Bottom line: Since "Bernie is a racist" didn't stick, now they are going for "Bernie is sexist".

[redgreenandblue]

Backed up with "if you object to Bernie being called a racist/sexist then you are probably a racist/sexist".

So fucking lame....

[upaloopa]

1. I didn't see those OP's where are they?

[redgreenandblue]

2. No one flat out says it of course.

It is more of a *wink wink nudge nudge* type of thing.

Here is one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=742444

[Amimnoch]

12. odd, none of those links are to Bernie quotes, or even insinuate that they are Bernie quotes.

Regardless, I don't think it's fair to call Senator Sanders sexist. I don't think he is at least.

[upaloopa]

103. That looks like a well documented post to me,

[LoveIsNow]

122. Yeah.

But none of them are quotes by Sanders. Almost all of them are by Republicans. One is by a woman in a Democratic focus group.

[madfloridian]

185. Mineral Man is linking to some really bad right wing hate sites.

That is not well-documented.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Oh, they've hit 'em all!

Socialist!!!!1!!1
Messy hair!!!1!!1!
Racist!!!1!!11!
He's Old!!!1!!1!
Socialist!!!1!!1!
He has no money!!!1!!!1!
BernieBro!!!1!!1!
No black people at his rallies!!!1!!1
He lives in White Vermont!!!1!!1!
Socialist!!!1!!1!
He talks funny!!!1!!1!
He's giving away FREE STUFF!!!1!!1!
SINGLE PAYER is too expensive!!!1!!1!
Banks won't survive if broken up (like they use to be)!!!1!!1!
Useless White Supremacist liberal!!!1!!1!
Socialist!!!1!!1!
He can't win!!!1!!1!!1!
People won't vote for a SOCIALIST!!!1!!1!
DENMARK SUCK!!!1!1!!1!
He loves guns!!!1!1!!1!
Brady Bill!!!!1!1!1!
Racist!!!1!!1!1!
He lives in White Vermont!!!1!!1!
Socialist!!!!1!11!1!
His huge rallies mean NOTHING!!!1!!!1! Because those people aren't voters!!!!1!!1!
Poll numbers aren't SCIENTIFIC!!!!!11!!!!!!1! ONLY Hillary's are!!!!1!!!11!
Focus groups are meaningless!!!!1!!!1
Corporate Owned talking heads are GODS and their punditry is SACRED!!!!1!!1!!!!!
Socialist!!!!1!!!1!1!
Bernie is sexist!!!!!11!!!!!!!1!!
Socialist!!!!!11!!!!1!!!

[GoneFishin]

6. Yep. The products of unscrupulous high paid campaign strategist weenie. On policy they got nada.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. LOL; but ...

Socialist!!!!1!!1 ... True statement, accepted by the candidate himself.
Messy hair!!!1!!1! ... True, but irrelevant, statement.
Racist!!!1!!11! ... Never said.
He's Old!!!1!!1! ... True statement.
Socialist!!!1!!1! ... True statement, accepted by the candidate himself.
He has no money!!!1!!!1! ... True statement.
BernieBro!!!1!!1! ???
No black people at his rallies!!!1!!1 ... True statement.
He lives in White Vermont!!!1!!1! ... True statement.
Socialist!!!1!!1! ... True statement, accepted by the candidate himself.
He talks funny!!!1!!1! ... True, though highly subject, statement.
He's giving away FREE STUFF!!!1!!1! Not said by Democrats.
SINGLE PAYER is too expensive!!!1!!1! ... True statement. Ask Vermont
Banks won't survive if broken up (like they use to be)!!!1!!1! ... Said by gop
Useless White Supremacist liberal!!!1!!1! ... Not said about Bernie.
Socialist!!!1!!1! ... True statement, accepted by the candidate himself.
He can't win!!!1!!1!!1! Partisan opinion typical to partisans in elections.
People won't vote for a SOCIALIST!!!1!!1! ... Add majority. True statement
DENMARK SUCK!!!1!1!!1! ... Said by republicans
He loves guns!!!1!1!!1! ... Complicatedly, true statement.
Brady Bill!!!!1!1!1! ... True statement.
Racist!!!1!!1!1! ... Never said.
He lives in White Vermont!!!1!!1! ... True statement.
Socialist!!!!1!11!1! ... True statement.
His huge rallies mean NOTHING!!!1!!!1! Because those people aren't voters!!!!1!!1! ... True statement.
Poll numbers aren't SCIENTIFIC!!!!!11!!!!!!1! ONLY Hillary's are!!!!1!!!11!
Focus groups are meaningless!!!!1!!!1 ... True statements.
Corporate Owned talking heads are GODS and their punditry is SACRED!!!!1!!1!!!!! ... Never said.
Socialist!!!!1!!!1!1! ... True statement.
Bernie is sexist!!!!!11!!!!!!!1!! ... Never said.
Socialist!!!!!11!!!!1!!! ... True statement.

Interestingly ... Almost 75% of the statements are objectively true ... so why complain? And, about 25% of the statement have not been said or, at least, not on this board ... so why include them?

(The post is a fascinating window into a campaigned mind)

[betsuni]

22. +1000000000000000000

[Thinkingabout]

53. Spot on, great post, truth.

[randys1]

126. Stop this, using common sense simply wont work, this is POLITICS

[Cali_Democrat]

175. LOL!

Well done.

[snagglepuss]

4. As someone else pointed out this offhand sarcastic remark has

been blown out of proportion by Camp Weathervane to obliterate the memory of Bernie's leaping to Hillary's defense regarding the emails. No sexist in the world would have done what he did.
That they are now smearing him and his campaign staff as sexist is contemptible.

[a2liberal]

9. I'm actually surprised they haven't tried harder on the email thing

So they did try a bit of the "he planned to be mean but it came out wrong" angle but I'm surprised that there wasn't any of the "he's an archaic chauvinist for jumping to her defense, like she can't handle herself" angle.

[Demeter]

45. Actually, I said that, in the Bernie group. Chivalry is not dead, but Hillary will kill it for good

And by the way, she COULDN'T handle it.

Instead of letting that question derail the entire debate, Bernie bailed her out and killed it dead. The gratitude she and her supporters expressed thereafter has been underwhelming.

[restorefreedom]

67. i would say appalling as well as underwhelming. nt

[zazen]

11. yep, it is VILE, because it profoundly trivializes REAL misogyny and its deadly consequences

As a radical feminist I've said here 20 times in the past few days, I am disgusted. And I've defended the woman (while never supporting her candidacy).

Fool me dozens of times and I finally start to wake up!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Tsk tsk. I think saying that automatically makes you a

'Third Way brogressive'.

A nonsensical term that starts from the fallacious axiom that Third Wayers are actually more liberal in regards to social issues than folks who support Bernie. Somehow, because Third Wayers are willing to use social issues as a wedge to get Dem voters to get them into power so they can implement RW economic policies, that makes them actually liberal on social issues? Please.

[GoneFishin]

7. Yep. They've hitched their wagons to a candidate with crappy policies. So they clutch at nonsense.

The bottom line is that they have got nothing on policy, ethics, or any other trait that makes a good leader, at least in a democracy.

[Sheepshank]

86. I can't tell which candidate you are talking about

everything you've mentioned has been hurled at both candidates.

now do you see how ridiculous the whole this is getting when we eat our own?

[GoneFishin]

116. How interesting that you can't tell.

[frylock]

142. None so blind.

[Sheepshank]

155. yup...there are angry persons willing to postulate, in both camps

and you coulnd't figure that out? there is none so blind........

[zazen]

17. as a radical anti-pornography feminist, the "bro-gressive" meme is hilarious to me

Like Bernie supporters are either Mens Rights Advocates, or alternatively, what MRAs called "manvaginas"--false male feminists who just proclaim feminism to "get laid."

Any contemporary anger by women at men on the left is being manipulated and thrown at the Sanders' campaign to see if it'll stick. It is nonsensical.

I'm so disappointed in Amanda Marcotte, Emily's List, etc., for being manipulated in this way. I expected better from them.

I'd like to elect America's first feminist President. That's why I'm voting for Bernie.

[jeff47]

75. My favorite part is the support for the only candidate

who hasn't put out a racial justice plan. Yet all the rest of us are terrible, third-way progressives.

[NCTraveler]

8. I have never taken part in anything you mentioned.

I do think when it comes to progressing on issues pertaining to social justice both O'Malley and Clinton will have better success than Sanders. And outside of du and in the mainstream, your point is really non-existent. If you think it is a player in this campaign I suggest you broaden your circle a little.

[zazen]

14. thank you for not taking part in this and reminding us that supporters do not equal their candidates

I do disagree, however--when Clinton pulls out Emily's List to double down on the sexist meme, and it's played out on MSNBC and CNN, then yes, I do think this is a "player in the campaign." I hope not for long.

[NCTraveler]

19. You would have to show that...

EL came even close to calling Sanders a sexist. I mean it wasn't even close. They called a comment that was almost universally called offensive here, offensive. You are trying to write your own narrative by promoting it as you are and are as guilty as the people the op is questioning.

My question to you would be this. Why are you trying so hard to claim a group is calling Sanders a sexist when they did no such thing? It's not the first time I have seen a Sanders supporter fight outside of reality in order to claim someone called him a sexist when no such thing was done by said group/person.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. +1 ...

And the "racist" stuff, too!

It's surreal.

[NCTraveler]

30. A poster below....

A poster below attempted to make a point by saying you were a racist without saying it, as they are claiming left and right. Don't get me wrong, I don't think what they did was nefarious and is actually a great moment for education. But in no way their comment is read does it come even close to racist. I think it was an eye opener and sheds some light on what is going on.

[Scootaloo]

156. You've told me that black people supporting Sanders are REALLY all white people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=689491

Upthread, you say there are no black people at Sanders' rallies and events, that the population of Vermont is all-white. And then we have the blindingly obvious sarcasm of your signature line. Some of your buddies keep arguing that there's something wrong, sinister, and possibly even dangerous about the, ahem, "white ass crowds" that show up to see Bernie (the similarly-hued crowds showing up for Hillary are, of course acceptable because REASONS.) Other friends of yours have posited that well, Sanders is Jewish, and wink wink you know hoe Jews are about black people nudge nudge. The latest of your team's caricatures is the lurking, terrible evil of young white guys wearing fedoras. While I share the derision for their fashion choices, this is another in the constant strem of attempts to cast white progressives as "the villain"

So no, you have not said, quote unquote, "Sanders is a racist," you just insinuate it constantly, both about Sanders and his supporters. To the point where you have declared that non-whites supporting Sanders just don't count, don't exist, or are somehow "fake."

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. Neither of the links say what you claim they do ...

And all of your "wink winks" and the rest of the cited incidents, says way or about you than the people that said it.

[Scootaloo]

161. It does, I'm afraid

Your first instinct, when a person of color voices support for Sanders, is to dismiss their identity wholly. When they show up at events and you can't deny their color, you simply deny their very existence, as you have done in this thread.

And it's not my winking, It's this guy's. And the lame, limping insinuations against Sanders supporters on the basis of supposed whiteness (after all, there are no non-white Sanders supporters, in your narrative) is just plainly fucking obvious, and the intent is just as plainly to cast white progressives as some sort of evil thing. Their presence is supposedly a negative (unlike white progressives who support Clinton, who are - naturally - angelic. Just like in 2008...)

You sound like what Republicans think liberals sound like.

[1StrongBlackMan]

162. Only in your head. n/t

[Scootaloo]

163. And your posts

[1StrongBlackMan]

164. Nope ... your interpretation of my post exist as valid, only in your head. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Except, for the 1,000,000,000th time ...

NO ONE CALLED BERNIE A RACIST!!!!!!!

[JoePhilly]

13. or ...

... a sexist.

I keep seeing these claims being made. But I don't think I've seen where some one of any real import actually did either one.

Its starting to feel a lot like the War on Christmas.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. See ...

... a sexist.

I keep seeing these claims being made. But I don't think I've seen where some one of any re al import actually did either one.

Its starting to feel a lot like the War on Christmas.

You just have to read between more closely ... and add a few letters!

[JoePhilly]

35. + 1

[beerandjesus]

40. This was hilarious.

Even though I think you're wrong on the substance, this got a belly laugh!

[treestar]

70. and like the BS campaign may not be ready for prime time

This is nothing. Not that BS will be the nominee, but if he were, the Republicans would dig up all sorts of crap. Have to be ready to handle it. Hillary has 20 years experience with that stuff.

[Amimnoch]

15. Stop treading on their victimhood status.

[retrowire]

20. of course not

But then again, you're not exactly fond or kind to white people are you?

just kidding.

but see how I just called you a racist without saying it?

case closed.

[NCTraveler]

25. You think that you even insinuated 1strong is a racist with that comment.

I think we just uncovered a big part of the problem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. 1+ ... Yep. n/t

[aikoaiko]

208. It appears implications of words matter. Sometimes.

[retrowire]

48. ...

so proclaiming someone is prejudiced against race is not the same as calling them racist?

okay lmao

[NCTraveler]

59. Ok. Yeah.

Not the first time I have heard about the famous black racist. Over a century of a government completely represented by white people putting their boots on the back of your neck, while the rest of the country just keeps voting them in, might sow distrust at all levels. I'm truly sorry you don't see how flawed what you said is.

[retrowire]

73. racism

is defined as a prejudice based upon race.

its a lot simpler than you're making it.

[NCTraveler]

74. Black racist in the US.

This is painful to read. Have at it you aren't the only one. Not long ago a duer was going around calling Marissa J a racist. Marissa, a woman who is willing to risk her life to advance social and economic justice. Please just stop insinuating that AA's in the US can be racist. I mean what the fuck. AA's distrusting whites in the US doesn't make them racist, It's common fucking sense.

[retrowire]

78. haha riight

I'll be sure to remember that next time my black coworker tells me a story about "crazy white people" and ends it with "you know how y'all do."

yep, we're all crazy because some white person decided to go swimming in a river naked. we're all crazy.

sure this isn't the most offensive thing, but I have been called a "high water wearing cracker" so that's more direct.

then I've got a black coworker who tells a fellow black coworker to "remember his skin color" just because that coworker was being friendly with white people.

blacks can't be racist? if you have a disposition or prejudiced opinion about any race, ya racist. sorry.

can't escape the definition of a word out of the dictionary. sorry again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Rerowire ... Why do we do this dance every 6 weeks? ...

You have read the posts (with links to the social science works) that put forth the 21st century definition of racism vs bigotry and prejudice ... yet, you retreat back to Webster's, why?

[retrowire]

95. I honestly don't know what posts you're referring to.

And no amount of social science can remove the concrete definition of the word racism.

Sorry, it is my belief that being a victim of the institutionalized racism of our United States does NOT grant someone "immunity" to being considered racist. If you have an ideal or biased opinion about any race, even your own, that's racist. It's as simple as that. Just because people of color are victims of the system, it does not grant some sort of entitlement or immunity to be prejudice back at that system. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You either see everyone for what they are regardless of race, or you choose the racist mindset of filtering them through the color of their skin.

I'm willing to see these works you refer to out of an open mind. But I am adamant in my belief.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Really? ...

I honestly don't know what posts you're referring to.

You have seen the many, many threads wherein the definition of racism has been discussed? Okay. Then there is no reason for me to continue on with you on this topic.

You are either: pretending to NOT have seen the threads ... (pretending because I'm pretty certain that you have participated in them); or, you HAVE seen the threads and reject social science research (in favor of the unstudied) ... both of which are dishonest.

[retrowire]

108. ummm

I really haven't seen the threads man.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Okay. They are easily accessible in the AA group and throughout DU. n/t

[retrowire]

113. umm wtf

instead of continuing to chide me how about you provide the data I'm willing to look at?

better yet, try proving I read them?

I swear, what's the point in ridiculing someone who is willing to hear you out and then providing them with nothing but an accusation that they might be a liar?

I think I can be forgiven for being skeptical that these posts even exist.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. DU:search the terms ...

it might take you 2 minutes of intense searching to find.

[retrowire]

125. I could come across hundreds of opinion pieces

I won't be changing my mind according to an opinion piece.

If you could direct me to the scientific essays you're referencing, that would be more trustworthy for me. Besides, I'd rather read the ones that YOU find compelling, I don't want to come across just anything.

Again, I'm more inclined to believe a dictionary than an opinion piece.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. Okay. Let's skip the middleman and go directly to a peer treviewed work ...

Ridley(1995),states that once a comprehension of these propositions is ingested, then the reader can more adequately understand his definition of racism. He defines "racism as any behavior or pattern of behavior that tends to systematically deny access to opportunities or privileges to members of one racial group while perpetuating access to opportunities and privileges (preferential treatment) to members of another racial group" (p. 28).

Ridely, C. (1995). Overcoming unintentional racism in counseling and therapy.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

I apologize for my impatience ... as I mentioned, I find myself doing this dance every 6 weeks or so; oftentimes, with the same dance partners.

[retrowire]

139. ...

I'm sorry but... this is an opinion piece.

it's the opinion of one man. what makes him correct?

his only change is that racism denies people privileges and opportunities.

and privileges and opportunities have broad meanings as well.

I couldn't have the privileges of making the friends I wanted to make in high school because I was white, they were black.

either way, what makes this one mans definition correct?

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. You reject the peer-reviewed conclusions of social scientist? ...

Okay ... we have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

[retrowire]

151. Oh it was reviewed by peers?

Of what organization? Did they have an agenda? We can't accept anything at face value.

And if I'm to use bravenak's logic, what race were they? Because that should factor into my decision as to whether or not I believe it.

I didn't really outright reject it though, he added words to the original definition. For what purpose? We already had words to describe that. Why bend the definition of a clear and preexisting word? I think I'm asking the right questions here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. It appears in ERIC, which is a part of the Institute of Education Sciences ...

So the agenda is collecting reviewing and disseminating scholarly works. BTW, Ridley's work on the topic of racism is a widely cited to in academic circles.

Why bend the definition of a clear and preexisting word?

The "bending" of the definition is known in academic circles as refining the definition to more accurately describe the observed phenomena ... That's just what scientist do.

[retrowire]

167. So

why don't their refined definitions get placed into official dictionaries? I feel like that's how the system should work if that's how language and wording is to be decided.

Then again, language and words evolve out of culture and social evolution, not out of scientific analysis.

The word "fuck" originally meant "to pound." and now it's the most versatile word ever. And not through a scientists analysis, but through culture.

So I think I still have to concede with the feeling that this is a piece of opinion. Highly analyzed and agreed upon by scholars, but not representative of society as a whole.

As an example I gave to bravenak, there was a scenario from the TV show "What Would You Do?" where white actors were to enter an urban clothing store and try on clothing. There were black actors placed into the store who were meant to react to the white actors in a way of digust and disapproval. They were to tell the white actors, "You need to dress white." "That doesn't look good on you, these clothes aren't for you."

The thing is, some black people who were not actors had the same feeling. That dressing urban was exclusive to one race and that white people should dress a certain way.

Back in the day, black folk were indeed criticized for "dressing white." It was racist then, so why on the other side of the coin is it not considered racist?

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. You answered your own question ...

why don't their refined definitions get placed into official dictionaries? I feel like that's how the system should work if that's how language and wording is to be decided.

Because:

Then again, language and words evolve out of culture and social evolution, not out of scientific analysis.

The former is permeated with white supremacy; the later, is not.

[retrowire]

173. So...

Then the conclusion is that the dictionary is full of white words and we should write our dictionaries with the critical analysis of scientists?

Hmm, if only our language was truly written by scientists.

But I'll have to say to you the conclusion I just came to with Bravenak.

The way I see it is that this method of thinking is exclusive. (only blacks, blacks can't be considered racist, whites can't be oppressed) and my method of thinking is inclusive. (everyone is oppressed in varying degrees and many different ways, all people can be oppressors and oppressed in many different ways)

The exclusive thinking runs in line with the people that get offended when they hear "Black Lives Matter" because they hear that and recoil, "Nuh uh! ALL LIVES MATTER". (Personally I see the phrase BLM as "Yes, Black Lives Matter. And their lives need our attention and focus. We don't need to dress these words any other way, there is a problem.&quot The point is, exclusive thinking naturally divides us. I don't see how transforming the word racism into an exclusive term aids anyone else that deals with prejudice? Why can't it be an all encompassing term? That way it serves everyone.

But when you have a line of thinking that says ONLY black people are victims, then you might as well just say "Only Black Lives Matter" and all those people who shout "All Lives Matter" will feel right in their thinking.

I don't know 1SBM. I just can't think with an exclusive mindset. It divides people. I agree that blacks are oppressed. I agree that there is institutional racism within our culture.

In fact, what you keep calling "racism", I call "Institutional Racism." You say, racism is a system of oppression against blacks. I think that's called Institutional Racism and our institution is against blacks predominantly, with mexicans, muslims and jews in line.

I don't even know if I'm saying this right or if it's worth it anymore. We're arguing about the god damn definition of a word. What's the point? All I know is, I've faced (prejudice, discrimination, racism, pick whatever you're comfortable with, they all fit for me) and you've faced it all on a higher scale and that there's a problem we all need to work together to fix.

So fuck it, I've said my piece. I'm exhausted over arguing the definition of a word. The definition doesn't even matter. The problem is all the same.

[1StrongBlackMan]

180. Okay. Then, we need not discuss this again ...

I will be informed by the academics that study the phenomena; and, you settle for Webster's because fuck it you've said your piece.

[retrowire]

181. I just don't want to be divided. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. News flash ... Racism divides us; recoiling from the definition academic defiinition does nothing ..

to unite us.

[whathehell]

187. Relying solely on the textbook academic definition does nothing

in the real world, except give some a lame excuse to shrug off responsibility for their own behavior.

[1StrongBlackMan]

188. Who is shrugging off responsibility? n/t

[whathehell]

189. Some in the AA community whose only response to bigoted, anti- white aggression

is to tell the victims that the perpetrators "can't be racist" because of some narrow textbook definition of the word.

[1StrongBlackMan]

190. What bigoted, anti-white aggression are you fantasizing about? ...

But you are right ... that bigoted, anti-white aggression would be bigoted, anti-white aggression; but, it would NOT be racism.

[whathehell]

194. What anti-white aggression am I "fantasizing" about??

You just gave yourself away completely.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. You act as if there is some mass anti-white aggression plaguing ...

America ... I must have missed it.

[whathehell]

197. Um, no. but it might help if you wouldn't characterizie, out of hand, my experience as "fantasy"

especially that which I've already described, but which you conveniently ignored.

[1StrongBlackMan]

198. Ignored or missed? ...

I'll admit that I spend significant time on DU; but, I do not read every post, of every poster, in every thread.

[whathehell]

199. It was contained in my response to your post, so I doubt you could miss it.

Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=744962

You didn't respond to my experience -- only to that 'peer reviewed, academic definition" .

[1StrongBlackMan]

200. So tell me ..

Is this anti-white aggression a regular occurrence?

[whathehell]

205. Not since

I bought a car and moved.

[1StrongBlackMan]

206. Okay ... Tell me ... What can I buy and where can I move?

[whathehell]

207. Whaaaat?

Not "getting" you, Strong, but I have a suggestion:

When my energy level is a little higher (recovering from illness) we can have a frank talk about all of this,

via pm. Why pm? Because when I've tried to discuss these things openly here, I've been met LOTS

of hostility, defensiveness and plain misunderstanding. Not wishing to go through that again, I'm willing to

talk via pm in the near future, but not now, and not on the thread.

I hope this is satisfactory for you. If not, there's not much I can do about it.

[bravenak]

131. Who wrote the definition you use? A white man? From his perspective?

And blacks and everybody else has to go along with his dead definition because why? Language evolves. Time to learn about it. You are smart and grown. Take a course. You will come out knowing how much you do not know about race.

[1StrongBlackMan]

134. It is not so much that a "white man" wrote the definition ...

as it was written within a white supremacist system.

[bravenak]

138. It was both to me.

[retrowire]

177. This shakes me.

It honestly does.

It just says to me "I cannot respect another persons opinion because of their race."

I don't care if it's just that it's an opinion about racism, people of all creeds, races and genders are capable of enormous amounts of empathy. And we can all feel each others pain!

I just HATE the idea that my concern, my care, my good intention, my ideas can all be cast aside by someone like you because you just can't respect it coming out of my white mouth.

How is that helpful, or beneficial in anyway? To close your eyes and ears to anyone that isn't black when it comes to matters of race?

I know you can just say, "You haven't walked in my shoes and never can" but god damnit, I'm capable of seeing that walk, hearing that walk and FEELING that walk with my heart, my empathy. I have a love for others that is rare. As I've said before, I have cried over the trials of women and PoC.

I don't even care if you ridicule me and say that "oh look, the white persons feeling oppressed." I don't fucking care. I just want to help and be taken seriously because I am not fake, I am NOT just doing it for selfish reasons and I am NOT some lesser being. We are EQUAL. I just want that respect. I myself have never been racist. Why the fuck should an institution created by those god damn white bigots ruin the union that your people and my people could have?

I feel love! I want love! And I do NOT want divisiveness between us. We are all ONE PEOPLE. So that is IT. This is my final word on the fucking subject. My white self, shall not be divided from you or degraded by you because of a bigoted system created by ignorant white people. We are one, and that's where I stand. SOLIDLY.

[retrowire]

135. but..

if I only choose to trust definitions based on the color of the person who wrote them then.... I'm being racist.

so should I trust blacks definition or whites? who gets to choose? oh I know, I'll choose the one that makes most sense.

I've been profiled by black people, i've been discriminated against based on my race by black people. to me, the things they said and their actions were just as racist as if a white kid had assumed they'd eaten watermelon and fried chicken (no offense I hate that stereo type but I want to make a clear example here)

I was one of the few white kids at a predominantly black high school. so if you want to tell me that because they are oppressed by an institutionally racist nation, it gives them the right to not be considered racist for attacking me based on the color of my skin, then you might want to reconsider pressing me.

I'm beginning to assume that according to those of you that disagree with me, that I can say prejudiced or bigoted, but I can't say racist. that notion is nonsense and it really seems as if you believe that black people are immune to being racist simply because you want to redefine the word. hell, you're even calling it a white mans word?

I don't mean to offend when I say this but, trying to change definitions of words and language based on race? isn't that a bit too far? it's borderline black supremacy when someone looks at the dictionary and thinks, well if white people wrote it from their perspective then I don't have to follow those definitions.

again, no offense, but this kind of thought process really throws the "we're all in this together" stuff out the fucking window. white dictionaries, black dictionaries... what the fuck is going on?

[bravenak]

144. We live under white supremacy not black supremacy.

You probably just had a black guy or many be mean to you where you expect nutrality. Our expectations are not so high as yours. White folks profile us all the time. You name one time or a few times a black dude was mean to you and think you have been a victim of racism, where as we experience that daily and know the differences that you do not for lack of direct experience.
When it comes to defining things in their favor, white folks have a monopoly on that. But it is ending. You guys are going to have to come to a point where you realize you are not the victims of blacks when it comes to racism. You are the recipients of white privilege and all the expectations that come with such like an expectation of neutrality.
If the attitude you presented here to us blacks in any way resembles the way you acted towards them, I can see why you had issues going to a black school. I was called nigger daily and beat up while grown white folks watched and cheered for their kid. They approved and cheered. That is racism. I got called cassie-girl for 3 straight years even teachers started calling me that no matter how many times I told them to use my name. No. I reminded them of a character in a book about the Jim crow south so they decided to strip me of my name and use hers. We all look alike. That is racism.
When white people start playing oppression olympics on racism, acting as one or two cases of bias or just black folks not liking your personality or not being neutral towards you is the real racism, they tend to try to continue arguing with black folks on what racism is and who is oppressed more. Not you. You are not more oppressed. You can leave that school and be white and nondescript and free and proud. We take our black with us and go to that 'high school' all day everyday in our society. We only have pockets of majority. And white folks come in there thinking they own that small space too and expect us to like them and want them and love them.

[retrowire]

150. Okay

No doubt in my mind that your trials were and still are MUCH heavier than mine. The institutionalized racism of our nation is definitely stacked against people of color.

But to say it's only racist when it's widespread and institutionalized, and it's not racism when it's one or two incidents is cherry picking the definition. Which I'm beginning to believe that definitions are personal decisions I guess?

I'm sorry for all you've been through and continue to go through, and it IS a real problem. But why can't I call racism what it is? Because I'm white? Because it's a white word? Because whites have the monopoly?

Racism is racism. I am apart of a race, I was treated differently because of my race... Therefore by my definition at least... I was a victim of racism. It's not a verb, but it's a broad noun. It fits both perspectives as far as I can see.

Here's an incident that happened in real life. You know the show "What would you do?" Well, they had white people go into a black fashion store and try dressing in urban style, they asked other customers what they thought, some people remarked that the white person doesn't belong there, and they should dress white, because that style is not for white people. Is this racism?

[bravenak]

157. It is not cherry picking.

It is establishing the meaning of the words we use and how we use them.

You call call racism whatever you want to. But you will never ever get anybody black who is well educated and liberal to agree that a few black guys not liking you is racism. See the ism? That implies a system. Like sexism. Sexism is against women. Women do not have the power to oppress men as a whole, control them, abuse them, and be backed up ny history and institutional structures. Racism is against blacks. Blacks do not have the power to abuse and oppress white society.
The dictionary definition is limited by the fact that they give very basic definitions for the layman. The meaning of the term 'theory' is in the dictionary. Ask a person who is not a scientist what theory means and they will give you a basis dictionary definition that the apologists use to prive that evolution is 'just a theory'. A scientist knows that a theory is backed up by so much evidence that 'just a theory' is kinda funny.

Same thing with the word racism. Social scientists know what racism means and is, and have done studies and communicate with each other constantly to update their data. A layman just read that dictionary and proffers the definition up smugly not knowing how ignorant they look to those who are actual socioligists. My sister was a social science major. We love nothing more than analyzing how groups operate within our society. This is why I suggested you take a course. Once you do, you will see the flaws in your thinking on racism.

[retrowire]

171. so racism is exclusive to blacks?

There's no such thing as racism against muslims, jews, irish or otherwise?

"ism" is representative of a system. But the word sexism is not exclusive either. There can be sexism against males. Though, very rarely. I think sexism is a larger problem than racism personally.

Is it not sexist to believe that all men should be testosterone driven alpha males? The very ideology that gives birth to male toxicity syndrome? That's sexism.

So, I'm getting the idea that you are in the mindset that racism is a system only against blacks. I however, am seeing racism as a multitude of systems against a multitude of races. Blacks have it the worst. Whites have it the best. I'm not blind to my privilege. But the thing is, we're all victims of racism. I believe it is an all encompassing system that turns us all against each other.

The way I see it is that your method of thinking is exclusive. (only blacks, blacks can't be considered racist, whites can't be oppressed) and my method of thinking is inclusive. (everyone is oppressed in varying degrees and many different ways, all people can be oppressors and oppressed in many different ways)

Your exclusive thinking runs in line with the people that get offended when they hear "Black Lives Matter" because they hear that and recoil, "Nuh uh! ALL LIVES MATTER". (Personally I see the phrase BLM as "Yes, Black Lives Matter. And their lives need our attention and focus. We don't need to dress these words any other way, there is a problem.&quot The point is, exclusive thinking naturally divides us. I don't see how transforming the word racism into an exclusive term aids anyone else that deals with prejudice? Why can't it be an all encompassing term? That way it serves everyone.

But when you have a line of thinking that says ONLY black people are victims, then you might as well just say "Only Black Lives Matter" and all those people who shout "All Lives Matter" will feel right in their thinking.

I don't know bravenak. I just can't think with an exclusive mindset. It divides people. I agree that blacks are oppressed. I agree that there is institutional racism within our culture.

In fact, what you keep calling "racism", I call "Institutional Racism." You say, racism is a system of oppression against blacks. I think that's called Institutional Racism and our institution is against blacks predominantly, with mexicans, muslims and jews in line.

I don't even know if I'm saying this right or if it's worth it anymore. We're arguing about the god damn definition of a word. What's the point? All I know is, I've faced (prejudice, discrimination, racism, pick whatever you're comfortable with, they all fit for me) and you've faced it all on a higher scale and that there's a problem we all need to work together to fix.

So fuck it, I've said my piece. I'm exhausted over arguing the definition of a word. The definition doesn't even matter. The problem is all the same.

[bravenak]

172. Do whatever you want. Guess how frustrating this is for blacks who have this same conversation

Thousands of times. See? Difference between my version of racism and yours is that you can avoid it, but I CANNOT. Just like we all have to have this same conversation with thousands of white folks, often against our will, but you do not. We have it work, we have it at school, on the bus, on the street, with the police, teachers, coaches, bosses, co workers, constantly this over and over. Let you have it one time and you seem to feel oppressed.

[retrowire]

174. Except that

not all black people are the same. You may stand together in race, but not as people.

I was surprised to hear 2 of my black co workers say that the phrase "Black Lives Matter" was stupid. And they said that "All Lives Matter"

So here I am, a little white guy trying to (oh dear god don't say I'm whitesplaining I hate that fucking term) tell them why the phrase is beneficial and how it is only trying to shine a light on a cause that needs attention. The phrase is NOT "ONLY Black Lives Matter", I explained. I explained that the movement is inclusive to all but...

When I hear these things explained to me by other black folk like yourself I'm told that no, it's pretty exclusive.

I mean, YES black people are the main victims of our institutional racism! But you're not the only victims of racism.

Both of my coworkers would agree as well. So again, it's just difficult. I know you're fighting for black rights. I want that fight won. But, when I'm accused of "whitesplaining" things or told that I've never known what racism feels like then it's just... It's like trying to hug a cactus I guess?

I know that you're reading this and thinking "Here's white boy thinking he's oppressed again because I won't let him say he's been a victim of racism." but hey, I'm not saying that I've ever dealt with it on your level. NEVER. But I've had tastes, I've seen my black friends become victims of it. I know empathy, I know how to have a heart. Just because I can't walk in your shoes doesn't mean I haven't seen you walk. It doesn't mean that I haven't walked somewhat similar paths. I'm intelligent, and I am feeling. I am capable of the love that we should all be able to share.

Fuck it, it's just a word. But please, don't degrade white people's opinions on the matter just because of our skin color. Just because we don't know what it is to be black. I have cried over the pain of women and PoC. I have a heart.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. No, it's not and not it's not. n/t

[retrowire]

81. your "nuh uh!" argument is strong.

rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/noun

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

there, that's a prejudice that definition is describing by the way.

now you can argue with a dictionary all day, but facts are facts. any and everyone can be racist.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. See Post #82. n/t

[randys1]

128. Waste of time. Some white people need to be able to call some Black people racist.

We know why

[whathehell]

60. I believe the accepted term here is "bigot"

as in "Black people can be bigoted agair White people, but not racist". Take it as you may.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. That is a true statement ...

if you accept the word of the academics that study and write on the topic.

[whathehell]

93. IN the macro sociological view, perhaps..

On a one on one basis, it's a distinction without a difference. For instance,

if I'm abused, verbally, physically (and I have been) because I am, in the words of one lovely

individual, a "white bitch", it's still wrong, hateful and ignorant, and I don't much care

what you call it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. You know what? You are quite correct ...

RACISM is a Macro issue; whereas, bigotry (and prejudice) is(are) exhibited at a micro level.

[whathehell]

98. Well, I'm glad we can agree on that.

[leftofcool]

27. Uh, no

DU AA Members: "Senator Sanders, you are not addressing our issues enough. Economic justice does not equal racial justice and we wish you would separate them and talk more about systematic racism."

DU Bernie supporters: "You called Bernie a racist, you called Bernie a racist, you called Bernie a racist."



Case closed!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. 1+ ... Yep! n/t

[retrowire]

51. not I

that doesnt look racist to me.

"did you see how he sneered at the BLM activists in front of his majorly white crowd and he's from white Vermont"

yeah, that sentence totally isn't trying to imply anything

[aikoaiko]

55. Nothing implied. Nothing at all.

And when BLM let all of us know that Bernie is such a worthless human being to African Americans that African Americans should not let him speak at invited events that wasn't sending a message either.

And if white people said that Bernie should be allowed to speak they are liberal white supremacists. Nothing implied there either about Bernie or his message, either.

[randys1]

129. And the loser in all of this is ALL OF US because there is NO DOUBT in my mind that

you cant find two bigger supporters of both Women and African Americans/minorities than Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
(Within the white political community that is)


And while I defer to my AA friends as to their need to hear more from Bernie, I am certain we are in good hands on these issues ONLY IF we are smart enough to show up to vote and not shoot ourselves in the god damn foot.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. I seem to recall the words 'white supremacist' being tossed at him and people listeing to him also.

Which may very well have an academic meaning other than racial bigot or racist, but that's a nuance that means nothing to most potential voters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. No ... those words were tossed at Bernie's SUPPORTERS ...

in Seattle ... who were shouting down, tossing water bottles and yelling, "Taze 'em!" and, "How dare you ... We've already done that!"

[virtualobserver]

63. That was not a Bernie rally......it was a Social Security event.

but you can identify Bernie supporters by simply reading random quotes.

You are trying just a little too hard to make everyone else blameless while portraying Bernie supporters as universally culpable and paranoid.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. LOL ...

That was not a Bernie rally......it was a Social Security event. but you can identify Bernie supporters by simply reading random quotes.

Really? I don't know whether to laugh at that, say "Yeah right" ... Or, what? You're really trying to say that the people yelling weren't Bernie supporters? Really?

You are trying just a little too hard to make everyone else blameless while portraying Bernie supporters as universally culpable and paranoid.

No! I am pointing to a specific, and identifiable/identified segment of Bernie supporters, i.e., those yelling stuff and throwing stuff, and here, those calling BLM thugs and sub-human, and holding them specifically culpable and paranoid ... Why would you continue to mischaracterize my posts?

[virtualobserver]

104. they aren't really Bernie supporters, that's my point

Unidentified people at a rally for Social Security, not for Bernie....with many, many speakers.... yelled out some disgusting things.
My experience with Bernie supporters is cheering along with them as he talks about justice in all forms.

I know a lot of Bernie supporters
and I also know a lot of RW people on Social Security

Guess which group would yell "taze them" or call BLM thugs and sub-human?

The same people who fly upside down flags and call President Obama "Barry".

A person who actually supports Bernie and what he believes in wouldn't do any of that.

You haven't identified anyone, you have simply labeled them as such.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. Bullshit; but, okay ...

Guess which group would yell "taze them" or call BLM thugs and sub-human?

This was DUers ... DUers that support Bernie.

[virtualobserver]

115. Posting on DU is just as anonymous as that crowd in Seattle

it doesn't make you an actual Democrat or an actual supporter of Bernie.

I haven't confirmed this independently, but I assume that RW'ers can type.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Okay ... So those self-identifying, on DU, as Bernie supporters ...

and posting Bernie positive posts on DU, aren't to be considered actual Bernie supporter; but, only after they post the stupid.

Folks at an event featuring Bernie, cheering his every word, aren't to be considered actual Bernie supporters; but, only after the yell the stupid.

Gotcha.

[virtualobserver]

132. In Seattle, no one even got a chance to cheer " his every word"

so your "example" only applies to the rally that I went to, where the crowd cheered the following viewpoint
“It is an outrage that in these early years of the 21st century we are seeing intolerable acts of violence being perpetuated by police,”
“We need a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter, and racism cannot be accepted in a civilized country.”

Clinging perpetually to the words of the unidentified participants of a social security rally in Seattle that occurred months ago is not useful.

As for DU, It is when they "post the stupid", as you so eloquently put it, that they reveal all that they are.

I didn't feel at the time that the protest was useful, because I knew that Bernie would be receptive to the concerns of the protesters anyway.

In that, I stand corrected, because it was a shock to the political system that would not have occurred otherwise.

Now, if DWS will back away from her absolute stance and approve a BLM debate, I will be very happy.....regardless of its political impact.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Okay. n/t

[Scootaloo]

201. Alright. So we judge all supporters, and candidates by some anonymous voices

Good to know.

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. You're trying so hard to have me say what ...

I haven't said.

I suspect that if you spent just half the effort doing something of industry ... you'd be of the .1% that you deplore ... with your broad brush.

Here's to your finding a way to monatize your apparent passion.

[Scootaloo]

203. There you go with that stuff

you'd be of the .1% that you deplore

I don't "deplore" them. I just don't think they have a right to rule the nation. Sorry if that peeves you. For a guy who's "never read john Birch Motherfuckers" you sure do sound an awful lot like them at times. Ko-winky-dink, I suppose.

Now, here's what you've got:

No ... those words were tossed at Bernie's SUPPORTERS ...

in Seattle ... who were shouting down, tossing water bottles and yelling, "Taze 'em!" and, "How dare you ... We've already done that!

You're pretty clearly judging Sanders supporters by the actions of an anonymous few actors in a crowd of several hundred. And you just as clearly judge Sanders by how you see his supporters.

I can't blame you for wanting this to be a one-way street.

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. Perhaps you can start a GoFundMe account ...

Selling the business model of instead of recs, you can get $5.00 contributions?

[whathehell]

166. "Racist" or "Racial bigot", not a dimes worth of difference

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

as it plays out everyday between individuals, though you would never know it given the determination to imply otherwise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Some of my bestest friends are white people ...

there's Chaz (the Bartender) and Becca (that drives the beer cart) ... they both laugh at all my jokes.

[retrowire]

52. you know i wasn't

actually calling you a racist 1sbm. I respect you. I was only using an example.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. I know. That's why I responded as I did ...

But still ... Your example is a false equivalency, at best.

No one, here, that I have seen has said anything close to that, with respect to Bernie. Now ... some of his supporters, here and in the wild ... I will admit that this has been said ... AND FOR GOOD REASON!

[Orrex]

26. But...

When Clinton reflects on a decades-long media campaign against her and Bill, she's "playing the victim."

And when she jokes about being scolded for shouting, she's "playing the sexist card."


Sanders' supporters are responding to perceived attacks on their favored candidates, when at most there have been vague, indirect comments pertaining to race and sexism. One wonders how they'll react if Sanders miraculously wins the primary, and the real attacks actually begin...

[azmom]

32. You think, she was joking? N/t

[Orrex]

152. I think that she doesn't like to be told that she's shouting.

Especially when the one who's telling her that is praised by his acolytes for his shouty oratorical style.

[azmom]

154. So, she was not joking. You think that

she was really offended but not for the reason she stated.

The whole because when a woman talks some people call it shouting was a way to get back at him for being shouty.

[Orrex]

165. Tell you what...

Since it's clear that you'll do it anyway, why don't you put whatever words in my mouth will make you feel like you've proven a point.

As long as you vote for Clinton in Nov 2016, I don't care.

[aikoaiko]

46. It's true that no one said, "Bernie is a racist," but the implications were clear.

#BowdownBernie

[leftofcool]

50. Uh, no. See post #27

[aikoaiko]

57. Saw it. It strikes me as odd that so many are denying their words have implications.

[stranger81]

112. Nothing odd about it.

It's all part and parcel of having your cake and eating it too.

[longship]

16. This forum, GD:P, is utterly toxic.

It does no Democratic any good.

Those who post this shit are like schoolyard bullies. You don't want to have a reasonable discussion as much as you want to beat up on your perceived adversary.

I am sick and fucking tired of these overtly childish posts. Nya, Nya, Nya, Nya-Nya!

Grow the fucking up, DUers! We really do not need to demonize Democratic presidential candidates here. That's the job of the lunatic GOP.

Let's all agree that we here on DU that we will not make their job easier.

I am a yellow dog democrat. I will vote for a yellow dog before I would vote for a Republican. And I ALWAYS vote.

[deutsey]

18. The country is collapsing and the world is on fire

and all some people can do is call other people names.

So fucking lame, indeed.

[NCTraveler]

24. To add a little more.

Why are Sanders supporters tripping over themselves to claim he is being called a racist and sexist in a matter meaningful enough for all of these ops. By far, the majority of people trying to associate him with comments that were never made are Sanders supporters themselves.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. 1+ ... Yep! n/t

[NCTraveler]

49. Conversations on equality really need to have more depth than this.

One has to go to the AA Group in order to find such a conversation in most cases. NRN with a host of other "events" have made race and the systemic oppression of minorities one of the absolute top campaign issues this cycle. It is my position that the courage of Marissa J and activist across this country, including protests where people have risked life and limb, have brought about opportunity and at the presidential level it is being discussed daily as it should be. Myself and others are making a mockery out of the risks the people mentioned above are taking on.

This topic has been a crisis throughout our countries history. During that history there have been times where it's discussion has been elevated to the national level in a meaningful way and great people and causes have fought successfully for great legislation. I believe we are currently in one of those times, yet the conversation here, for the most part, is a joke. A bunch of white people trying to claim they have been called a racist when they haven't, and another group of white people often using race for brownie points.

I have great respect for you and hope this isn't offensive. I think we need to take this opportunity to elevate the discussion. I personally haven't been at my best when it comes to that. The conversation needs to include the white persons I mentioned above.

An example I'm talking about is the poster to you who truly thought they were insinuating you were a racist with their comment. It didn't do that in any way. Will they be educated on why? I pointed it out but don't think I would be a good wordsmith in educating them. But them understanding where they went wrong is important.

Yourself, bravenak, liberal stalwart, and so many more have taken the time to educate me over the years. It has been a blessing. This is coming from someone who grew up in a very diverse situation. That alone doesn't pass for higher education on the topic, just gives a better understanding of the true brutality of today's oppression.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. I'll tell you ...

An example I'm talking about is the poster to you who truly thought they were insinuating you were a racist with their comment. It didn't do that in any way. Will they be educated on why? I pointed it out but don't think I would be a good wordsmith in educating them. But them understanding where they went wrong is important.

DU baffles me at times ... there are/have been (probably) 100s of threads where (for example) the definition of Racism has been discussed ... these threads have included links to the academic literature and works that led to the current definition ... AND, every 6 weeks or so, we are presented with the Webster's definition of Racism ... by people that participated in the previous discussionsssssssss!

At this point, I refuse to re-post and link for folks that will just act all brand new 6 weeks later.

[jeff47]

80. Words have meaning.

You don't have to literally say "Sanders is racist" to call him racist. Likewise, you don't have to literally say "Sanders is sexist" to call him sexist.

But hey, need to keep driving that wedge between Sanders and supporters. I'm sure it will work one of these days.

[stranger81]

114. There definitely is a wedge being driven here, just not the one they're aiming for.

I suspect they will find out what they were really hammering for months right around the time it dawns on them that they need the votes of others to coronate their queen.

The damage done by these kinds of tactics is going to take a looooonnngg time to rectify, if it can be done at all.

[randys1]

136. So you are threatening NOT to vote for the Dem if it is Hillary because you are angry

at posters at DU?

Is that what you are saying?

Seems that way to me.

[stranger81]

147. Not taking the bait.

Little early for loyalty oaths around here, isn't it?

What I AM saying is that for folks who swear you have the nomination all locked up, you're pretty cavalier in your treatment of others you're going to be relying on to vote your way in a few months.

It wouldn't kill you to make an insult, condescension-free post. It might feel like it will, but it won't, I assure you.

[randys1]

149. Loyalty Oath? I am getting kind of sick of that phrase, because I am NOT loyal to

any political party.

I am a Democratic Socialist, I think access to the internet and cell service should be taken over by the government, just to give you an example of how far left I am.

I am actually not trying to insult you, I simply cant FATHOM how anyone could consider not voting for the dem especially now.

Here is how one liberal explained it....

Work 24/7, day after day, month after month, year after year, for far left politicians elected to office, for the most aggressively liberal agenda imaginable, but once a year or 2 or 4, accept the reality of the system you are in, take 5 minutes out (8 hours if you are Black) and vote for the least harm so at least there is a system left to fight for.

[SheilaT]

29. I could have sworn I've seen

"Bernie supporters are sexist" here. There has certainly been a strong undercurrent from some of Hillary's supporters that anyone who doesn't support her is being sexist because, after all, this country is long overdue for a woman President, and besides, she now regrets her Iraq War vote, her stand on DOMA, and of course she's against the TPP, so since all of her positions are now appropriately progressive, anyone who doesn't support her is clearly being sexist.

Bernie has an amazing record going back a very long time, and it's my distinct impression (never having met the guy) that he's not racist or sexist at all.

[seaglass]

54. Well, most of the sexists on DU do support Bernie. They were sexist before Bernie announced

so it really has nothing to do with Bernie.

I disagree that Hillary's supporters think that not supporting her automatically makes one sexist.

I also do not believe Bernie is sexist or racist.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Bernie does not seem like a man who would embrace strawman victimhood, but some of his

supporters (as claimed on the Internet) sure do!

Then there are the agent provocateurs, as usual.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. +1000! eom

[Cha]

192. "strawman victimhood" Exactly! Gwad I just want to give a little orchestra of

for their pity party.

[beerandjesus]

38. Hillary supporters: If you're going to call Bernie sexist, why don't you have the guts to OWN it?

Seriously, you do it and then pretend you didn't?

And all those cookies went missing from the jar all by themselves, right?

And the dog ate your homework, right?

C'mon, have some courage. Because what some of you are up to is COMPLETELY fucking obvious.

We'd have to be really, really stupid, I'm talking vote-for-a-Republican-stupid, to not see it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. Some folks like to pretend that if you don't use the exact specific word, it means you're not saying

what you're saying. It's passive-aggressive and childish, but it is what it is.

[beerandjesus]

43. Unless, of course, you're attacking someone, in this case Bernie...

...in which case saying that shouting isn't enough to accomplish anything (a statement of the obvious, if I ever heard one), you're CLEARLY demanding that Hillary get in the kitchen and make you a sandwich, no two ways about it!

[Thinkingabout]

65. To falsely accuse Hillary supporters by flipper fibbers in rewriting a post needs to have the guts

To own it. Many times replies are rewritten and does not reflect what I posted.

[beerandjesus]

66. I have no idea what you're saying here.

But I will say that you're NOT one of the people I had in mind.

And I love Ann Richards.

[Thinkingabout]

90. A member post a comment, immediately the post is rewritten by other members saying what they want

the post they are replying to and it is not what the person writing the post ever intended. I call these people flipper fibbers, they flip the comment and then next few posts takes what the flipper fibber says, ergo, the stories of sexists, racists, etc is deliver and blamed on the original poster and the members needs to assume the responsibility of the fib or lie. When this happens to one of my post I reply I don't need my post rewritten.

Thanks for the comment on Ann Richards, she was great, I still remember her telling George Sr "Poor George, born with a silver foot in his mouth".

[KittyWampus]

44. keep whacking away at those strawmen, Sanders supporters.

Maybe it gives the impression of doing something useful?

[Fred Sanders]

47. Those poor straw-men never fight back and if they do are just pummelled some more.

Fun, fun, fun for everyone and lots of Recs.!

But down 30 to 40 points......I understand.

[underpants]

56. I'm not in either camp you are right.

[CharlotteVale]

58. Lame and swiftboating at is finest.

[Fuddnik]

62. Next up: Bernie hates cats!

[MB84]

64. Untrue and Irrelevant

Anyone that would claim Bernie's remarks during the 1st debate were sexist or mysogynistic CLEARLY did not watch the debate. They make have watched a 30s clip of it or watched Hillarys sound bite accusing him of such...but they did not see the same debate that most people saw.

However, on the off chance that his accusers actually did watch it, they certainly didn't watch it objectively and fairly.

Hillary is gender baiting and it's so obvious that it's pathetic.

As someone who considers themselves a neofeminist, I agree with the idea that both sexes are unequal in different ways. For those of you who want clarification on what I mean by this watch:

For Bernie to speak his mind on an issue and, in doing so, automatically be charged with the "sexist" label is not fair and not right. It's predatory and pure defamation. Period.

[ismnotwasm]

130. What do you consider a "neofeminist" to be?

Out of curiosity?

[MB84]

196. What I mean

Is that I recognize and agree with the position that inequality is more heavily skewed toward the female (both biologically and expressive) but, in that belief, I'm complex enough to understand that not all men identify with conventional masculinity. Those that don't are often the targets of mistreatment from both sexes.
To be honest, if the world relied less on labels and more on the content of a persons character, I wouldn't consider myself anything other than a human being with the capacity to view the world from several different angles at the same time.

[MineralMan]

68. Bernie Sanders is neither a racist or a sexist.

That's ridiculous. Anyone who says or implies either is a fool or deliberately trying to tarnish him.

His record is clear and obvious to anyone who cares to look at it.

As a Clinton supporter during the primary race, I cannot imagine what is in people's minds who would suggest either label for Senator Sanders.

[jeff47]

84. So...you didn't make this OP yesterday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251741782

Better change your password. Someone must have hacked your account.

[MineralMan]

94. That OP had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

Sorry, but you read something into it that isn't there. Read it again.

[jeff47]

97. And I'm the Pope!!!

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Hint: You don't have to actually say someone's name to make it clear the post is about them.

(Just like I never actually said your name in this post until now)

[randys1]

140. Why did you assume it was targeted at Bernie or his supporters? It is about the ASSHOLES

you know, the REPUBLICANS!

[jeff47]

141. Because it was posted after a giant slew of threads about how sexist Sanders

and his supporters are. And no OPs about Republican sexism.

[treestar]

69. It's stuff you have to deal with running for a nomination for POTUS

Hillary is called all sorts of names too.

[NCTraveler]

71. Another addition.

Why did you use quotation marks in your op?

[boston bean]

72. Funny thing is

I searched with the google on DU with the term "Bernie is a sexist" and this thread (yours) and one other thread are the only two results.

The other one besides your is, "Hillary did not say Bernie is a sexist".

[jeff47]

88. Because you literally have to use that phrase in order to confer the same meaning.

Try googling for "shouting". You'll get a lot more hits of people calling him sexist without saying the literal phrase "Bernie is a sexist". You could also try dropping the "a" in your search since sexist is an adjective.

[boston bean]

100. The author of the OP put it in direct quotes.

Take it up with the OP.

[MohRokTah]

77. Sanders supporters make me DESPISE the man. eom

[Comrade Grumpy]

124. You may want to seek help for that displacement problem.

[MohRokTah]

160. You may want to stop giving medical advice over the internet. eom

[NurseJackie]

87. Even as a Hillary supporter, I'm willing to give him more credit.

I don't believe that he is racist or sexist. Instead, what I do believe is that he's completely tone-deaf. And when he (or others in his campaign) stumble, he's too stubborn to make adjustments or to admit being a human being with flaws and having room to grow. He needs to just be man enough to take the hits, apologize, learn from the mistake and move on.

It's very GWB-ish. Rather than being willing to recognize mistakes, he would become even more adamant that no mistake had been made and would become hyper defensive and aggressive. With Bernie and his followers, it's not quite as bad as GWB, but their reactions and responses are reminding me of him.

[jeff47]

89. So, he's not racist or sexist, he just needs to apologize for his racism and sexism.

[NurseJackie]

101. I'm willing to give you credit too, Jeff47.

I'm sure that you're much more intelligent than your comment would suggest.

[Sheepshank]

91. agreed with and recommended n/t

[Maedhros]

107. Except, for the most part, the "stumbling" attributed to his campaign

is just opinion manufactured by Hillary proxies in the media - the same media whose lobbyists Hillary hires for her campaign.

Then, when he doesn't roll over and issue a mea culpa for the imagined fault, he is "stubborn."

It's all disingenuous bullshit.

[NurseJackie]

118. Hmmm… interesting take, but I don't think it was "manufactured".

Instead, I think it was a genuine stumble, a tone-deaf way to phrase things. Nothing was manufactured. It would probably be accurate to say that it was highlighted (or even hyped) by the media, I'm willing to give you that. The mistake itself wasn't just invented out of thin air and it wasn't imagined.

[Maedhros]

119. What mistake? [n/t]

[randys1]

143. Meh, so Bernie is a typical white American male. We all have the same flaws but

some of us are better suited to realize them and work with them.

I have said, and it is true, that all men are misogynist and all white people are racist, but when I say it I am making the point that by definition, the system and society we are BORN into, makes us this way, and the enlightened among us work to go against this reality.

Bernie will take a while to realize that what he knew about white supremacy and racism in the 60's, is not necessarily different now but also not gone. He will have to realize that if his shouting comment was taken as sexist by some Clinton campaign advisor, then he does what he did, says no it isnt. Bernie accuses everybody of shouting, it is a common word he uses and I dont believe he meant it for Hillary.

Bernie is not perfect, but he is a good guy.

Hillary is not perfect and is way too influenced by Wall Street, but at her base she is a good person and will do good things.

We have a wealth of talent compared to the assholes.

[whathehell]

168. Bernie is no more a "typical white male" than Barack Obama

is a typical black male. Try again.

[Rilgin]

191. The Problem is that it is totally made up.

In the history of relations between the Genders and the history of Feminism, there has never been a critique, meme, or paper saying that when Women speak up, Men hear them Shouting. That formulation is totally made up.

All you have to do is google "shout men" and you will find that shouting as a gender problem has been applied to men shouting. In other words "Men shouting over womens voices". Men not listening to women. Men shouting at all types of things. However, Hillary did not accuse Bernie, as a man, of shouting over her. The meme was that he was resorting to some long standing gender issue that when women talk, men hear shouting when he used the word "shout" in the debate.

However, the problem with her complaint is that this specific meme is not a meme that exists. There is no problem that Men hear or interpret women as shouting when they speak up. There are problems that men dont listen, or that Men shout over the top of those voices, however this one is TOTALLY MADE UP. There has been lots of issues with communication between the genders but this particular one is TOTALLY MADE UP.

So someone in the Hillary camp made up a meme that does not exist to imply sexism and you fell hook line and sinker for a TOTALLY MADE UP meme, made up just to get a jab in.

Then you agree that it was Bernie's fault for not realizing that the use of the word shout refers to women even in the history of feminism it has never been applied in that manner.

[giftedgirl77]

102. I don't think he's either of those things...

But his campaign is tone deaf & are messing things up for him. Not to mention his grassroots if someone comes knocking on my door in this neighborhood they better be able to explain his social justice platform very clearly without trying to equate it with economic justice. If they can't do that he won't win the minority vote in this state.

[Maedhros]

110. Ahh..."tone deaf" is the new meme.

I see both you and NurseJackie use the same talking point.

Good job staying on message.

[TwilightGardener]

117. Tone deaf. You know, like Clinton saying the VA wait issue wasn't a widespread problem.

Now THAT is tone-deaf. There, I can play that game too.

[randys1]

146. It is NOT a game. BOTH of them are imperfect. Boy, I sure know that because I spend

my time at DU and there is more criticism here of BOTH of them than some of the rightwing boards I visit.

[giftedgirl77]

148. Thank you...

Apparently trying to just be nice about it & explain what real issues there are with the campaign is inconceivable.

[noiretextatique]

183. "tone deaf" is an explanation?!

i think not. it is an accusation. so, explain what his campaign is 'tone deaf" about. and please don't bring up that tired economic vs social justice non-argument that has been discredited several times.

[TwilightGardener]

106. Get the idea out there, make him deny it, make journalists ask him about it.

That's the ClintonRove way.

[PatrickforO]

127. And don't forget bringing up every single skewed poll and trying to gaslight us with the

'oh, he can't win anyway' meme.

Just remember that in 1948 EVERYBODY thought Dewey would win the presidency.

[Major Hogwash]

158. You left out Communist.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. I guess someone figured out that running against his supporters 24-7 was getting old?

Does anyone know if Sanders drives a Volvo? I bet he does.

[bvar22]

176. If Black People can't be "racists",

someone should have told the Tutsis in Rwanda.

[whathehell]

186. It is, for all practical purposes,

a bullshit assertion.

[Warren Stupidity]

178. a non stop disgusting hate campaign run by the clinton supporters

If their goal is to alienate as many sanders supporters as possible, they are doing a fine job.

[rhett o rick]

179. Winning the primary is more important than winning the general. They think that their

candidate can easily beat a Bush (no innuendos intended), but that's what they thought in 2000. In that year is was Gore/Clinton running and the conservative Dems were happy even though the wacky far left warned them. But they had Nader to be a scapegoat for their fallacy. Who will be their scapegoat this time around?

[emulatorloo]

184. How about this: a media-fueled "horse-race" manufactured-melodrama for ratings

That somehow has supposedly intelligent DU'ers falling for it. And at each other's throats over what is basically a tempest in a fucking teapot when one looks at the big picture.

[jfern]

193. They used the same claims of sexism against Obama supporters