to ferment prejudiced crowds to riot.
8.
to cause agitation or excitement in:
Reading fermented his active imagination.
Seems the writer knows a bit more than the experts here. That took .50 seconds to see on the top of a whole page of definitions with the exact same results. I've seen it used as a verb in that exact way all my life. Just anything to distract from your OP and the truth of it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)the opposite.
brush
(53,776 posts)been used. So who showed what?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)noun
1.
Also called organized ferment. any of a group of living organisms, as yeasts, molds, and certain bacteria, that cause fermentation.
2.
Also called unorganized ferment. an enzyme.
3.
fermentation.
4.
agitation; unrest; excitement; commotion; tumult:
The new painters worked in a creative ferment. The capital lived in a political ferment.
verb (used with object)
5.
to act upon as a ferment.
6.
to cause to undergo fermentation.
7.
to inflame; foment:
to ferment prejudiced crowds to riot.
8.
to cause agitation or excitement in:
Reading fermented his active imagination.
brush
(53,776 posts)It's verb usage is way down the list of usages.
Just admit it, you screwed up. You should have used "foment", which is why everyone is laughing so quite whining.
Or should I say "quit wining"? (heehee)
polly7
(20,582 posts)No-one's laughing, except at your attempt to derail a thread you don't approve of.
brush
(53,776 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)people do understand the meaning of it. Maybe you should write something notable and use "foment", like "I am fomenting disruption in this thread because I'd like it to go away - people shouldn't be allowed to think outside the boxes they're supposed to be content within" - something like that. Something stockholm syndromy-like.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)The person is claiming the numbering system indicates which words you can't use. Basically it can only be a noun or a verb ever.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Just like his whole point in the article is spot on correct.
Ferment & foment can be & are used interchangeably as shown by the friggin dictionary! Educate yourself, and then maybe put some focus on how the Democratic party has morphed into another republican party with a different name.
to inflame; foment:
frylock
(34,825 posts)You're welcome.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Ferment's primary definition is a noun.
What the heck does that mean? Only one meaning per word? That is so not how English works. Are you often confused by double entendres? :p They include multiple definitions on purpose and archaic or obscure usages are usually marked thusly.
?w=1080
brush
(53,776 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I am because I am funny as a "democratic" primary. (clean but so politically dirty double entendre)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Don't you feel a little silly now?
Thank you! Nothing better than vocabulary police with egg on their face.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,326 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You better school this guy while you're at it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)How is Bernie flying to Ferment errrrr.. Foment?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)
The only bright spot in this abysmal thread.
I love it when a swarm of flaming jerks get their ass handed to them.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Full Definition of ferment
intransitive verb
1
: to undergo fermentation
2
: to be in a state of agitation or intense activity
transitive verb
1
: to cause to undergo fermentation
2
: to work up (as into a state of agitation) : foment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ferment
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Can I have mine with a side of sauerkraut?
brush
(53,776 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why do you hate white people!!!!
You are a racist!!!!
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Where do I mail your gold star?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Just type in "ferment" "definition" into google - you'll see. I copied and pasted - changed nothing. The second used it as a noun first, there seem to be no set rules on what it should be used as. No need to be rude over something so trivial.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Perhaps you need to re-read what you posted;
verb
fərˈment/
1.
(of a substance) undergo fermentation.
"the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
synonyms: undergo fermentation, brew; More
2.
incite or stir up (trouble or disorder).
"the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"
synonyms: cause, bring about, give rise to, generate, engender, spawn, instigate, provoke, incite, excite, stir up, whip up, foment; literarybeget, enkindle
"an environment that ferments disorder"
As I said, #2.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You seem confused. Perhaps you need to re-read something or other. (Not that I care).
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Otherwise, why would you care what I said to another user?
Butt out.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)You were both wrong, how's that?
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Using it for Everything when you don't have a valid argument.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)and that's fucking up scores of innocent dictionaries.
artislife
(9,497 posts)read a couple of their posts and you will get the brain on simmer whiff.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)it was racist when it got that troll WillyT banned, and it's just as racist now, coming from Peter Bloom.
Sid
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)You are being racist.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)No deductive reasoning here at all.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Spot on, Sid.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Response to RiverLover (Original post)
boston bean This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Not this again.
Damn, folks...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"ferment a revolution?"
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And it is not hard to understand why.
Hillary's margin of victory is driven by minority and women voters. To say NY was lost because Hillary voters have Stockholm Syndrome means that non-white and female voters, who supported her by overwhelming margins, are being told that don't know what is best for them or their future. On the other hand, the one group where the majority supported Bernie, white men, they're leading the revolution! They know what is best for the country!
Context is everything. This OP is about as tone-deaf as you can get.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)telling US what is best for us.
I'm a white trans woman if we want to play around in demagoguery.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)what is best for us.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It has everything to do with the self-destructive foolishness of voting for a candidate who doesn't give a single, solitary fuck about non-oligarchs, save for pandering her way into their votes.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Don't know what is best for them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is to say, the members of those groups who voted for Hillary (and are not 0.1%'ers). While it opens up a bit in open primary states, basically we're talking a minority of the people who showed up to vote (under 20% of those eligible in NY), who are a minority (c. 30%) of the electorate. Subtract out the majority of young members of those groups (who tend to vote for Bernie) and you have a damn small cross-section of these demographic groups.
Do I have any problem saying that those voters are voting against their own best interests? Nope.
fleur-de-lisa
(14,624 posts)On Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
It has fuck-all to do with race and gender.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1800357
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:04 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert. Can't win an argument so you choose to alert? Grow up! This shit is getting old.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing at all hideable about that post. Poor alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow a thicker skin TBH fam.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)A post so laughable that it is from a god of humor.
A post about racism that is racist.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)But, on the plus side, your bolding skills have developed well.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Your skills at obfuscation of posts and bending them to fit a racist narrative has somewhat improved, but not too much (just being honest because I respect you). :p
What is funny according to the demographics men are far more likely to support a woman in NY? Men went 50/5 and women went 67/33? So you owe men an apology. As well as white which was also 50/50...so go ahead apologize for the racist vote against the only Jewish man in the race. (by your logic) But what is funny is that people that like it as it is and think Hillary will do better against Trump (polls have showed consistantly that is wrong) seem to vote for Hillary, which is the very definition of the syndrome. Also Hillary loses trustworthyness by large numbers and even her own people think Bernie ran a more fair campaign that Hillary. The biggest thing is that 64% people decided who to support by 58% for Hillary to 42% for Bernie well over a month ago.
Also you forget that New York voted against a black man by even larger numbers last time...so way to go NY, a city so nice, they voted down race twice.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html
brush
(53,776 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)So making this a racists/sexist "tone deaf" arguement is riduculous and not becoming of you.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You have those who claim that we have to vote D to protect reproductive rights voting for the candidate who has said she's willing to curb them. You have vocal critics of the Iraq War voting for the woman who voted for it, and then got us involved in 3 more while SoS. You have people who believe that a woman who takes in literally millions from dark money PACs will, if she becomes president, work hard to get rid of dark money PACs. You have people who claim to care deeply about the plight of single mothers, especially black single mothers, supporting one of the authors of the "end of welfare as we know it". Over the last 25 years she's flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to progressives and liberals, yet the swooning minions "trust her".
Certainly there is something psychologically atypical at play here.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Personally, our mutual possession of vaginas doesn't motivate me to vote for Hillary in the slightest.
desmiller
(747 posts)for the presidency. n/t
k8conant
(3,030 posts)desmiller
(747 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)This one really stirred up Camp Weathervane, didn't it?
I'm unsure that "Stockholm syndrome" applies to all that many Hillary voters...but I have no problem admitting I think any non-1%er who votes for her when there's a far, far better option available is an utter fool.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Voting against their own best interests, for people who are essentially republicans at heart & are posing as Democrats.
Fools are falling for it, and then justifying their conservative capitulations to themselves, which is the scariest thing about all of this.
(stockholm syndrome)
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)the argument that a minority of the party has somehow proven that it, and not the majority, is the only voice that should matter going forward.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Obama came to office at the nadir of an economic collapse Democrats conveniently pinned on Bush despite the fact that we bought the 401K Casino economy Republicans sold America.
In one sense, the 401K Casino economy is like a student loan: for kids to get them, their parents, who are already in debt, have to co-sign. And thanks to Democrats like Joe Biden, you cannot escape student loan debt through bankruptcy. That makes them generational. 401Ks work in much the same way in that there's no getting out. Republicans and New Democrats were ingenious in setting up a system that funnels money from the middle class to the 10%.
We've refused to accept responsibility for Bill Clinton, who pretty much resided over the consolidation of everything from media to financial institutions, the creation of Wall Street black markets, and brought us race to the bottom trade deals.
I think 90% of us hoped Obama was going to be the change candidate. Instead, we got another New Democrat.
Where Obama had the luxury of a Trickle Down, 401K inflating bailout, Hillary won't. Her "incrimental" platform will keep her married to the Casino sham with no public appetite for another Wall Street bailout.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I completely had my head in the sand & as a young person at the time, totally missed all of the republican crap he did back then. I just mindlessly followed the media version of him.
Now I see people doing that with Hillary. Good people busy with their lives & no time to look at what is really happening.
Its tragic. I blame the republicans who have taken over the party, and even more so, the corporate, propagandized media.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Auto Pilot Democrat. The Reagan Era is over! Democrats are in charge. It's all good. Idiot me. A lot of Hillary supporters are as naive today as I was throughout the Clinton 42 years.
Just think, today's naive young people actually espouse Democratic Progressive values and principles. And in return, they are ruthlessly and relentlessly shamed by Hillary, her wayward supporters, and Rachel Maddow et al.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I look back and am amazed how naive I was before the 2000 selection. That woke me up and led me to this emerging new thing called the Internet. It lets us compare notes and find out the agendas behind politicians' actions.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)We're lucky in this age, the age of the internet. Another reason I'm nervous about a republican in the WH (this includes Hillary). As long as the PTB make money from the internet, more than they lose from internet freedom, hopefully we'll be ok.
Maybe. I can definitely see them changing things up on US quite a bit for the very reason we're grateful for the internet. I hope I'm wrong.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)of self-importance.
It is almost always an argument put forth by the privileged class.
I personally ensure I am registered as NPA except during primary times. The Florida Democratic Party often pisses me off to no end. It drove me crazy when this place allowed for the open support of Crist over Meeks.
No democrat is guaranteed my vote.
I am the exact opposite of anything resembling the argument put forth here and am a huge Clinton supporter.
In a bout of irony, the target audience for this article are the LIV's. The exact opposite of the brilliant point some think is being made.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Seriously. It wasn't enough to see a long time DUer get the fucking boot for this kind of shit?
This is the same asshole writing articles like "Off With Their Heads" and then citing Hillary as the Head of the Democratic party?
You can scream in all caps that it has nothing to do with race but it definitely reeks of privilege and arrogance. And you all sure have tried to skirt that line the entire primary season.
Sick. Sick. Sick.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)And then this "The reign of a Trump or Cruz would be similar but worse than that of Clinton" disqualifies this article from being based in reality at all.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The TPP: More Job Offshoring and Lower Wages
http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-wages-jobs.pdf
This is NOT progressive, just 2 examples, there are more. He himself says he's more like a moderate republican. The term progressive should not be twisted in such a way as being applied to Obama. Unless you only look at how he ran in his campaigns.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)So are millions of other Democrats. Not being a progressive is not disqualifying for me.
Obama is a social progressive, and so is Hillary (and so am I). He's fiscally moderate/conservative, and so is Hillary (and so am I). He believes in a strong foreign policy, and so does Hillary (and so do I). I am not unusual; it's just that DU skews MUCH further left than the majority of Democratic voters.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
If this is Democratic, count me out. Its terrorism.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The ME is extremely complicated. I live in the UK; I see the results of IS every day with the migrant crisis. Should we just let IS take over the world, one square mile at a time? They literally want to kill every single one of us, and are happy to die themselves. There's no diplomacy with this group. What should we do? Just stay out of it?
This article helped me understand a bit better what's going on over there:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
How do we handle this? Is it not our responsibility? Do we just stay out? What happens to all the people who will be murdered if we stay out?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_drone_strikes
And yes, I say we get out of the ME completely. We're only making more people hate the US & creating more people who rightly want to do US harm, & we aren't helping the people who live there. If I lived there & my family was killed by drone while eating dinner together or at a wedding or visiting a loved one in the hospital, I would hate the US. With prejudice. Look at how we destroyed Libya. If I lived in Libya and my water supply was destroyed by the west, I would hate the west too.
Maybe there is no simple answer, but we are not being the good guys. And corporations like Halliburton & Raytheon are making enormous profits. That in itself isn't bad, but they're doing it by pushing a narrative that the US has to be there when we're only making things worse.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)But if we have a coalition of allies, all working toward the same goal of eradicating a global threat, I am fine with intervention. We are a superpower, it's part of the job description.
Anyway, we disagree on that. My original point was that being a moderate doesn't make me a unicorn. There are a lot of people who believe as I do, and most of us wholeheartedly support Obama and are looking forward to Hillary building on his progress and adding some of her own.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)You're being suckered by the propaganda.
I'm going to agree to disagree here. I have this argument often enough with my repub family members.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)onecaliberal
(32,852 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)& are speaking out.
Its enough the Democratic process has been hijacked by Moneyed Interests, but then when the people are trying to exercise their right to vote, its being stolen.
Its all quite pathetic. USA!
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Great OP!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)onecaliberal
(32,852 posts)fine to keep folks from voting should lose their own right; then perhaps they would change their tune.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)First time I ever heard it used was with Patty Herst when she was kidnapped and held by the SLA. Patty Herst is a white woman.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I'm surprised the syndrome wasn't renamed as the Hearst Syndrome, it was so textbook.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)I switched back so I could caucus for Bernie and literally couldn't wait to switch back to Unaffiliated. I will never go back to that party. I am content.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That assessment is not pretty.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Isn't that just so precious that 24 (and counting) DU:progressives cheer the creation of a new class of "others": psychically damaged working class people?!?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Pure arrogance.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I am furious. We all know how disingenuous this OP really is. It good to point that out though.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How can so many "progressives" NOT see the sophistry of labeling a, or a class of people, psychically damages ... because they support a different candidate than they.
But I'm sure someone will be along to explain it to me. On the bright side, most of those that would try, have me on Ignore!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)The dismissal of racism as something this broad rush OP "isn't about" is disturbing.
What if I said, what I truly believe, just as we cannot magically escape sexism, we cannot magically "make" something like this not about race. It's not possible.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no one ever had much problem with that
It is counterproductive because it drives them farther away from our views and hardens opposition.
Start by finding common ground, points where you DO agree, not by accusing people of stupidity or mental illness and you will find that you are more successful in persuading them to support your candidate or issue. It might take patience, but in the long run, this is proven to be a more successful tactic. And also note that some are not persuadable. Better to just let those go. Nothing is gained by antagonizing them.
Here are some hints on the art of political persuasion:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/23/1211036/-Top-Five-Rules-of-Political-Persuasion
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Telling conservatives that they are voting against their self interest drives them away. You said "we've been saying the same about working class/poor folks who vote Republican" and no one had a problem with that. I did and do. Because it is counterproductive for the reasons I posted already.
It is also counterproductive to tell Democrats who prefer Clinton that they have mental illness. *If* you care about persuading us to your candidate or cause. But I guess that ship has pretty much sailed already, so the article is sour grapes? Who knows. Not me. I didn't read the article because fuck-all if I want to listen to some internet jackass pontificate about how my political choice in a primary election is indicative of mental infirmity. pffftttt....
BUT, posting that article here at the DU, with that title and the history that phrase has? That is just nasty and divisive. I know it was not you who did that. Just adding the comment here to see if I can avoid making a second post in this thread.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But mostly because its arrogant and ignorant to attempt to tell someone what is/isn't in their interest, even after they have given you ample evidence of what THEY have determined are THEIR interests.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)It IS arrogant and rude to do that. But not sure that most people here care about that part. So I am starting with the fact that, in addition to being bad manners, it is completely counterproductive, a TOTAL waste of time.
I come here to learn things, have discussions with likeminded people and sometimes for vigorous debate (which I enjoy). But I am NOT actively campaigning. On a site like this, almost everyone has decided. Trying to push them, particularly after they say stop, just makes them dig into their opposition. If I want to get votes for my candidate, I phone bank, canvass or register voters. Those are productive uses of my time. But here? Nope.
But I dunno, right out of the gate, a very dedicated cadre of Sanders online supporters decided that no one could say anything negative, ever, about their guy (not just here, either). And in the process, did a BUNCH of damage to the campaign. Maybe they can learn and do better next time? I dunno. But I am trying to persuade them to give it a try
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we (including myself) have been telling "Kansas" (the stand in for white, poor, working class) that they are voting against their interests by voting republican.
(BTW, I stopped doing it when I recognized how arrogant and ignorant it was for me to tell a group, that I am not a part of, what their interests are/are not. Hell, "Kansans" told us very clearly where their interests lie ... Their voting told us that: maintaining the racial/gender/Heterosexist status quo (or taking it back to the "good ole days", where Blacks and Womens and Gays knew their place) was more important to them, than putting more $$$ in their pocket.)
But, telling someone they are voting against their interests is very different from calling them Stockholm Syndrome Sufferers ... the former indicates they are making a "bad" or, even, "stupid" choice, that can be fixed with more information or better "right" thinking; while, the latter can't been (completely) fixed with more information or "right" thinking" because the subject is psychically damaged.
Oh ... And it hasn't escaped me that the original Stockholm Syndrome sufferer invective(s) was directed at Black folks (and the LGBTQ ... NWB) and its current incarnation is directed at "the working class", i.e., the poor, a group that we are constantly reminded as being disproportionately Black; whereas, the "fixable" problem, was/is directed at ... well ... "Kansas."
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so how is that racist poor and working class cuts across every racial line in the US
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)very easily.
I racist comment doesn't become race-neutral because one includes a few whites.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just because the first one was racist doesn't make this one so
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Then we'll hear all about low info voters who go against their own best interest.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I think someone was telling me about this post. They said it was racist and I said if the statement was only aimed at minorities then it would have the tinge of "we know best", which is not good. But as there was no link to it I went on to say I could not tell and that we are all under the syndrome (I even linked the definition), that they have us captive. It is nice to see I am not crazy. It has nothing to do with race, but a system that preys on the most down trodden by the very system. I still think the south is more of a PTSD vote (I am only peaking for the people I know as I grew up there and ALL of my family is from there). We have been hurt so hard by the right-wing there we are afraid to try anymore and if we think about a revolution all we see is Reagan and GW.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's hard to say the opposition to her's racist if she's the only candidate BLM keeps having to protest
polly7
(20,582 posts)n.
A psychological syndrome in which a person being held captive begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor, simultaneously becoming unsympathetic towards the police or other authorities.
Go to any shelter and talk with people who've lived in long-term DV situations - you'll hear story after story where the abuse is minimized and the abuser even defended. Many of those women still have love for their partner and just do not understand how damaged they've been and how much has been taken from them - because they were so beaten down physically and/or emotionally they didn't see anything but trying to keep their lives from getting worse. Gaslighting/crazymaking, and causing one to literally see nothing better to hope for. Until it does get worse.
And this happens to people of all race, gender and class .... abuse can be in any form - physical, emotional, economical, and on and on. Very often the people who choose to use it know exactly what they're doing and will give just enough to keep the sick game going. We ALL know what stockholm syndrome is. Anyone that claims not to, denies the reality or seriousness of it, how damaging it is .. or tries to make it about any one demographic or situation is being very dishonest.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
polly7
(20,582 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Some hacks have become quite fond of tossing that term around and applying it to anyone they don't like.
And what does "every gender, race and class of people" mean -they're all suffering from SS or they're capable of suffering from it? I have more confidence in people than that. I have more confidence in you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)KPN
(15,643 posts)Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Whether Hillary or a Repug, things will be worse.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)haikugal. Thank you, too!
Keep up the good fight!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't.
Skinner, this is still happening on your site.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)by Rightwingers pulling rightwing crap & labeling it (D), like "trade" deals that offshore American jobs, deregulation of industries, offshore oil drilling, unending war for profit, etc.
Is the entire party PoC?
This whole line of attack is meant to be DISTRACTION. Nothing else. Its fermenting a false argument, if you will, to obscure a real problem within the party.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and I can tell it's going to be a waste of time trying to explain it to you.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)There is REAL racism out there that needs to be banished & these false flags are only harming that cause. You diminish the fight against racism by this crying wolf.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you have deliberately chosen to misinterpret, or pretend to forget how Stockholm Syndrome was specifically applied to the AA community.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon first described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]
Stockholm syndrome is sometimes erroneously referred to as Helsinki syndrome.[6][7]
Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden. During the crime, several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.[8]
The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, consultant psychiatrist to the police when it happened. He called it "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[9] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[10]
In Nazi Germany in the 1930s some Jews were allegedly shouting "Down with Us"[18] and supported Hitler's policies.[19] The syndrome is encouraged in crime situations because it can increase the hostages' chances for survival, but those experiencing it are usually not very cooperative during rescue or prosecution.
Several symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome have been identified in the following: positive feelings toward the controller, negative feelings toward the rescuers, supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser, and lack of desire by the victim to be rescued.[20][21]
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)
Brilliant tactic, really.
eta: it's really disgusting to watch these people lining up to congratulate one another for yet another successful dog whistle.
Another proud berniebro moment. Is it any wonder he's losing?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)That's the problem.
NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)No matter how many times you try and SCREAM at people here, the fact remains that this POV reeks of arrogance on so many levels.
Not the least of which is the way it was used RIGHT HERE.
Keep it up, it's effing brilliant I tell ya.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)But a damn good outrage is hard to ignore.
We all know that it most certainly does here. A round of high fives for EVERYONE!
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)It is what it is.
Keep it up, time is short.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)out a good chunk of his board yet.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)In the meantime, keep up the good work with these winners.
High fives all around.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)I know, I was one. Leaving the democratic party was the most liberating experience of my life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
I am no longer bonded with the democratic party, and it feels good.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)of arrogant attacks. Quadrupling down at this point isn't helping your candidate one whit.
Congrats on your epiphany, or whatever it is. Do what you need to do, but cheering this crap on only serves to insult and alienate these people even further.
The phrase has meaning here, everyone knows it. To pretend it's anything else at this point is disingenuous at best.
Have the last word, I've said what I wanted to say here.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)of a phrase because someone misused it. Words and phrases have meaning, they may change over time but outrage on a message board will not change their meanings.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)We know what this is about. Deflecting definitions aren't going to change a thing.
frylock
(34,825 posts)How many PoC were in that bank vault?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)the original author was so shamed at the OP's (yes there were more than one) they were finally deleted...and you bring it back up...shame on you
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)If the term "stockholm syndrome" has a different meaning here than in the rest of the world, it should be in the ToS never to use it here.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you intended to wipe out how the terms was previously used but stating it had been misapplied.
It was despicable in it's racism then, and your deflection, and re-writing and telling us how in essence it was not used to label the AA's community, is just about as bad. Maybe worse. I find re-writing of facts to be heinous.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)along with it because the actual republicans have moved to crazyland in response.
We're being held hostage.
That's what this OP article is about. Its the truth.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Thank you.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)A key "weapon" in the fantasy of incremental rearguard progress is "preemptive surrender."
It constantly mystifies. How can surrendering whenever a fight appears to be brewing on the horizon be "realism"?
The only thing it absolutely guarantees is failure.
When did so many Democrats decide that guaranteed failure was far better than making an effort?
What happened to the ideal of the "little engine that could"?
The so-called Democratic leadership is just littered with "little engines that couldn't."
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)GO neoliberals! woo
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I cannot play with fairies and unicorns and be told it will come true.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)& forcing us to go along because the repubs are more evil.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)It's a difference of opinion.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)That is some seriously fucked up shit.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)The non conservative side.
The NOT PRO CORPORATE side.
The side of the working man.
Not the side of shipping more fucking jobs out of the country.
etc...........
You didn't get that from my Bernie sig? Not seeing the big picture? Not surprised.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)You can't be on that side and post what you posted. The 2000 Nader voters weren't some virtuous patriots that stood up for the little man. They were suckers that got fooled into destruction of the economy, civil rights, infrastructure, and several countries.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)please.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We SHOULD all be supporting Hillary soon.
frylock
(34,825 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)to word choice or anything else, rather than try to get their minds around why they continue to follow.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)or Gender.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... to resurrect the racist Stockholm Syndrome thread. Is that you, WillyH? And yes, I spelled it that way on purpose because you're clearly trying to stir racial hatred the same 41 did.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)taboo in some circles here. Stockholm syndrome is what happens when someone starts identifying with their oppressor(s). It is more than mere ignorance. It is a primal self-defensive reaction that results in exactly the opposite of self-defense.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And we could go so far as to take many of the posts on this thread & others here & use them as examples of Dems held hostage identifying with their oppressors & getting defensive. You said something I can't refute, so so you are racist! You used a word in a way not commonly used, you don't know English!
Elsewhere....High college costs when it used to be quite affordable? Awesome! Killing innocents with drones? Hey its war, things happen. Unauthorized war? Did someone say something? Corporations & candidates setting up shell companies to avoid paying their taxes? No problem! No one likes paying taxes...
Primal, sad, something...
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)sure seem to love telling people they have Staockholm Syndrome.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the can't use the other word ... well ... the knew until recently.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)They are fermenting SOMETHING and it stinks
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)that might change. 7 stages of grief and all that.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)I am not the die hard Dem I was coming in.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Anyone who understands the history that phrase has at this site and decides to post it anyway is being racially insensitive and divisive.
You KNOW that is a sensitive phrase, one that MANY black DUers take offense at and yet you decide to post it anyway.
No one cares what you meant, it only matter how it make people feel.
It is not even a good article.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rendition of the "What? Who me? I had no idea!", that DUers like to play.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)to make the computer blow-up when someone tries to post an OP with that word in the title. You post "BLAHBLAHBLAH Stockholm Syndrome, but that doesn't make me racist!!!1!!! And get the blue screen of death. BOOM. I'll go to over to ATA and see if the admins can hook that up
William769
(55,146 posts)quantass
(5,505 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)There's much truth here.
For to say thanks for this article and thread.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Corporate media sure isn't talking about it. Its up to US.
Thanks for sharing, Duppers!
2banon
(7,321 posts)And my hat off to ya for the Courage to post in hostile territory, particularly among a tribe of Neo Liberals given to despicable arrogance, extreme hubris and worst of all, intellectual dishonesty which I hold with a significant degree of contempt and loathing.
Bravo, mon ami! Bravo!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Hats off to you, 2banon! You call it like it is with articulated swagger & grace all rolled into one. Boom! I envy that.
Well said.
2banon
(7,321 posts)d'aller au cur de ce qui fait souffrir ce parti . Je vous remercie! vous me flattez , et je suis charmé , mais il vous est avec le courage et fanfaronnades !
tu gères!
et la lutte continue, mon ami.. le bras dans le bras ensemble.
Viva la révolution!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Love that.
Keeps us strong in the fight against the neoliberal BS. In this together!
eridani
(51,907 posts)Namely that most voters know candidates' positions on a range of issues and vote accordingly. They don't, and they don't.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)PB57
(2 posts)Dear All,
I am the author of this post - it is republished from an article I wrote for Common Dreams. I was completely unaware of any of the connotations that were previously associated with the Stockholm Syndrome posted on this site. Further, my goal in the article was not to dismiss or discount anyone for supporting one candidate over another. Rather, my only aim in the piece was to start a conversation regarding the possibilities of creating a more unified progressive movement and politics. I do feel that - quite understandably - a large amount of genuine progressive energy and resources are invested in leaders and Parties that do not substantively promote such values either domestically or internationally. In this regard, the piece was largely meant as a critique of Sanders supporters for not effectively articulating why this Centrist strategy may no longer be the best and most effective way to advocate for social reform and change.
I am sorry though if unintentionally it reinforced any discriminatory assumptions or perspectives - which again was the complete opposite of its intention.
On another note - the critics of my grammar are quite right. It is foment. I used ferment inappropriately.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)In rememberance of WillyT and his well deserved PPR.