Questioning if a majority of AA voters are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome....

[NCTraveler]

because of the democrat they support in the primary is outright racist and has no place here. It is not a dog whistle, it is outright racism. It really is a glimpse into a persons true inner thoughts. This is something an overwhelming majority of people here should agree on.

Such a comment would be welcomed with a smile on stormfront and a host of other disgustingly racist sites. The blatantly racist comment shouldn't be welcomed here.

This is directly primary related. A blatantly racist comment was used against AA's and their intelligence was questioned because of who an overwhelming majority of them are currently supporting in the democratic primary.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-addresses-u-s-racism-problem-s-article-1.2301952

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/stepping-out-hillary-clinton-takes

http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2015/09/01/why-the-hate-for-hillary/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[leftofcool]

1. And yet the post was not hidden or self deleted

Pathetic.

[brush]

34. I must have missed this post

Does anyone have the link?

[stevenleser]

57. I believe this is the link in question...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1251687330

[brush]

68. Thanks!

[Dem2]

118. I had a feeling it was that one

not cool.

[Hortensis]

173. On a jury, I'd probably "leave," though. The reason is that discourse

here so generally does not meet official DU standards that bouncing stuff like this would not be equitable. Many posts are aggressively rude and disrespectful of the views of others. Also, clue me in, but I don't see anything in it that could not have been addressed just as well to to an Aryan Brotherhood or Mothers for a Christian America forum.

[betsuni]

35. Pathetic is the best word to describe it (and other posts). nt

[Florencenj2point0]

40. What do you expect?

this is DU, like Dkos where a supposedly democratic site has been taken over by democratic party haters who believe in Freeped online polls and not in scientific polls. Up is down, north is south and the owners of these sites laugh themselves all the way to the bank. Can't blame them. The fools here are the trolls who hate Clinton and the rest of us who read their crazy hate filled bullshit and think we can reason with them......of course all Bernie supporters do not fall in to that group.

[Jackilope]

47. "Democratic Party Haters"??? Wouldn't that be Third Wayers?

Let's understand that a D in front of the name doesn't magically make the person with initial in front of it Democratic. Third Way garbage contaminates the party.

It would be much easier to round up the candidates, the party leaders, and those elected that are Corporate beholden and put a big C by their name.

I'm a McGovern and Wellstone style Democratic person and see that Sanders is more Democratic than the whole lot.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

59. What you call "third-way' is the majority of the party

The DU is dominated by people with fringe views. Just FYI.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[72DejaVu]

76. Third Way?

Oh, you mean like the No Labels crowd.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

223. No, "third way" on the DU means any Democrat to the right of Nader

In other words, about 85% of us.

Basically, if you don't hate Obama, and consider him to be a sellout, they call you "third-way".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[AgingAmerican]

236. LOL

Right wingers are a barrel of laughs.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

250. Laugh right up to the elections

...when reality will hit you in the face, as it always does for Republicans and Teabaggers as well.

America isn't a fringe-hater country.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[AgingAmerican]

256. Name one right wing policy that is good for the country

There are none. Right wingers suck.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

259. The ACA is good for the country

Even though the DU purity trolls hate it.

You're done with the "third way"? I'm even more done with the Naderite-Firebaggers who make common cause with Republicans.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[AgingAmerican]

260. The 'Third way' are corporate/Oligarchic Dems

AKA Republicans.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

262. Ah, "corporate"... in other words, pro-economic opportunity

The majority of Democrats support capitalism and free trade. We're not Communist. We just want for capitalism, as Secretary Clinton put it, to be "saved from itself".

No wonder you hate Democrats so much. You want us to be an entirely different party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[OilemFirchen]

66. Nobody here hates the Democratic Party.

It would be much easier to round up the candidates, the party leaders, and those elected that are Corporate beholden and put a big C by their name.

What would the "C" represent, un-Democratic-Party-Hater?

[Dem2]

120. I've never met a 3rd way Democrat

There was one that posted on DU once, but I can't even recall that poster's user name at this time.

[Dem2]

119. Not helpful

It's posts like this that keep the circle completed. I agree there's too much infighting, but poking people in the eye is not productive.

[uponit7771]

196. +1

[grasswire]

212. yeah, welcome to DU

You know an awful lot about the place for only 40 or so posts.

[workinclasszero]

125. Pathetic is right

Disgusting also.

[Renew Deal]

128. It's an embarrassment to DU

And shockingly racist. It sounds like something that would come from Limbaugh.

[MADem]

2. I agree. It was offensive in the extreme.

Might as well come right out and name-call: "Hey, all you low-information voters...you don't like MY candidate? You're stupid! You're obeying orders like Patty Hearst! Ha ha!"

You know what else it was? It was not a way to win friends, or influence people. The tone-deafness of the comments, aside from the rudeness of them (to say nothing of the fact that a jury let that ugly shit stand), makes me wonder if people really do "get" that black lives matter, and black voters prioritize this fact. I am starting to think we've got at least eight people here who aren't clear on the concept.

[leftofcool]

4. They get it, they just don't care.

The only thing that matters to some people is fighting the millionaires over their money and influence and that is that. Nothing else is important and bernie's letter to DU basically emphasized that fact.

[MADem]

151. It's a crying shame.

That single-issue focus will be the undoing of their efforts, I think.

I am reminded of a living American hero, John Lewis, shot down by a bunch of twinklefingers when he asked to speak to the OCCUPY Atlanta group. Talk about short-sighted tunnel vision! This American hero isn't any better than US--waaaah!


There's a whole host of things we need to talk about--not just millionaires (who aren't going to stand still while their pockets are picked, and who are unlikely to vote against their own self-interests, either....and how many millionaires are in Congress? I think it's probably easier to ask how many Senators aren't worth a million or more...).

But so long as those millionaires and billionaires are taking up all the air in the room, there's no room for "lives that matter" or anything else--sure, they'll get lip service because they demanded it, but it's still all about the money. Big sigh, I guess.

[brush]

72. It's really stupid too. Could cause Sanders votes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. Well stuff that you suggest it might as well come right and said ...

Has been said, with the same results ... allowed to stand, after being alerted on, and not self deleted, after being called out on it.

So why would that post(er) be hesitant to post it ... That seems to be the majority opinion of PoC on this site ... except for those (newly/recently self-identifying) PoC, that support a certain candidate.

I am starting to think we've got at least eight people here who aren't clear on the concept.

By my count, there is way more than that ... I could rattle off 27 DUers, without doing a search.

[Scootaloo]

88. 1StrongBlackMan, why do you keep insinuating PoC supporting Sanders aren't really PoC?

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Because the internet is anonymous and ...

some of these (newly/recently) self-identifying PoC, are new to DU; but more, are long time DUers, that never felt the need/interest in self-identifying, nor, have the posted to issues related to race.

That is why.

[Scootaloo]

107. So you feel you are entitled to accuse them of blackface, whether you know or not

Wholly on the basis that they are supporting a candidate you dislike.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. NO ... I feel entitled to QUESTION whether they are what they purport to be ...

based on their conduct.

[Scootaloo]

117. I see. So people of color must comport to your expectations to "count"

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Okay ... If that is what you wish to take from this exchange ...

you have at it.

But before doing so, substitute the word, "PoC" with Democrat, or Liberal, or Progressive, or anything you purport to be.

[Scootaloo]

130. It's what you're delivering.

And it's impossible to substitute the terms. "Democrat," "liberal," and "progressive" are labels derived from opinion and ideology. You can stop being one of these things, or you can start. You can be good at it, or you can be bad at it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. Okay. n/t

[Dem2]

124. Inappropriate

highly.

[Scootaloo]

131. I agree. He needs to stop doing it.

[brush]

153. Nobody brought up "blackface" but you. Stick with the facts.

[Scootaloo]

155. When you accuse people of color of being white people pretending to be people of color...

Then what do we call that?

[brush]

157. Not going to argue with you. Been there, done that.

[LanternWaste]

263. Skepticism

"Then what do we call that?"
Skepticism.

I kinda thought skepticism was a all the rage and trendy among the more-clever-than-thou crowd, but maybe it's simply another crutch of convenience used by the mentally lazy, inconsistently used when it suits a purpose, ignored (or called "accusation) when it's better ignored.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

232. The Internet is anonymous, isn't it? Have we met?

I might be a Bulgarian national. I might be a New Zealander. I might be Boston Irish. You?

[1StrongBlackMan]

243. That is exactly my point! n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

244. Based on your response, I believe you missed my point. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

245. Perhaps ...

But on an anonymous message board, is it unreasonable to question a person's identity, where they consistently hold positions outside the main of the claimed demographic ... ETA: especially, when that person is particularly, "aggressive" towards members claim to be of that demographic?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

246. Absolutely. Anyone who is different from the herd must be culled.

I do hope, 1SBM, that you did get my point. Have a good weekend.

[1StrongBlackMan]

247. I edited my response to include ...

ETA: especially, when that person is particularly, "aggressive" towards members claim to be of that demographic?

I think you get MY point ... especially since you, and (just about) everyone else in this board, do the exact same thing ... when it comes to other posters. But I guess it's only acceptable, in this instance (and on this board), to apply that scrutiny/questioning to Democrats and liberals.

[MADem]

134. I was trying to be kind.

Of course, as I'm starting to figure out by looking at some of the shade in the vicinity, that's probably a wasted effort!

[nc4bo]

3. Guess my skin is pretty leatherized

Because my personal outrage needle barely budged.

Not to say that and no disrespect to others who feel differently.

[NCTraveler]

5. I somewhat agree.

Outright racist comments don't seem to move people here much. It isn't "outrage." It is calling out racist behavior. Something all of us should be against.

Suggesting a majority of AA voters are suffering from Stockholm is outright racist. I wish comments like that moved peoples "needle" a little more. Unfortunately, as you stated, it doesn't. Outright racism isn't a "feeling" as you have ascribed.

[nc4bo]

12. I was telling someone on here yesterday

That menopause seems to have effected the way I comprehend or dicipher the meaning of people's posts these days.

I've been called all sorts of racial slurs and witnessed the same being used against the first black POTUS and others and I run hot. The post in reference barely lit my match.

I sorta jumped on a poster the other day who I thought was trolling and it wasn't the case and I appreciated that another DUer took the time to explain the intent I obviously missed.

This is another one of those cases I guess.

[NCTraveler]

18. Accusing a majority of AA voters of suffering from a mental issue....

does more than light a match for me.

"I've been called all sorts of racial slurs and witnessed the same being used against the first black POTUS and others and I run hot."

I one hundred percent believe that you have had all sorts of racial slurs hurled your way. One reason you should care about the blatant racism being shown to a majority of AA voters. Literally the mental health of a majority of AA voters was questioned.

Thanks for your reply and I am sorry about the comments you have been at the receiving end of. Racists should not be welcome here and should be called out across all segments of society.

While it barely lit your match, you should still be able to call it what it is; outright racism.

[Half-Century Man]

69. It is a "psychological phenomenon", not a "mental issue".

It is not a defect in the mind, but a survival mechanism. In order to protect yourself in a hostile situation, you conform your thinking or develop sympathy to the one(s) who exhibit power over you.
It has been argued that the transition from civilian to solder during boot camp is a manifestation of Stockholm syndrome.
Why a battered wife stays with an abusive spouse.
Why there are people who identify as Jewish but proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah.
Why some members of a minority group begins to believe and use the dog whistles they a being bombarded with.


Even here on DU we tend to fall back on stereotypes of persons dealing with altered/different perceptions. I though we were supposed to be the inclusive party of thinkers.

The post in question was one of the most graceless ham-handed attempts to try and get people to consider a specific point I have seen here. Akin to testing someone's hearing by farting next to their head.
He wanted the anger to fuel the discussion. He won.

[NCTraveler]

79. "It is a "psychological phenomenon", not a "mental issue"."

Of course you are correct with that statement. It can still be called a mental issue without falling into falsehood in any way. But it is described as a psychological phenomenon. That doesn't really make any difference as to how the other poster used it or the validity as to if it is racist or not.

Pondering aloud if a millions of AA's are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome is in direct conflict with your thoughts on being a party of thinkers. The statements by said person go against intelligent thought. They are more in line with stormfront and freerepublic. They would cheer these comments and I don't believe they are a solid group of thinkers.

[Half-Century Man]

137. I agree to that.

But, I've seen quite a bit of derogatory slams about mental health in the recent threads about gun violence. I just wanted to remind everyone to think before speaking.
Something that post in discussion did not do, or worse, carefully planned as to exploit responses.

I just cruised that thread, saw what it was; and left it to the people so beautifully dismantling it.
I should have spoke up. I will.

[MADem]

143. Exactly. nt

[MADem]

136. "Issue" is not a synonym for "defect." I think it is an issue of the mind, therefore, the use of

the term was appropriate. The mind is responding due to stimuli, in ways that it would not, otherwise.

And it was more than graceless--it was racist.

[Half-Century Man]

139. Unintentional racism, the bastard stepchild of instutional racism.

I do not know for a fact he was being racist on purpose. I can only speculate. Here on DU, I am very frequently told I am wrong.
So, I will err on the side of caution. I will restrain myself from knee-jerk reactions and responses in anger. I will probably not be too successful, but will still work on it.
I downplayed it.

And, I am not responding to the poster, I see no reason to subject people here to my anger.

[MADem]

147. It's a close cousin to that "privilege" thing happening.

And it's all tied up with that "Well, we're on the right side of history, so of COURSE you're going to let us get OURS first, and you'll get yours, too, by and by...." which is closely related to "Well, who you gonna get a better deal from? US???? Or THEM???"

I think people should get a little angry every now and again when a liberal discussion board doesn't live up to the liberal promise. We always love to put on our smug and say "OH, we're BETTER than THEY are..." and it's time we started acting like we meant it.

I always say "Where you stand depends on where you sit," and when you're sitting over in the "assorted MINORITIES" corner, you get a very different view. If you've never been treated differently as a consequence of how you look--and nothing other than that--it's a foreign concept. If you've ALWAYS been treated dfferently as a consequence of how you look, it's SSDD.

[Prism]

21. It's like when Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as a "plantation"

The implication being that minorities aren't bright enough or have agency enough to think for themselves as they're just one big monolithic block of dependents.

It's one thing to say, "This candidate has been hostile or unsupportive of your community in the past. So why the support now?" That's a fair question.

The Stockholm syndrome bit is what made it very special.

[mmonk]

6. I don't stay around in here long enough.

Are you talking about a poster or candidate?

[NCTraveler]

7. Does it matter? Do you need to know the person to form an opinion?

Questioning if a majority of AA voters might be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome because of the democrat they support is outright racist no matter who said it. It is a comment that you should simply agree is racist as I have stated. You won't be going out on a limb if I am misrepresenting the comment, which I am not. It is blatantly racist and the person saying it should hold no weight with respect to you forming an opinion on if it is racist or not.

[mmonk]

11. Your explanation helps. A poster.

I came in from the cold having not read the post in question.

[mmonk]

30. BTW, if you had started your post with the word someone, I would not have

asked the question.

[thesquanderer]

46. I had the same confusion.

In a quick reading, at first I actually thought the OP was him or herself "Questioning if a majority of AA voters are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome because the democrat they support in the primary is outright racist" -- that is, I missed the crucial word "of" -- and thought, what candidate are they talking about? What candidate does this poster think is racist? But then I figured it out. Yeah, the OP is talking about some other post. I didn't see the original post, and none of the provided links point to it, so I actually don't know exactly what this person is talking about, I don't know the context. Not sure why its an OP rather than a reply to the apparently offensive thread in question. But apparently someone is (again) accusing HRC of being racist and saying that AAs should not support her. Which I think is ridiculous, even though I'm a Bernie supporter.

[mmonk]

50. Thanks. Good to know I wasn't the only one.

[artislife]

58. Yes, this OP is meta. nt

[NCTraveler]

67. It is a discussion about racism being used in an attempt to make points for a candidate.

You should stand strong in calling out racism. Not dismiss it. This is much more than meta. It is a discussion about challenging someone who made claim to the mental status of a majority of AA voters because of who they support in the primary. Dismiss racism as you wish.

[JustAnotherGen]

95. I don't think it is Meta at all

No way.

The addled minded black stereotype was fully explored in Birth of a Nation. I read that post and saw the images from that film. I.E. Too simple minded to know what's good for us.

[randys1]

104. Meta, what a fucking god damn insult that is...FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

105. Hmm - I really like Art Is Life's mind

I don't know if it was insulting on her part.

We just see it differently.

[artislife]

145. Read above reply

..

[randys1]

158. I admit, racism is more important to some than others

[artislife]

144. I am Latina

The attack..l feel is meta. Why? Because if a H supporter. ..and I know you are an O'Malley supporter, had asked if the same two groups of people were voting against the perceived interests, it would be considered dialog bY many of posters here. I feel this OP is more about minorities and LBGTs like bricks to be hurled through Sanders glass windows. That us why I think it us more meta.

[NCTraveler]

230. I feel arguments can be well made...

That Sanders is second to none with respect to the things being mentioned. Holding that thought and calling out racism don't have anything to do with one and other. I have written here after NRN that I felt Clinton supporters were crossing the line and it was feeling as though they were using the issue as nothing more than a political tool. And I have never hid it, I want O'Malley but have great respect for Clinton.

[JustAnotherGen]

92. I don't agree

The post the op is referencing point blank is getting DU recs.

I've posted a post similar to this in the African American group - and truly - it's not meta.

I will not respond to the OP in question because (treading carefully here) -

Once I put someone in my personal - You Don't Count Bin -

They stay there.


Why should someone respond to something they don't believe deserves a response? We can discuss the 'CONCEPT' which is very similar to the one D.W. Griffith's put out . . . i.e. it's as old as one of the first biopic films ever.


I welcome the opportunity to discuss the CORE CONCEPT -

I just don't feel like I should have to discuss it with THAT PERSON.

Make sense?

[brush]

154. Okay then. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt . . .

and just presume you misunderstand what meta is or the barely disguised intent of that post went over your head.

[Romulox]

8. Hillary supporters now claim that reminding people of Hillary's racist gaffes is itself racist.

[NCTraveler]

9. No. That isn't what I said at all. Not sure how you even arrived at that thought.

The racist comment was extremely blatant. Surprised you don't feel that questioning if a majority of AA voters are suffering from Stockholm is racist. It's blatant racism. Blatant. Racism and covering for racists isn't my thing.

Talking about her record in this area is fair game. I have discussed it at length on this board with respect to Clinton, O'Malley, and Sanders. I have never displayed personal outright racism while doing so. Not sure why you think one must be a racist in order to discuss these issues.

[Romulox]

14. Explain it to me like I'm five. nt

[NCTraveler]

15. No one should have to.

Talking about her record in this area is fair game. I have discussed it at length on this board with respect to Clinton, O'Malley, and Sanders. I have never displayed personal outright racism while doing so. Not sure why you think one must be a racist in order to discuss these issues. Why do you think it is necessary to question the mental state of a majority of voting AA's because of who they support in the primary? I think you should answer that question.

You do think that questioning the mental status of a majority of AA voters because of the democrat they support in the primaries is racist, don't you? It is straight up stormfront shit.

[Romulox]

16. I am not defending arguments I haven't made. I am asking for support for your accusation.

Not sure why you think one must be a racist in order to discuss these issues. Why do you think it is necessary to question the mental state of a majority of voting AA's because of who they support in the primary? I think you should answer that question.

I didn't say any of these things, so I think it is disingenuous to demand that I defend them.

You do think that questioning the mental status of a majority of AA voters because of the democrat they support in the primaries is racist, don't you? It is straight up stormfront shit.

I asked for you explanation as to why questioning support for Hillary in light of her well-documented racism is itself racist. I don't believe your response to me makes the case.

[NCTraveler]

20. Wish I could help you more.

My op was clear. I understand you have no issue with what was addressed in the op.

"I am not defending arguments I haven't made."

Not everything is about you. I can't for the life of me see how one cannot simply agree that questioning the status of a majority of AA voters as having mental issues is racist. Very strange you keep deflecting one hundred percent from every word in the op.

[Romulox]

22. I think the "it's so obvious I can't explain it" argument speaks for itself. nt

[NCTraveler]

29. I did explain it. You don't get it.

Questioning the mental status of a majority of AA voters because of the democrat they support in the primaries is blatantly racist.

What further explanation do you need? I have never stated the things you are claiming. Her words and record are fair game. It is that simple.

NCTraveler
Questioning the mental health of a majority of AA voters because of the democrat they support is blatantly racist.

Romulox
I don't get it, can you explain it?

That really isn't a very flattering portrait you are painting of yourself.

[Romulox]

31. Quotes need to have the *actual words a person said/typed*. Why type something different?

[George II]

37. I don't think you're getting through despite your best efforts.

[NCTraveler]

39. Their deflection and contortions show just how much it got through to them.

If they are willing to deflect this far in order to support such comments it is on them. Then again, sometimes my best effort is pretty poor. lol.

The first thing I think of when I see the Canadian flag is Alex Trebek. I can't begin to tell you the crush I have on him. Go Canada!!!!!

[George II]

41. Hah! Better Alex than Stephen Harper or Rob Ford (or Justin Bieber for that matter!)

The first thing I think of sometimes is how my cousin taunted me about how bad the NY Rangers were, and now Toronto is playing New York for the National League championship.

But we digress....that OP you were referring to raised quite a few hackles around here - although from not one of groups he offended, I was still offended.

[randys1]

106. You did quite well here. You risked your existence here, to talk about truth.

[NaturalHigh]

112. "Risked your existence."

Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

[JustAnotherGen]

252. No - its apt considering

The alert stalking going on.

There was a stupid hide in a group where the poster posed a similar question as this op does.

The thing is - the hidden post is now tacked to the top of that group and there is nothing - NOTHING - the Sanders supporters can do about it. It won't sink.

I'm shocked this thread hasn't been locked or hidden yet. Get enough hides and it's bye bye for now.

Well here at least . . . many Sanders supporters at DU don't realize there are actually two off shoot boards.

[JustAnotherGen]

251. He doesn't think that questioning

My mental health because I will not vote for Sanders is prejudiced/bigoted.

He doesn't but for some reason doesn't feel comfortable writing that.

Because he knows . . .

[Romulox]

17. Also, did the OP bristle at the "white supremacist liberal" smears? I seemed to have missed it! nt

[NuclearDem]

55. Minor difference between those.

"White supremacist liberal" refers to white progressives not taking AA issues seriously and keeping them on the backburner. That someone used some uncomfortable words to make a completely valid point doesn't invalidate the point itself.

Calling members of an entire race and entire sexual orientation too stupid to know what's right for them is just outright bigoted because it refuses to acknowledge that some LGBT and AA voters support Clinton willingly.

And frankly, it's hard to disprove the "white supremacist liberal" tag with sentiments like that being expressed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. +1 ...

Note how, calling out something that is racist (sexist/heterosexist) gets more passionate discussion (i.e., defense) from some DUers; than, the actually racist (sexist/heterosexist) comment.

And notice, where it is coming from.

[LanternWaste]

266. It's easy to miss a thing if it doesn't implicitly validate a bias...

It's easy to miss a thing if it doesn't implicitly validate a bias...

But no doubt, we all of us like to maintain the pretense that the fallacy known as the complex question, asked with obvious implication is merely a sincere and righteous query into life, the universe and everything. Human nature, I would guess.

[Fumesucker]

10. Respectfully if that is your position then I will only talk to hard working white people

[Romulox]

13. Loathsome! You remembered Hillary's racism. And that makes *you* loathsome!

[NCTraveler]

25. I don't think they are "loathsome."

Can you show me where someone has made that claim here?

[George II]

43. Even if Hillary's campaign had tinges of "racism" (which is wasn't) that.....

...gives fans of the candidate opposing her this time around, EIGHT years later, a free pass?

[Chitown Kev]

102. Actually

the specific thread made references to two of the actions of Hillary's husband: Sister Souljah and "welfare"

Really...the OP couldn't think of any better issues to bring uo than welfare...Mitt Romney wasn't even that bold.

[JustAnotherGen]

253. But first he referenced Queen Latifah!

[zappaman]

257. Actually, he said "Queen Latifa"...

You know...from the Google.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I agree in part and dissent in part from my dear friend, NCTraveler.

I agree that the poster's words were hurtful. I disagree that they were intentional. Sometimes zealous advocacy clouds a person's thought process and compels him or her to act in ways that are discordant with their true selves.

I don't believe the poster in question is a bad person, just misguided.

[NCTraveler]

23. I'm not sure I can agree with you here.

And that isn't common. I think questioning the mental status of a majority of AA voters is blatantly racist. It goes beyond zealous advocacy.

Your thought hold weight with me so it is something I will think about.

To be fair, my frustration has slipped through over the last couple of months. For the longest time I wouldn't make very personal comments. I stuck with the issues. I let certain dishonest ops about someone I greatly respect get the best of me. It went from me supporting O'Malley, to me defending Hillary, and often going after Sanders because of his supporters attacks. That made me guilty of what I disliked in others here. I admit that and don't like that about myself as I truly think Sanders is awesome. I have backed off some since my time out. I think I need to get back to where I was in this process.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Let me try it this way and be blunt...

There is a contingent on this board who believe anybody that doesn't support the candidate they support has a intellectual deficit and that deficit is independent of their race, religion, gender, orientation, et cetera.

I like Hillary for a host of reasons. Folks like Bernie for a host of reasons. One of the reasons I don't attribute to their liking of Bernie is that they are dumb.

It reveals itself on this board in a myriad of ways from the incredulity with which they reacted to the rough consensus by the viewing public and the pundits that Hillary Clinton won the debate to the unskewing of every random survey that shows her doing well.

P.S. The person who deprived black folks of agency also deprived glbtq folks of agency as well, such are the demands of zealous advocacy.

Some of the person we are discussing posts make me cringe but at the end of the day I don't think he's a bad guy.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Let's not forget that the OP was also homophobic and treated LGBT to the same short shrift

The poster has done that repeatedly, regularly, redundantly for months and months and months. He's also been informed repeatedly that his verbiage is bigoted. He does not care.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. He holds out anybody who doesn't support the candidate he supports for censure.

There is a contingent on this board who believe anybody that doesn't support the candidate they support has a intellectual deficit and that deficit is independent of their race, religion, gender, orientation, et cetera

-Me

He seems to be indiscriminate in his discrimination. I attribute it to zealous advocacy. I hate to believe that is representative of his true self.

As an aside , he should respond to your repeated queries.


To answer his question I suspect the reason a lot of glbtq, Hispanic, and black folks like Hillary is because many of her close associates are glbtq, Hispanic, and black, and if those groups see she is okay with representatives of their groups she must be okay with them.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Except that I support Bernie, my complaints about that poster are not about primary choices at all.

His attacks on LGBT and African Americans are also not about Bernie, he has done the same sort of posts as a 'Warren supporter' and under other facades.

His posts do not serve Bernie Sanders. Those posts run counter to the objectives of the Sanders campaign.

[brush]

78. Agreed. There's also residual goodwill from Bill Clinton's admin

In the 90's when Clinton was president everybody was working — including black folks.

Cheney/Bush certainly can't say that, even under the Obama admin black employment figures are not nearly as robust.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I think people forget how incredibly good the economy in the 90s was, for everybody...

-African American unemployment was at its lowest level in a generation
-African American home ownership was its highest level in a generation.
-Hispanic unemployment was its lowest level in a generation
-Poverty was at its lowest level in a generation.

Historians and economists can debate who was responsible for that prosperity but that prosperity was real and I suspect the folks who benefited the most from it associate the prosperity with Bill Clinton.

[Number23]

192. And this is someting the "Clintons are evil" crowd refuse to see

Bill did some bad things and yes, alot of black people went to jail under his tenure. But alot of black people also went to COLLEGE under his tenure.

There is a reason that incredibly educated, wise and knowledgeable black people TO THIS DAY still love Bill Clinton. And all of the attacks from people who aren't black that we should all hate him and by default Hillary because of xyz does absolutely nothing but bolster the long held belief that these people know nothing about minority communities and couldn't care less.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

198. This chart is amazing

This graph is pretty amazing too:



http://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

[NCTraveler]

231. Thanks for sharing that. Nt

[betsuni]

74. No no no. Intentional. Bad! Bad poster. Will never change. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Zealous advocacy can cloud your thinking. Go watch a civil case where big $$$ are involved.

I don't think the poster being discussed is a homophobe or bigot for two reasons; it's too horrible to comprehend and I hate to think someone who spends as much time on left leaning boards can hold those views.

He just needs to come to grips with the notion that smart people, free of bias, can see the world very different than him.

[JaneyVee]

24. Awful. It's what happens when you live in a bubble.

[cwydro]

28. I'm a gay woman, and the OP in that thread referenced gay people as well.

I didn't take offense at the OP, but I think it was an ugly OP, unworthy of Sanders and of DU.

I'm glad it still stands. It speaks volumes about the person who posted it.

Personally, if I had made such an egregious mistake in confusing two notable black women, I would have self-deleted in utter humiliation.

I don't find the post itself to be racist, though extremely ignorant and simplistic. However, I think it shines a bright light on the actual feelings of that OP toward people of color and gay folks.

[NCTraveler]

33. That op did reference others as well and I did question them about that in a reply to their op.

You are the second person whom I respect who has said they don't find it to be outright racist. That gives me pause and a need to reflect on my thoughts. I just don't seem to be able to get there right now. I really find it to be overt racism. Questioning the possible mental status of millions of POC and LGBQT because of the democrat they support seems to be blatant racism and bigotry to me. When you and DSB bring it to me in the way you have, questioning my thoughts on how blatant it is, I will think about it. Thank you for the thought in your reply.

[cwydro]

36. I will say that I certainly can see how it can be taken as racist.

It seems apparent it's coming from a racist place.

Again, mostly I find it desperate and sad. I think Sanders would not be impressed.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. I do not belive the intention is support of Sanders at all.

It seems obvious that this sort of verbiage undermines the candidate.

[cwydro]

48. That's a good point.

I hadn't looked at it that way.

[workinclasszero]

42. This should be brought to the attention of the owners of the board

To see if they will allow the smearing and slander of a whole race of people on the Democratic Underground.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

49. Racist and disgusting. n/t

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

51. Can someone tell me what AA is supposed to stand for here?

Alcoholics Anonymous? I guess I'm not update to date on the lingo around here.

[m-lekktor]

52. African American. nt

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

54. Thank You

[m-lekktor]

56. no problem!!

[Jackilope]

53. The USA is full of people voting against their own self interests. Wake Up!

If one were to rely on Corporate Media for information, that is one way.

The GOP party isn't what it used to be, so those habitually voting for the Rs are voting for themselves being led to the slaughterhouse. The Democratic Party with the Third Way poisoning is basically the same thing. Corporations are the puppet masters. WAKE UP and break those strings, folks. When the lesser of two evils still gets TPP pushed through, we are just screwed. Even Internet access for information will sabotaged.

Third Way is alive and well and smiling and wearing a pant suit. Her TPP flipping is one of the bigger red flags flying.

[shenmue]

61. Says another 63-post wonder

[SoapBox]

64. The USA is full of people voting against their own self interest.

Well I do not have only 63 posts...

And Americans do it all the time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. You do realize that YOU do not get to define MY interests, right? ...

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

As much as "Kansas voters" vote for the gop ... which is/maybe against their economic interests, "Kansas Voters" are, clearly, voting in support of what they see as their interests ... ETA: regardless of what YOU, a non-Kansas, non-gop voter might think.

[JustAnotherGen]

93. Throw the mic!

:appaluse:

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. See my expanded response in Post 108 ...

Some will never get out of their own heads to hear any other voice.

[Jackilope]

100. With all due respect, KS is not doing so hot and maybe not best example.

In KS there is a real backlash and mess. You see Brownback shedding tears over what is his and Koch brothers creation. To a degree, I do have to wonder if the will of the people is actually reflected due to electronic voting, etc.

in KS I am acquainted with a public school teacher who was let go and suffered some of the backlash but she continues to vote GOP. I guess I genuinely do wonder why??? Would you say this public education teacher is voting in the best interest of public education? She continually posts on FB and pleads for prayers on her job situation, but votes for the people undermining the job. It truly is like trying to reason with an alcoholic. She defends those harming public education and cries and feels victimized at the end of many school years.

My other question is who is defending or would best defend your interests? Would they uphold your interests or cave to Corporate interests?

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. You are missing they point ...

how KS, and those living in KS, are doing is unrelated to HOW/WHAT those voting for the gop see as THEIR interests ... how they are doing economically is YOUR measure of their interests.

This points out the Bernie (and Bernie-supporters') disconnect with the main of the Black electorate ... YOU wish that Black people would prioritize our economic-status over racial justice.

We (by and large) do not ... and we maintain two centuries of memory that informs our, particular, interests.

[JustAnotherGen]

133. Good points n/t

[Jackilope]

141. I am trying to understand and hope you can help me here.

How is it that you have arrived at the opinion that my wish or Bernie's wish or a whole block of Bernie supporters have a priority of economic over racial justice? It is confusing to me how you could shortchange Sanders, as he seems to walk the walk regarding justice his whole life. When he was introduced to Sandra Bland's mother, the first words he spoke to her was of injustice and the broken system. That whole exchange and meeting was not orchestrated, nor was it then broadcasted for any political gain by his camp. It was a quiet and honorable meeting. While in public, when he marched with MLK, he wasn't running for President, but doing what he felt was right to do.

How or what is it you see in Clinton that makes her your preferred primary candidate and what is it that proves she gets the racial vs economic justice issue that you are driving at?

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. All of this has been discussed at length, here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1187

BUT PLEASE ... read through the various thread completely BEFORE commenting or asking further questions.

[Chitown Kev]

149. Let's cut through this bullshit right here.

How or what is it you see in Clinton that makes her your preferred primary candidate and what is it that proves she gets the racial vs economic justice issue that you are driving at?

You question carries with it the assumption that 1SBM is a Clinton supporter.

I may be new around here but as far as I know, he is an undecided voter...and I am an undecided voter as well.

So why are you, as a Sanders supporter (and not the only one) more or less harassing a black person about their support for Clinton when in fact, this particular poster hasn't stated support for Clinton, to my knowledge?

[Jackilope]

162. Harassing? How so? If you follow the conversation....

Bernie, Bernie supporters, and myself have supposedly wished priorities or issues on economic vs racial justice. (Not my words, but 1SBM). I am seeking to understand. If it is only Bernie and his supporters doing this ... I can then assume that the other front runner in the Democratic Party, Clinton, is obviously doing something that Bernie isn't.

Just in this thread, I have now been accused of wishing economic justice over racial, been told I am harassing another poster for simply asking for help to understand this accusation -- and told to cut the bullshit!, been told to "go to hell" (in a post hidden, which I didn't report or alert, BTW), and mocked for my limited amount of posts.

Nice group, DU.

[Chitown Kev]

167. Your question to 1SBM

tacitly assumes that he is a Clinton supporter...as far as I know, he is not a Clinton supporter nor am I...and I am tired of the assumption that since I don't support Sanders that I , ipso facto, support Clinton.

And my state's primary isn't until March 15th, anyway...so I have plenty of time to make up my mind.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Actually, I am a Martin O'Malley supporter ...

But that said, I have directed him/her to read through the hundreds of posts in the AA group that answer every one of his/her questions. It will be clear whether he/she has, as he/she should have no more questions ... he/she can agree, or disagree, with what has been posted ... which won't matter a bit, as I/We don't need or want his/her permission/approval to hold the position we do; but, he/she will have no further questions.

[Jackilope]

170. She.

Please understand that any and all questions were not intended to "harass", but sincere.

[Chitown Kev]

181. Sincere my black ass...

You obviously assumed that 1SBM was a Clinton supporter and you based your "questions" on that assumption.

[Jackilope]

183. WTH, Chitown. Not sure what your issue is ....

... but I am not following your anger or reason behind it. Not returning the anger, either. I am following the link he posted and reading the threads. What else do you want me to do? Why does it even matter if I assume who someone is leaning towards?

Believe what you want, I am not intentionally trying to be thick ... I am just not grasping at what point he was making.

[1StrongBlackMan]

188. Have you read through the African-American Group posts, yet? n/t

[Jackilope]

208. Not in entirety, but getting your message in some key posts and articles.

Thank you for the schooling -- and your patience. Eyes opened a bit wider, fingers less likely to impulsively type out without reflecting a bit more. My apologies for being obnoxious, in an ignorant kind of way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

184. Because, of course, EVERY Black person is a HRC supporters ...

if the dare assert that economic primacy, misses us.

[Skidmore]

165. Boom!

Exactly.

[Jackilope]

71. Gotta start somewhere....

I didn't realize number of posts had anything to do with the subject. Care to actually discuss content?

(Shenmue, Such a warm welcome, even though I have lurked here for a long time and am not one that feels compelled to post often. I also don't file petty alerts, etc. requiring DU juries to contemplate juvenile attacks.).

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. See Post #83. n/t

[m-lekktor]

97. you embarrass yourself.

all the poor people who vote republican vote against their best interest. the low post count new person is correct. you , on the other hand......

[1StrongBlackMan]

166. Again ...

how poor people fair is unrelated to HOW/WHAT those poor people voting for the gop see as THEIR interests ... how they are doing economically is YOUR measure of their interests.

This points out the Bernie (and Bernie-supporters') disconnect with the main of the Black electorate ... YOU wish that Black people would prioritize our economic-status over racial justice.

We (by and large) do not ... and we maintain two centuries of memory that informs our, particular, interests.

[cwydro]

177. I hate snobbery against new posters.

Do you really feel you are somehow better than another because of your post count?

That is just so pathetic on so many levels.

[NCTraveler]

63. You make some very valid points.

Still has nothing to do with questioning if a majority of AA's suffer from mental issues because of the democrat they support in the primary. Let me get that to you again. The person questioned the mental status of a majority of voting AA's.

Not saying your points aren't valid. I am saying they have nothing to do with questioning the mental health of a majority of voting AA's. Huge difference.

[Jackilope]

109. I can understand that and realize that targeting or singling out AA is harsh.

[leftofcool]

129. Harsh? It's gawd damn racist!

[Jackilope]

138. Honestly, When looking at term "Stockholm Syndrome"

I was thinking in terms of seeing the effect in use USA wide, within GOP and Democratic parties - not singling out a single group. I was not the author of the post that was critiqued in this thread.

[randys1]

115. I like your last line. Glad you were able to say it, so far at least.

[Person 2713]

255. Me too

[Martin Eden]

60. Who is the Democrat that made the comment, and what was said?

I clicked on all 4 links, and the answers to my questions above are not readily apparent.

Specifically, what is the OP citing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Maybe I'm not understanding your question; but, ...

WillyT wrote (and, BTW, has a history of writing stuff like):

And BTW... Could The African American Community, And The LGBTQ Folk Clue Me In ???


Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Why in the hell would you vote/support a candidate who supported her husband who went after Sister Souljah, and fucked the program formerly known as "Welfare".

And...

Promoted DOMA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Did EVERYONE have a mass evolution ???

Is it political expediency...

Is it Stockholm Syndrome ???

[Martin Eden]

103. I didn't see that in the OP

And the way the OP was worded, I couldn't tell if the OP was accusing one of the actual Dem candidates of making an overtly racist comment.

But now I get it. Somone on the internet (a somewhat prominent DUer) wrote something stupid & offensive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. Yes ...

Somone on the internet (a somewhat prominent DUer) wrote something stupid & offensive.

Repeatedly. But more troubling, 26+ (self-identifying) liberals/progressives rec'd the stupid and offensive.

[Jackilope]

142. Thank you for posting. I did not see this earlier. It is not appropriate post.

[kath]

229. The thread is Meta,but the OP posted 4 links to other sites in order to pretend that it is not Meta

He is very pissed off about another DU thread, and THAT is what the OP is all about.

(Why it has not been locked after all these hours is beyond me. I guess some Meta thread are more equal than others... )

[BooScout]

62. I found the thread this one is referencing.....

If people want to know why so many have severely decreased our DU time lately, it's threads like that one that play a large reason in why. The fact that it has 26 recs is telling.

Personally I am sick of all the hate. It's toxic here on GDP these days and issues are not discussed .....words are used to slam folks on a personal basis in every singe thread and broad brush strokes are flung out there to try and achieve a smackdown at all costs. This take no prisoners mentality has got to stop.

Skinner needs to throw a pail of bleach over this whole forum and scrub it clean and start over. As it stands now it is a cesspool.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Not to mention

Because Welfare....

Unbelievable.

[cosmicone]

70. This is a blatantly racist post and reflects poorly on DU

The fact that it wasn't hidden or locked is even worse.

If I had been the OP, I'd have felt ashamed of writing it.

[uponit7771]

189. +1

[Scootaloo]

73. I notice you lack offense when a Clinton supporter declares that clinton owns LGBT and black people

I didn't see you getting upset when Clinton supporters were de-bnlacking people of color who support Sanders. Nor do I see you giving a shit about a Clinton supporter whose every third post is transphobic bathroom-panic

Your outrage seems terribly selective, NCTraveler.

[NCTraveler]

85. My outrage isn't even close to selective.

Thanks for asking. I notice once again you simply deflect. Why is that a constant theme with you? How do you feel about the contents of the op and questioning if a majority of AA voters suffer from Stockholm Syndrome because the support a democrat in the primaries?

"I notice you lack offense when a Clinton supporter declares that clinton owns LGBT and black people"

I find that to be disturbing and don't support it. Can you point me to the post? I will say so.

How come I can do that but all you do is deflect. I take issue with any supporter of any candidate who claims ownership of any group. With history, it would be even more offensive if referenced toward AA.

So, you condemn the blatant racism I have discussed here and I will do so where you have stated. Simply stop your deflection and do what is right. I have called out Hillary supporters numerous times for poor behavior. Your projection and deflection here is weak.

[Scootaloo]

87. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251603541

Condemn away.

[NCTraveler]

89. You clearly didn't read my post.

Job well done. Deflect away. Amazing that you are presented with blatant racism and deflect. If that's your thing.

Interesting. Not one single Hillary supporter showed support for that op as you show support for the comments I mention in the op. Very interesting indeed. You acted as if it got some kind of support. lol. Not one single person supported that op, yet you support the fact that someone questioned if millions of AA's are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Love what your deflection has brought forward. The fact that not one Hillary supporter supported that op as you are doing here with racist comments from someone else.

[Scootaloo]

90. You said you're not selective.

Yet now here you are, flat refusing to condemn racism and homophobia, simply because the poster supports your candidate. After demanding others condemn a sanders supporter for the same.

You clearly do not have the credibility - much less the character - to make demands on people that you blatantly refuse to adhere to, yourself.

[NCTraveler]

91. Not one single person supported the op you linked to.

You acted as if there was some kind of Hillary support on board for it. Yet you are sitting here supporting questioning if millions of AA's are suffering from Stockholm because they are voting for a democrat in the primaries. Your deflection failed miserably. Hillary supporters did not support that op.

[Scootaloo]

96. You said you would condemn it. You are refusing to do so.

And now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Perhaps, you will share where ...

Clinton supporter declares that clinton owns LGBT and black people

or,

Clinton supporters were de-bnlacking people of color who support Sanders

Or, the ...

Clinton supporter whose every third post is transphobic bathroom-panic

Thank you in advance. Please note, pointing out that Black Bernie supporters are empirical/statistical outliers among the Black electorate is not "de-Blacking" of anyone.

[randys1]

114. This is ridiculous. Alleged liberals are now lecturing Black pepole what is best for them and many

are defending that lecturing.

This simply CANNOT continue on a board with the word Democratic in it.


Why is this insanity not being addressed?

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. In my view ...

it's worse than a lecture. To suggest ... no, flat out question/say ... that purported "allies" suffer a psychological condition because they do not support (with good reason, IMO) a his/her favored candidate ... is ... is ... I have no words (that would survive the inevitable alert on DU 2015).

[randys1]

122. Yeah, I skipped over that, you are right, this is WAY racist, WAY over the top BUT, BUT ---

this is America and DU, and in BOTH white privilege and racism are common.

White privilege allows white people to say shit like this and not even realize how racist it is or that it is at all.

My broken record is getting tired.

[Scootaloo]

160. What kind of privilege is involved in stripping people's identities...

Because they like a candidate you don't?

As 1SBM has decided he is entitled to do upthread?

[randys1]

161. A.why dont you ask him...B. prove it

[Scootaloo]

163. I have. And you can go read it, starting at post #75

[randys1]

164. Why are you arguing with me? there are BLACK people telling you something is

racist and you are telling them it isnt.

[Scootaloo]

168. I said no such thing, did I?

I'm telling NCTraveler that he seems exceptionally selective on what he finds "outrageous," that he only seems ot have a problem with what sanders supporters say. He responded that he would condemn racism no matter whose supporters it comes from. when presented with the opportunity to condemn a Hillary supporter who outright said black people are owned by Clinton... he backed off and refused to follow through on that promised condemnation.

And then we get 1StrongBlackMan, who we find upthread declaring that people of color who support Sanders are really white people playing pretend. 'Cause god knows, people of color can't like Sanders, right?

This is my engagement in the thread, Randys1. And it's because if someone wants to demand that I act as my brothers' keeper - much less like "some random dude on the Internet's keeper" - then I'm going to need them to lead that charge. Instead, NCTraveler happily supports racism when it comes from Clinton supporters. 1StrongBlackman openly engages in racism to try to defame and belittle people of color supporting Sanders. And my response to their bigoted bullshit is that neither of them are qualified ot demand a single goddamned thing of me, or of anyone else around here.

Now. Where do you get that I am telling anyone that what WillyT said is or isn't anything?

[jfern]

176. It's definitely selective outrage, or this they'd be mad at this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251603541#post153

[JustAnotherGen]

254. Did I read this correctly?

The bold part.

This is my engagement in the thread, Randys1. And it's because if someone wants to demand that I act as my brothers' keeper - much less like "some random dude on the Internet's keeper" - then I'm going to need them to lead that charge. Instead, NCTraveler happily supports racism when it comes from Clinton supporters. 1StrongBlackman openly engages in racism to try to defame and belittle people of color supporting Sanders. And my response to their bigoted bullshit is that neither of them are qualified ot demand a single goddamned thing of me, or of anyone else around here.

Thanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

191. Do you doubt that there are posers on this site? n/t

[Scootaloo]

220. I KNOW you don't have the entitlement to tell anyone that they're not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

224. Okay. n/t

[jfern]

175. Clinton supporter declares that Clinton owns LGBT and black people here

In fact, speaking about LBGT, they say "Last I heard, Hillary owned this portion of the base".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251603541

[Prism]

135. Social justice issues are poisoned on DU

Precisely because of the selectivity you point out.

Unfortunately, DU has a long history of social justice only counting if it A) promotes a favored politician or B) can be used to bludgeon other DUers the poster(s) don't like. BLM is a huge case in point. Note the recent threads about Sanders talking with Sandra Bland's mother. You could conduct an orchestra with the legion of crickets that ensued. Similar, as you note, with a pro-Clinton poster declaring that she "owned" the African American community. I would've thought that would've had poster's heads exploding all over the damn place. Nope. They perceive the poster who made that vile OP as "on their board side" so they had zero to say about it.

If people who claim to care about these issues and who get their jimmies up at a fundraising letter can't even muster up even a weak, "Hey, not ok," how much am I supposed to believe they actually care about the issue? I'm sure they do care, but just not as much as they claim, and certainly not as universally as one would expect. Everything that comes out of their mouths needs to be delivered with a dump truck of sodium chloride.

Notice what's happening with this OP in question. You have LGBT Sanders supporters calling foul left and right on a pro-Sanders post because it is wrong.

Part of the genesis here is that much of it predates the primary. A lot of "social justice is all that matters" claimants have a long history here of just kind of disliking DU's liberal wing. Partly because of the attacks on Obama, partly because they themselves aren't all that liberal outside of their personally affecting issues, and partly because they treat the Democratic Party as their "blue team" in a fantasy sports league of political nonsense. Every liberal subgroup gets their turn. Whether it's liberals, LGBTers, people of color who think the "wrong" way. No one is spared.

So now, we have posters who didn't like many of the posters who support Sanders to begin with, start making all these claims about how, they just can't like Sanders because of his suppppporters. Which is nonsense. They just want to gripe about the same DUers they've been griping about for damn near a decade.

It's as transparent as it is pointless, and it makes discussing social justice nigh on impossible, because too many people aren't approaching the subject on a fair plane. It's always, "Does this issue allow me to go after the people it is my personal hobby to go after?" If the answer is yes, fire away. If the answer is no, pretend you didn't see the thread.

It's hilarious to watch the trifling shit that devolves into inchoate rage while far weightier issues are left alone because it doesn't suit their board agenda that particular day.

But, you know, social justice and shit. Or whatever. They've got Twitter to read. You know, important work.

[Comrade Grumpy]

148. Yes. This ^^^^^^^^^

[m-lekktor]

179. interesting read!! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

190. Posting for response later. n/t

[Number23]

200. Please don't waste your time.

Picking lint out of your toes would be a better use of your brain and time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

205. I think you are correct ...

though I suspect that was posted directly at me.

Whether I respond or not will depend what Mr. Jameson or Mr. Single Malt, tells me to do, during the Sunday games.

[Number23]

206. Some people have made chasing after black posters here a full time gig

And they do it every day for years all while claiming to be victims themselves. It would be really quite astonishing if it weren't indicative of something far more insidious, not to mention incredibly uninteresting.

I thought basketball season was over? Or are you talking about some other Sunday games???

[Major Nikon]

214. Results from Number2

On Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Some people have made chasing after black posters here a full time gig
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=691952

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A passive-aggressive, wink-wink, eye-rolly personal attack is still a personal attack. DU deserves better than this sort of Heathers behavior.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:34 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Arrrrgh
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looking at the other failed alert this looks like alert troll behavior.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People should be able to handle this sort of thing without trying to silence it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Number23]

216. Thanks, Major.

[irisblue]

207. alert results/EDIT/ forgot alerters comment

dumb ass alert in my opinion :::Alerters Comment:::
ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack on prism, whom this poster has been stalking for the better part of the past decade.


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I expect by the post "prism" made that "prism" can more than handle any stalkers, so after reading through all the stuff before this one, I vote to leave the alerted post, since it is in keeping with the entire thread. And then, I am going to take a long shower, or maybe even a hot bath, to get the slime off...

How on earth is a random juror supposed to recognize a stalker, and why should that juror take the alerter's word for it? The answers: he's not, and he shouldn't. Please do not abuse the alert button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LEAVE........ Number 23 is responding to 1StrongBlackMan. This alert stinks. irisblue

[Number23]

209. Oh my God!!

That is nothing short of CLASSIC.

And it's even more precious when you consider that person is far more interested in and responding to me or racing into every thread to chime in and high five anyone I'm having a disagreement with (no matter how unhinged the poster or ridiculous the disagreement) than I've ever been in him. That is adorable. Thanks so much for posting that.

[Major Nikon]

215. Doubled down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251688729#post214

[Chitown Kev]

199. The problem here

is this phrase

disliking DU's liberal wing.

Does DU's "liberal wing" mean those that prioritize economic issues at the expense of social justice issues? Does it mean that social justice issues are priority? Does it mean both? If it means both, in what proportions.

I mean, "far weighter issues" are really in the eye of the beholder, right? Who are yu to make that determination for someone else or for a group of people that call themselves "liberal" or "progressive"

[Prism]

210. I'll just be blunt

A lot of the people you pal around with were absolutely horrible to gay people on this board for years. Years. And they only became magically ok with our issues as soon as President Obama was cool with it. Hounded, stalked, denigrated, told us to shut up, swarmed. Massively homophobic bullshit.

But it's ok now! Because Obama said so.

They'll pretend it never happened. They'll lie. But I and many others remember. And it wasn't "years ago" - they'll tell you that too.

A few even had to be banned from the LGBT forum because they just couldn't damn well leave gay people alone.

Including your cousin, btw.

So, ya know. It's not hard to see why I have a super hard time taking some quarters of social justice seriously around here. I just plain don't believe them.

[Chitown Kev]

217. Oh, honey, now waitaminute

Don't even get me started on the online white gay racism that I've slopped through at all of the gay blogs (and to a lesser extent at DK) since Obama was elected. And that applies offline as well...so, we really don't want to open that book.

I'm a veteran of Pam's House Blend, I know about some of the drama as it concerned the LGBT Group here.


Including your cousin, btw.

and you feel the need to spill this bit of tea...why exactly?...

[Bryce Butler]

226. alert results

I'll just be blunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=692026

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

What was the point of bringing up this poster's cousin???? This post is an attack on a new DUer and his cousin who is a very well known DUer who has been here for years. There was absolutely no reason to bring up the posting privileges of Chitown Kev's family member except as a needless and clearly bullying effort to embarrass him and his cousin.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:38 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[jfern]

211. I think most liberals want both

I mean, personally I'm very disturbed that the prosecution decided that Tamir Rice's execution was justified. It's probably time for the DOJ to use the RICO Act in Cleveland.

[uponit7771]

187. Red Herring deflection and the OP isn't the racism police nor do they have to live on DU to point

... out a racist ass'd stupid post.

[Blue_Tires]

99. kick for truth

[leftofcool]

132. You find racist comments truthful?

You believe that questioning the mental health of African Americans because they choose a different candidate is truthful?

[HassleCat]

111. Yeah, it's pretty bad

This is something I don't get about some of my fellow Sanders supporters. They see to feel the need to lecture everybody about why their thinking is all wrong. They believe loyalty and emotional attachment mean nothing, even as they reveal how emotionally attached they are to Sanders. Well, so am I, but I admit it, and I understand why others would be emotionally attached to a different candidate, and I think that's perfectly legitimate.

[randys1]

126. And for most of the AfAm people I know it isnt even about loyalty to anybody, especially Hillary

For me it is pretty simple, I know in my heart that Bernie is or would be best on all issues including race or civil rights.

But my heart or gut instincts dont really matter much because as a straight, white male, I have little to no risk in saying that.

If I am wrong, nothing happens to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. Actually ...

for the folks I interact with in Black spaces, it comes down to electability, as the majority believe, neither (none of the) candidate(s) will be "best" on race issues ... But, we/they know that one has to get elected to do ANYTHING on race issues.

Further, as you note ... a failed Bernie G/E run (which the main of the Black electorate expect) will be horrendous.

So we/they would rather vote for someone that we/they believe can win, that will not bring harm; than, someone that we expect to lose, thereby, bringing about harm.

ETA: The Black vote has been playing defense, since 1964.

[Dem2]

127. Excellent post

[NCTraveler]

172. Thank you.

I know I haven't always been on my best behavior here but I can give dozens of reasons to support Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton. I can give a handful of reasons to support Webb and Chafee. That's without looking anything up about them, just going with what I know. All of them have great qualities about them. I also have great respect for very open and blunt conversations about some of their less than admirable positions. For example, the horrid Hillary IWR vote. Some things are just going too far and racist ops should be removed. My opinion. That goes for supporters of all candidates.

[uponit7771]

186. My understanding is they're supprised everyone else doesn't hate Hillary or love Sanders as much

.. as they do

[Starry Messenger]

150. k&r

[moondust]

152. Did you alert on it? n/t

[AgingAmerican]

156. You can only fool people into voting against their own self interest for so long

...before they see the light.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. And you can only harass and insult people into voting

for your candidate for so long

...before they tell you to take a fucking hike.

[AgingAmerican]

171. Which is what has been happening with Hillary

Half her support has left since May.

Some people seem to have a mysterious emotional connection to her, without regard to her policy positions. Those people will never see the light.

[Bobbie Jo]

174. What does that even mean?

"I know what you are, but what am I?"

Not even going to work here. Go back and process the OP again and deal with it.

[AgingAmerican]

194. It means you are projecting

[Bobbie Jo]

197. LOL

I was wondering when you were going to pull that one out of your back pocket.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

And I do mean, KEEP USING...

Put it in your sig line, save a few keystrokes.

[AgingAmerican]

239. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

[Blue_In_AK]

178. Self delete

[uponit7771]

185. How about asking PoC and LGBT why they support Hillary and not degrade their intelligence first?

Like the post did

[AgingAmerican]

235. The corporate interest is in no ones best interest

Neither is the oligarchy. Both are harmful for the country and POC in particular. She represents those interests. She is in the corporations and the oligarchy's back pocket. They pay the bills at her campaign headquarters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. Again ...

How Black people are doing economically is YOUR measure of OUR interests.

This points out the Bernie (and Bernie-supporters') disconnect with the main of the Black electorate ... YOU wish that Black people would prioritize our economic-status over racial justice.

We (by and large) do not ... and we maintain two centuries of memory, and present day reality, that informs our, particular, interests.

[Blue_In_AK]

180. There's plenty of hyperbole to go around here

on both sides. I take everything I read on DU with a grain of salt.

[Codeine]

182. That post fucking sucked, as does the poster.

They do not belong here, regardless of which candidate they support. Shameful.

[betsuni]

213. This is correct. nt

[uponit7771]

193. 29 people rec'd that racist ass'd thread too...

[Number23]

201. I see you questioning whether the post was racist or not because a few white posters said that it

wasn't.

As you can see from the responses, there are several black posters here who are saying that post was unequivocally racist and offensive. And one gay poster who has shown multiple times that this is part of a very long pattern with that poster.

And I agree with them.

[zappaman]

203. Who would do such a thing?!!?

[guillaumeb]

204. I am confused as to the issue here:

Here is the actual text of the post:

Why in the hell would you vote/support a candidate who supported her husband who went after Sister Souljah, and fucked the program formerly known as "Welfare".

And...

Promoted DOMA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Did EVERYONE have a mass evolution ???

Is it political expediency...

Is it Stockholm Syndrome ???

Bernie has ALWAYS had your back.

HRC... not so much.

After reading the post, my conclusion is that the poster is condemning the Clintons for what the poster perceives as THE CLINTONS' racism. The poster seems to be saying that it was W. Clinton who attacked Sister Souljah, Clinton who signed the bill that gutted welfare. How does that become racism on the part of the poster?

[MellowDem]

218. Not at all...

African Americans as a group are one of the most conservative Democratic constituencies, so it's no surprise many DUers, who are by far more liberal on average, see a vote for the more conservative candidate as against their interests.

It's just the clash of a very liberal online community with the reality that many minority constituencies are pretty conservative.

DU already understands that whites are voting against their interests by voting for the GOP, and this opinion isn't considered racist because it comes from the same understanding.

[uponit7771]

219. Link and quote AA's being conservative also. It's TECHNICALLY racist to deride a whole group of

... a race of people based on slights of those people like "welfare" and whether they have Stockholm syndrome because of a perceived (not actual) group think.

AA's aren't voting for Clinton cause she's conservative it's because she took the time to develop close relationship not just march with someone 50 years ago and think she's entitled to a vote or two.

Also, have you ever considered Sanders life long stance on guns as a negative in the AA community?!

His defense during the debate was "I voted rural America" is bullshit at best, guns or the lack of control of them have hurt the people where I've come from immeasurably.

[MellowDem]

221. There are polls showing African Americans...

are among the most ideologically conservative demographics of the Democratic Party.

Clinton is about the epitome of privilege and entitlement. I don't think any demographic votes based mostly on a person's record or "close relationship" they supposedly have, most people vote on familiarity and how closely they identify with a candidate.

If a person were to look at Clinton's record, it is full of bashing both AA's and the GLBT community on policy after policy to advance her political career, but that's not what most voters of any color vote on. Most don't even know their records or policy positions, or particularly care about them.

I think most AA's won't vote for Sanders because he is completely alien culturally and ideologically to them and Clinton is a known entity. I think that's the same with most voters of all demographics. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but that's been my observation from elections.

Most whites in the Democratic Party want Clinton as well, just not as lopsidedly. A lot of people in the online community of DU are far more liberal than the population at large and some don't seem to understand that.

They scratch their heads at what they see as AA's voting against their interests as many on DU do about whites overwhelmingly voting GOP, but it's not surprising when you understand that most people don't vote for their interests, at least IMHO, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[uponit7771]

222. Could you source them? I've not seen one of those polls ever... not saying they don't exist just

... saying there's not searchable.

Other than the gay marriage issue which flipped on a coin in 2010ish for blacks I don't see another issue that MOST blacks side with conservatives on

Regards

[jfern]

225. Here

While Solid Liberals are the group with the 3rd highest proportion of blacks, it's only 13%, just above the general population's 12%.

Faith and Family Left is 30% black and Hard Pressed Skeptics are 20% black. Only 41% of the Faith and Family Left is white. Faith and Family left is less likely to support SSM or believe in evolution than the population as whole.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/race-ethnicity/

[Ken Burch]

227. Which candidate are you saying is "outright racist"?

Not sure what you're talking about here.

[NCTraveler]

234. Great post. Truly laughed. Nt

[Ken Burch]

237. I mean it. I couldn't figure out who you were attacking there.

Still can't.

[NCTraveler]

238. Ohh. Ok. Thanks. Nt

[Ken Burch]

240. I hadn't seen the "Stockholm Syndrome" post at the time I responded earlier.

It was stupid, it was bannable, and I think I speak for the vast majority of Bernie's supporters here in condemning it.

[davidpdx]

228. How many people have said this one DU?

15, 20? It sounds like it is a serious problem

[Vattel]

241. I think you misunderstood the post.

The idea that WillyT was suggesting that AAs and LGBTQ voters who support Clinton might be suffering from Stockholm syndrome is a real stretch. He was emphasizing that he couldn't understand why these voters would support the weaker candidate on issues many of them care deeply about. It is kind of like a supporter of O'Malley asking, "Has everyone gone crazy?" as part of expressing frustration and amazement at the low support for O'Malley. It would be silly to criticize the O'Malley supporter for accusing voters of having a mental illness.

I know you want to read the worst intentions into what he wrote. I prefer to be more charitable.

[Bluenorthwest]

242. You are more charitable beause you and WillyT are white straight men, and you are both very

aware of the fact that if your cohort of straight white men voted for Democrats at the same massive rates that African American and LGBT people do there would not be a single Republican holding office in the United States.
Yours is the cohort that needs the charitable consideration of other Democrats, not the other way around.

[Vattel]

248. You assume way too much

[JI7]

258. this is something the OP has been doing for over a year now

and the OP is a supporter of the Pope . the things they themselves have said do not fit with the expectations they demand of black and gay communities.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

249. Agree. Here and in real life, I've seen the phrase "gays for republicans are....

...... like chickens for Colonel Sanders"

Does that mean gays are chickens? Of course not.


And I'm gay, btw. I don't have a dossier on the OP of that other thread like some apparently do, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't part of the "pink pony" insult brigade in 2008-2009. Those were Obama super fans who are now Clinton super fans.

[LittleBlue]

261. Umm, we always say white people vote against their interests.

Yet making the identical argument about black voters is racist?

[randome]

265. So far as I recall, the argument is "why do people vote against their best interests?"

I don't recall 'white' being added to that question.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bobbie Jo]

267. We do?

Link?

Where "we always say white people vote against their interests."

Also, what exactly are "white people interests?"

I'll wait...

tia

[randome]

264. That was POSUCS post #2.

When we hit 7, a singularity opens.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Peacetrain]

268. Oh my GOD.. now this.. that loyalty group demand again

There is a certain group of posters who if you do not kow tow to their precise thought process and demand for loyalty to their way of thinking accuse people of that and worse.. just tired of it..