Berkley

[caffeine]

What I find particularly frightening is when calls for violence or sanctioning violence comes from those in power. Someone mentioned Trump's calling for people to do physical harm to protesters, above. And then, there's the recent move in Republican-controlled legislatures in North Dakota and Tennessee to pass laws saying it's legal to hit protesters with your car.

Now, I'm absolutely sure that someone's finger is poised on the reply button to assert that these bills are to protect the poor drivers from inadvertently hitting protesters who are breaking the law!!!

Sigh. I'd believe that, too. If I hadn't seen the numbers of internet memes on conservative FB sites that literally advocate mowing down protesters on purpose. And the gleeful, horrific comments that those memes generate. I have never seen a conservative comment, "Uh, hey guys, that's not right. We shouldn't be advocating violence, even if a protester is blocking a road." What I see instead is people actually saying that they deserve to be hit and killed. To think that laws like this won't encourage that kind of irresponsible, reprehensible thinking is just... inconceivable to me. I'm not shocked by much anymore, but this sure as hell shocks me.

At least by my understanding, those measures only protect from civil liability not criminal liability. This is prompted mostly in regard to protestors in the process of linking arms to shut down inner state highways.

[Midwest]

What I find particularly frightening is when calls for violence or sanctioning violence comes from those in power. Someone mentioned Trump's calling for people to do physical harm to protesters, above. And then, there's the recent move in Republican-controlled legislatures in North Dakota and Tennessee to pass laws saying it's legal to hit protesters with your car.

Now, I'm absolutely sure that someone's finger is poised on the reply button to assert that these bills are to protect the poor drivers from inadvertently hitting protesters who are breaking the law!!!

Sigh. I'd believe that, too. If I hadn't seen the numbers of internet memes on conservative FB sites that literally advocate mowing down protesters on purpose. And the gleeful, horrific comments that those memes generate. I have never seen a conservative comment, "Uh, hey guys, that's not right. We shouldn't be advocating violence, even if a protester is blocking a road." What I see instead is people actually saying that they deserve to be hit and killed. To think that laws like this won't encourage that kind of irresponsible, reprehensible thinking is just... inconceivable to me. I'm not shocked by much anymore, but this sure as hell shocks me.

At least by my understanding, those measures only protect from civil liability not criminal liability. This is prompted mostly in regard to protestors in the process of linking arms to shut down inner state highways.

^^+1

http://newschannel9.com/news/local/tn-bill-drivers-who-hit-protesters-immune-to-civil-liability

"We are not endorsing anyone running over a person with a car, whether it is protestors or anyone else. If someone intentionally harms a person, they are going to be charged with a crime, period."

[Lagom]

I will say I agree with both prognastat and Kris. I have seen plenty of cruel-hearted memes from the left and the right that celebrate violent acts. The left loves punching Nazis and breaking windows. The right loves shooting "thugs" and running down protesters. It's all gross.

[chad]

Well, Lagom, I am extremely disappointed in the right for having elected Trump despite his repeated promises to behave like an authoritarian. Given this, I guess it seems at least misleading to say that I regard the right as morally superior.

I continue to think that the left has problems the right doesn't have, and that the right has problems the left doesn't have, and that an increase in acceptance of violence against political opponents for no other reason than their views is a problem on the left and not the right. But whatever, I've said what I have to say, and I don't want to repeat myself.

[prognastat]

Not to say that I believe many of these people would be pro free speech if it wasn't theirs being stifled, but instead those they oppose. However, I will support it on either side and unfortunately currently a lot of it seems to be coming from the left which saddens me.

It just shows people only care for political expediency. For most when they are the suppressed minority they tout free speech and admonish those wishing to quell it, but when the roles are reversed suddenly these strongly held beliefs disappear.

Just a few decades ago it was the religious right that had the most control over politics and media advocating for censorship and it was the left attempting to fight for their free speech. Now the pendulum has swung and it is extreme progressives, communists and left-wing anarchists attempting to censor those they don't agree with while being many average left leaning people either look the other way or advocate this behavior.

It is mostly depressing to see so few people actually have any kind of real principles. A lighter form of this can be seen in how suddenly because everything Trump does is evil you have people fighting against causes they were celebrating until right before Trump took those positions and many on the right have hypocritically supported positions or made excuses for behaviors that Trump and other politicians have engaged in because it happens to be their team. It seems no matter what we try as human beings we can't shake of tribalism.

Not disputing this, but can you give a few examples?

A good example is the "Make America Great Again" and "America is already great" BS. Many of the voters voting for Trump consider America was "great" when they still had well paying manufacturing and service jobs that hadn't been shipped overseas enabled by things such as trade deals allowing large companies to increase profits by moving these jobs overseas instead. Instead of taking on their concerns and making protecting the working class a central piece of the Democratic platform they were simply called racists/bigots and got the response America is already great from Hillary and many of those supporting Hillary. When did being pro working class positions stop being a Democratic thing and start being a Republican thing? Also the blind nationalism of saying America is already great when there are plenty of serious problems still needing to be addressed about both America's domestic and foreign policies is disturbing to see from the party that was originally the party fighting not to keep America the same, but to make it better.

Then there is the new red-scare a lot of democratic politicians and media figures perpetrated during the whole "Russian Hacks" debacle. Even if Russia hacked the email, there is no proof this actually happened beyond unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous CIA sources because no need to prove it and also the CIA is of course the most reputable government agency we know of, this doesn't excuse the content in these emails nor does it mean Russia hacked the election which would indirectly imply they hacked the voting machines somehow to switch actual votes not simply make information available that might change people's opinion/vote. And here I though McCarthy was the expert at believing the Russians are everywhere and we should see Russian influence everywhere and also be afraid we might be affected by Russian propaganda.

How about the whataboutery in relation to Clinton's Wall Street Speeches and Trump's tax returns. For some reason it seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it, I agree he should have released them, but when Hillary's is brought up suddenly there is the need to divert to well Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

This one not directly related Trump, but how is it that what Mitt Romney said about half of the country not wanting to work is an outrage yet when Hillary calls half of all possible Trump supporters a basket of deplorables and racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic. I would say the latter is a far more nefarious accusation than calling people lazy.

How about the people that complained that Bernie supporters should just shut up and that Hillary won fair and square and not question the primary election results, but are now outraged and were calling for the electoral college to override the outcome of the decision and if not to impeach Trump before he has taken a single action as president?

[prognastat]

As I mentioned before though it's sad to say though that all of this probably just comes down to tribalism and it seems no matter what you do or where you go there is no way of getting away from it.

[Lagom]

@prognastat

First,  none of those are examples of the left abandoning causes they had previously celebrated just because Trump supports them, which was the question. That said, some of what you said is reasonable, especially the comment regarding how much the Democrats have abandoned the blue collar working class even as they continued to take their support for granted. This is an area where the Democratic party has been seriously hypocritical.

The Russian thing I don't agree with and we have a whole thread that discusses all of the reasons why. No one credible is claiming Russia literally hacked voting machines, btw, and the concerns about Russia go well beyond how much of an impact they had on the election itself (which I agree is very debatable). Not at all comparable to the Red Scare.

Hillary has caught plenty of flack from the left about her Wall Street connections, though not so much from the DNC, I'll grant. Same goes for her deplorables comment.

Overall, you seem to be confusing the hypocrisy of the DNC and associated stooges with the actions of liberals at large (many of whom were passionate Bernie supporters, of course). The DNC is at least as dysfunctional/hypocritical as the GOP, you'll get no argument from me there, but I wouldn't go making comments about how "liberals" in general are acting on all of the above as if its the same thing.

Anyway, this is all definitely off topic for this thread! :)

[Malloy]

How about the whataboutery in relation to Clinton's Wall Street Speeches and Trump's tax returns. For some reason it seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it, I agree he should have released them, but when Hillary's is brought up suddenly there is the need to divert to well Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

Sorry-this one's an easy target.  Hillary Clinton released decades worth of tax returns.  Trump released zero.  The only whataboutism was Trump pretending that releasing his tax returns was equivalent or contingent on Hillary releasing speech transcripts.  He linked those two things in people's minds, and I guess some people bought it. The fact that you framed this issue, in which Trump is so clearly less transparent and less honest in an apples to apples comparison, as reflecting poorly on Clinton and her supporters is the kind of tribalism that you are criticizing. It seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it because...he didn't. And she did.  Therefore, if you hold them to the same standard, Trump failed on financial disclosures and she fulfilled them.  The honest conservative would admit this.

I really didn't care about the speeches, just like I didn't care about Trump's various speeches to organizations.  I held them to them same standard.  That's an apples to apples comparison, and I strenuously disagree that I am somehow dishonest because I hold this standard.

There are many examples of this that are totally on target, though.  Obama's ICE deported a ton of people, but liberals gave him a pass on it.  In another example, conservatives lost their shit every time Michelle Obama breathed, but liberals have been pretty mum about a) Melania's soft core porn photo shoots and b) her absence from the White House.  You have to be honest with yourself that conservatives would be stroking out left and right if Michelle had participated in a nude photo shoot.

[prognastat]

@prognastat

First,  none of those are examples of the left abandoning causes they had previously celebrated just because Trump supports them, which was the question. That said, some of what you said is reasonable, especially the comment regarding how much the Democrats have abandoned the blue collar working class even as they continued to take their support for granted. This is an area where the Democratic party has been seriously hypocritical.

The Russian thing I don't agree with and we have a whole thread that discusses all of the reasons why. No one credible is claiming Russia literally hacked voting machines, btw, and the concerns about Russia go well beyond how much of an impact they had on the election itself (which I agree is very debatable). Not at all comparable to the Red Scare.

Hillary has caught plenty of flack from the left about her Wall Street connections, though not so much from the DNC, I'll grant. Same goes for her deplorables comment.

Overall, you seem to be confusing the hypocrisy of the DNC and associated stooges with the actions of liberals at large (many of whom were passionate Bernie supporters, of course). The DNC is at least as dysfunctional/hypocritical as the GOP, you'll get no argument from me there, but I wouldn't go making comments about how "liberals" in general are acting on all of the above as if its the same thing.

Anyway, this is all definitely off topic for this thread! :)

I would agree that unlike most of the DNC plenty of liberals don't fall under the hypocrisies I mentioned. Though many also do, if they didn't I doubt Hillary would have been the nominee despite the shady actions of the DNC and media companies collaborating with them Plenty of her politics being in direct opposition to plenty of actual progressive policies.

I would have to disagree that none of these have anything to do with Trump. The ignorant blind nationalism shown in response to "Make America great again" was in direct response to Trump making that his slogan and the Russia thing didn't become a thing until it was convenient to smear Trump with it.

Accepting not being open about the speeches isn't necessarily a 180 due to Trump, but Trump's tax returns are hypocritically brought up to act as if that makes her behavior ok.

The latter two though I already admitted weren't related to Trump, but do show some blatant hypocrisy.

[prognastat]

How about the whataboutery in relation to Clinton's Wall Street Speeches and Trump's tax returns. For some reason it seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it, I agree he should have released them, but when Hillary's is brought up suddenly there is the need to divert to well Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

Sorry-this one's an easy target.  Hillary Clinton released decades worth of tax returns.  Trump released zero.  The only whataboutism was Trump pretending that releasing his tax returns was equivalent or contingent on Hillary releasing speech transcripts.  He linked those two things in people's minds, and I guess some people bought it. The fact that you framed this issue, in which Trump is so clearly less transparent and less honest in an apples to apples comparison, as reflecting poorly on Clinton and her supporters is the kind of tribalism that you are criticizing. It seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it because...he didn't. And she did.  Therefore, if you hold them to the same standard, Trump failed on financial disclosures and she fulfilled them.  The honest conservative would admit this.

I really didn't care about the speeches, just like I didn't care about Trump's various speeches to organizations.  I held them to them same standard.  That's an apples to apples comparison, and I strenuously disagree that I am somehow dishonest because I hold this standard.

There are many examples of this that are totally on target, though.  Obama's ICE deported a ton of people, but liberals gave him a pass on it.  In another example, conservatives lost their shit every time Michelle Obama breathed, but liberals have been pretty mum about a) Melania's soft core porn photo shoots and b) her absence from the White House.  You have to be honest with yourself that conservatives would be stroking out left and right if Michelle had participated in a nude photo shoot.

Sorry, but no it's not easy, because it seems you failed to address my actual point. When I say hey she should release the transcripts of the speeches to show she truly did not make arguments counter to her public positions and then some says well Trump hasn't released his tax returns. That is whataboutery plain and simple. It doesn't change the fact that she hasn't and doesn't somehow make it acceptable so it is a moot point. Also you seem to be arguing as if I am for Trump not releasing his tax returns, something I believe he should and is a disgrace he didn't and yet republicans voted him in anyway. However as someone who isn't a Republican my main concern is fixing what I consider to be my side so hopefully next election doesn't end up in a massive clusterfuck again and so my concern is more with the problems I see that will lead to the same outcome.

You seem to be arguing to a stawman of my positions though. I have mentioned I don't believe conservatives are better. Simply more so disappointing to see plenty of liberals are no better when the roles are reversed. Also sorry but plenty of liberals felt the need to call out Melania's past which I thought was rather sad after complaining about conservatives going after Michele and her daughters. Also I am hopeful that some of these things might actually improve some things among conservatives. It will hopefully be harder for them to criticize others for similar actions. Hopefully less shaming of women or getting up in arms over "immoral" things. Another example being that Trump has actually been more pro-LGBT than pretty much any Republican president and still got nominated. Chances are these hopes are unfounded as I mentioned I believe the hypocrisy on either end is no better so chances are those will change back easily if the next nominee is  more traditionally conservative on those fronts, but who knows maybe a sign of progress.

[Malloy]

How about the whataboutery in relation to Clinton's Wall Street Speeches and Trump's tax returns. For some reason it seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it, I agree he should have released them, but when Hillary's is brought up suddenly there is the need to divert to well Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

Sorry-this one's an easy target.  Hillary Clinton released decades worth of tax returns.  Trump released zero.  The only whataboutism was Trump pretending that releasing his tax returns was equivalent or contingent on Hillary releasing speech transcripts.  He linked those two things in people's minds, and I guess some people bought it. The fact that you framed this issue, in which Trump is so clearly less transparent and less honest in an apples to apples comparison, as reflecting poorly on Clinton and her supporters is the kind of tribalism that you are criticizing. It seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it because...he didn't. And she did.  Therefore, if you hold them to the same standard, Trump failed on financial disclosures and she fulfilled them.  The honest conservative would admit this.

I really didn't care about the speeches, just like I didn't care about Trump's various speeches to organizations.  I held them to them same standard.  That's an apples to apples comparison, and I strenuously disagree that I am somehow dishonest because I hold this standard.

There are many examples of this that are totally on target, though.  Obama's ICE deported a ton of people, but liberals gave him a pass on it.  In another example, conservatives lost their shit every time Michelle Obama breathed, but liberals have been pretty mum about a) Melania's soft core porn photo shoots and b) her absence from the White House.  You have to be honest with yourself that conservatives would be stroking out left and right if Michelle had participated in a nude photo shoot.

Sorry, but no it's not easy, because it seems you failed to address my actual point. When I say hey she should release the transcripts of the speeches to show she truly did not make arguments counter to her public positions and then some says well Trump hasn't released his tax returns. That is whataboutery plain and simple. It doesn't change the fact that she hasn't and doesn't somehow make it acceptable so it is a moot point. Also you seem to be arguing as if I am for Trump not releasing his tax returns, something I believe he should and is a disgrace he didn't and yet republicans voted him in anyway. However as someone who isn't a Republican my main concern is fixing what I consider to be my side so hopefully next election doesn't end up in a massive clusterfuck again and so my concern is more with the problems I see that will lead to the same outcome.

You seem to be arguing to a stawman of my positions though. I have mentioned I don't believe conservatives are better. Simply more so disappointing to see plenty of liberals are no better when the roles are reversed. Also sorry but plenty of liberals felt the need to call out Melania's past which I thought was rather sad after complaining about conservatives going after Michele and her daughters. Also I am hopeful that some of these things might actually improve some things among conservatives. It will hopefully be harder for them to criticize others for similar actions. Hopefully less shaming of women or getting up in arms over "immoral" things. Another example being that Trump has actually been more pro-LGBT than pretty much any Republican president and still got nominated. Chances are these hopes are unfounded as I mentioned I believe the hypocrisy on either end is no better so chances are those will change back easily if the next nominee is  more traditionally conservative on those fronts, but who knows maybe a sign of progress.

OK-I get it.  You think that the voters saw these double standards and were turned off and you are hoping to bring more integrity to the Democrats as a brand distinguisher from the Republicans.  Godspeed. I am so thoroughly cynical about American voters that I don't think integrity is going to cut it with most of them.  Yes-the far left values it.  They are purity progressives, but otherwise everyone else is a tribalist.  I agree with you, but don't share any of your optimism that it will do any good.

[prognastat]

How about the whataboutery in relation to Clinton's Wall Street Speeches and Trump's tax returns. For some reason it seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it, I agree he should have released them, but when Hillary's is brought up suddenly there is the need to divert to well Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

Sorry-this one's an easy target.  Hillary Clinton released decades worth of tax returns.  Trump released zero.  The only whataboutism was Trump pretending that releasing his tax returns was equivalent or contingent on Hillary releasing speech transcripts.  He linked those two things in people's minds, and I guess some people bought it. The fact that you framed this issue, in which Trump is so clearly less transparent and less honest in an apples to apples comparison, as reflecting poorly on Clinton and her supporters is the kind of tribalism that you are criticizing. It seems easy to criticize Trump not doing it because...he didn't. And she did.  Therefore, if you hold them to the same standard, Trump failed on financial disclosures and she fulfilled them.  The honest conservative would admit this.

I really didn't care about the speeches, just like I didn't care about Trump's various speeches to organizations.  I held them to them same standard.  That's an apples to apples comparison, and I strenuously disagree that I am somehow dishonest because I hold this standard.

There are many examples of this that are totally on target, though.  Obama's ICE deported a ton of people, but liberals gave him a pass on it.  In another example, conservatives lost their shit every time Michelle Obama breathed, but liberals have been pretty mum about a) Melania's soft core porn photo shoots and b) her absence from the White House.  You have to be honest with yourself that conservatives would be stroking out left and right if Michelle had participated in a nude photo shoot.

Sorry, but no it's not easy, because it seems you failed to address my actual point. When I say hey she should release the transcripts of the speeches to show she truly did not make arguments counter to her public positions and then some says well Trump hasn't released his tax returns. That is whataboutery plain and simple. It doesn't change the fact that she hasn't and doesn't somehow make it acceptable so it is a moot point. Also you seem to be arguing as if I am for Trump not releasing his tax returns, something I believe he should and is a disgrace he didn't and yet republicans voted him in anyway. However as someone who isn't a Republican my main concern is fixing what I consider to be my side so hopefully next election doesn't end up in a massive clusterfuck again and so my concern is more with the problems I see that will lead to the same outcome.

You seem to be arguing to a stawman of my positions though. I have mentioned I don't believe conservatives are better. Simply more so disappointing to see plenty of liberals are no better when the roles are reversed. Also sorry but plenty of liberals felt the need to call out Melania's past which I thought was rather sad after complaining about conservatives going after Michele and her daughters. Also I am hopeful that some of these things might actually improve some things among conservatives. It will hopefully be harder for them to criticize others for similar actions. Hopefully less shaming of women or getting up in arms over "immoral" things. Another example being that Trump has actually been more pro-LGBT than pretty much any Republican president and still got nominated. Chances are these hopes are unfounded as I mentioned I believe the hypocrisy on either end is no better so chances are those will change back easily if the next nominee is  more traditionally conservative on those fronts, but who knows maybe a sign of progress.

OK-I get it.  You think that the voters saw these double standards and were turned off and you are hoping to bring more integrity to the Democrats as a brand distinguisher from the Republicans.  Godspeed. I am so thoroughly cynical about American voters that I don't think integrity is going to cut it with most of them.  Yes-the far left values it.  They are purity progressives, but otherwise everyone else is a tribalist.  I agree with you, but don't share any of your optimism that it will do any good.

Actually I believe a left based populist message as opposed to a corporatist/establishment message would have beat Trump's right wing populist message. I suspect that if Bernie had won the democratic nomination practically everyone that voted for Hillary would have voted for him plus some of the people that didn't vote or voted third party, but most importantly the voters they lost in the democratic firewall that went from voting for Obama due to his "hope and change" to voting to Trump to "Make America great again" by "bringing back american jobs" and curtailing trade deals that have lead to job loss in those areas.

I am plenty cynical about politics, voters and the average person. However I do believe this would have made a huge difference. Though I doubt policy substance unfortunately is not a major factor for many voters. However Trump didn't do much better than the average Republican nominee, he didn't swing massive amounts of votes nor did he get some kind of record turnout among conservatives. Hillary did much worse than many expected.

[ariapluscat]

@prognastat

First,  none of those are examples of the left abandoning causes they had previously celebrated just because Trump supports them, which was the question. That said, some of what you said is reasonable, especially the comment regarding how much the Democrats have abandoned the blue collar working class even as they continued to take their support for granted. This is an area where the Democratic party has been seriously hypocritical.

The Russian thing I don't agree with and we have a whole thread that discusses all of the reasons why. No one credible is claiming Russia literally hacked voting machines, btw, and the concerns about Russia go well beyond how much of an impact they had on the election itself (which I agree is very debatable). Not at all comparable to the Red Scare.

Hillary has caught plenty of flack from the left about her Wall Street connections, though not so much from the DNC, I'll grant. Same goes for her deplorables comment.

Overall, you seem to be confusing the hypocrisy of the DNC and associated stooges with the actions of liberals at large (many of whom were passionate Bernie supporters, of course). The DNC is at least as dysfunctional/hypocritical as the GOP, you'll get no argument from me there, but I wouldn't go making comments about how "liberals" in general are acting on all of the above as if its the same thing.

Anyway, this is all definitely off topic for this thread! :)

I would agree that unlike most of the DNC plenty of liberals don't fall under the hypocrisies I mentioned. Though many also do, if they didn't I doubt Hillary would have been the nominee despite the shady actions of the DNC and media companies collaborating with them Plenty of her politics being in direct opposition to plenty of actual progressive policies.

I would have to disagree that none of these have anything to do with Trump. The ignorant blind nationalism shown in response to "Make America great again" was in direct response to Trump making that his slogan and the Russia thing didn't become a thing until it was convenient to smear Trump with it.

Accepting not being open about the speeches isn't necessarily a 180 due to Trump, but Trump's tax returns are hypocritically brought up to act as if that makes her behavior ok.

The latter two though I already admitted weren't related to Trump, but do show some blatant hypocrisy.

not to be dirty bernie stan in 2017, but _{i'm about to do just that lol.}
a vast majority of the voters behind the dnc were upset with the hypocrisy you're describing as well as the media block out of far left positions. and in turn the dnc itself was upset as demonstrated by the lifting/moving/throwing of chairs, the disgrace of Wasserman-Schultz, and the current election which is #wild. so i think you can't go as far as you might like in hrc's positions being accepted by democrats, be it voters or the dnc bloc.

secondly the 'america was already great' is not what i heard although i am again a dirty far left kid so... most protesters chant things like "america was never great" "hey hey ho ho this racist state has got to go" and more. even jacobin has an article about the problematic of the russia/red scare, and they're usually light years behind actual leftists. even within the pres debates, hrc wasn't making an argument of 'russia bad. america good.' but 'russia is a foreign state with tendencies to invade other countries and poor relations with the us. in turn voters should be aware of whether a republican candidate is going to reverse sanctions/ i can win conservatives by being a hawk.' trump seemed far more dedicated to the american exceptionalism during the election cycle, but he has moved his rhetoric a lot post-elections (re: 'you think we're so innocent' is a far cry from the glory of the american worker, be it the coal miner or the military soldier).

even the america is already great is more nuanced in the sense that it's usually a stand in for 'america has far greater civil liberties now than in the past and let's not return to the disenfranchisement of minority groups in the name of national nostaglia'  not blind nationalism. it has build in an acknowledgement that we were once pretty terrible, to say, black people trying to vote in 1960s.

in any case, the kids at berkeley are far more likely to be in the 'america was never great' than the 'america is already great.'

idk maybe there's a snarky comment about liberals using dnc chairs to smash windows that someone can make?

[ariapluscat]

Actually I believe a left based populist message as opposed to a corporatist/establishment message would have beat Trump's right wing populist message. I suspect that if Bernie had won the democratic nomination practically everyone that voted for Hillary would have voted for him plus some of the people that didn't vote or voted third party, but most importantly the voters they lost in the democratic firewall that went from voting for Obama due to his "hope and change" to voting to Trump to "Make America great again" by "bringing back american jobs" and curtailing trade deals that have lead to job loss in those areas.

I am plenty cynical about politics, voters and the average person. However I do believe this would have made a huge difference. Though I doubt policy substance unfortunately is not a major factor for many voters. However Trump didn't do much better than the average Republican nominee, he didn't swing massive amounts of votes nor did he get some kind of record turnout among conservatives. Hillary did much worse than many expected.

a fellow dirty bernie stan

[prognastat]

Since we've entered the "Bernie would have won" phase of this thread... Have to say I'm skeptical that an American public that was dumb enough and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump would have been sophisticated enough to not reject Bernie because of the "S" word.

Except that the American public wasn't dumb and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump. Trump didn't win some crazy amount of votes over what any other Republican nominee generally gets. It was Hillary that underperformed, not Trump that overperformed.

[MandalayVA]

Since we've entered the "Bernie would have won" phase of this thread... Have to say I'm skeptical that an American public that was dumb enough and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump would have been sophisticated enough to not reject Bernie because of the "S" word.

If they wouldn't reject him because of the "S" word, they certainly would because of the "J" word.  You'd be amazed at the number of people who have never knowingly met a Jewish person and think they do things like sacrifice babies. 

[Midwest]

Since we've entered the "Bernie would have won" phase of this thread... Have to say I'm skeptical that an American public that was dumb enough and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump would have been sophisticated enough to not reject Bernie because of the "S" word.

If they wouldn't reject him because of the "S" word, they certainly would because of the "J" word.  You'd be amazed at the number of people who have never knowingly met a Jewish person and think they do things like sacrifice babies.

I realize there is a contingent that is convinced all Trump voters are racists simpletons.  The truth is that many people simply voted for what they thought was the lesser of 2 evils.  Hillary lost because enough people perceived her as worse than Trump.

Bernie might have been able to beat Trump because a) he was the most genuine of the 3 and b) many people realized that a Republican congress would have kept him in check.

[Gin1984]

Since we've entered the "Bernie would have won" phase of this thread... Have to say I'm skeptical that an American public that was dumb enough and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump would have been sophisticated enough to not reject Bernie because of the "S" word.

Except that the American public wasn't dumb and nativist enough to vote for Donald Trump. Trump didn't win some crazy amount of votes over what any other Republican nominee generally gets. It was Hillary that underperformed, not Trump that overperformed.

Given that Sanders was campaigning to Clinton and still could not get his supporters out to vote, I doubt that he could have done so otherwise.

[trollwithamustache]

how the hoot did you guys get to Bernie vs Clinton vs Trump? OP asked about Berkeley and was maybe, just maybe trying to start a conversation about the limits of free speech.

I'll propose the following:

Milo is a provocateur which is a polite French word for Ass-hat.  I'm right leaning so he's my ass hat.

Micheal Moore/Al Gore ect is the same thing, and I suffer through his movies in silent protest. For many of you, they are your ass-hats.

We've all had our happy moment of agreeing firebombing isn't ok as a way of communicating.

I'm OK with free speech being too wide rather than too narrow because you should be ignoring the news anyway. I'm actually OK with someone making an A#$ of themselves with hatespeach, I'm just not ok with calling for violence.

[prognastat]

how the hoot did you guys get to Bernie vs Clinton vs Trump? OP asked about Berkeley and was maybe, just maybe trying to start a conversation about the limits of free speech.

I'll propose the following:

Milo is a provocateur which is a polite French word for Ass-hat.  I'm right leaning so he's my ass hat.

Micheal Moore/Al Gore ect is the same thing, and I suffer through his movies in silent protest. For many of you, they are your ass-hats.

We've all had our happy moment of agreeing firebombing isn't ok as a way of communicating.

I'm OK with free speech being too wide rather than too narrow because you should be ignoring the news anyway. I'm actually OK with someone making an A#$ of themselves with hatespeach, I'm just not ok with calling for violence.

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

[ariapluscat]

hate speech can be re-defined as fighting words or an incite to violence on the basis of a persecuted minority identity of a specific individual, esp in the context of milo naming and giving the address of specific individuals on the basis of their lgbt status or immigration status or the like

[Lagom]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

[prognastat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

I did read it earlier, however since the topic had shifted by the time I got to it didn't go in to it. But he is surprisingly even minded in it, even if I still don't agree with everything I can totally agree with the overall message of his on this. He recently had a talk on the Rubin report and he also surprised me there, maybe he has had some kind of change of heart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deAON1QryIg

[ariapluscat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

[prognastat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

Yes and now we have seen what happens when instead of having the discussion you try to shut up people and just call them racists/bigots and refuse to interact with them. What you get is all the polls saying hey Hillary is going to win by a landslide and bam surprise Trump won.

This happened because the people getting called racists/bigots stopped talking to the people calling them these things and instead hid their feelings and only discussed it with like minded people. Also you get a democratic party completely out of touch with their working class roots coming off as elitist and not representing the people they ought to be representing.

[Midwest]

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany. 

[Lagom]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

This is an interesting point. I agree that fascist ideas are viral (see Trump, Donald J.) and the traditional "vaccines" may not be so effective, but I would posit that's because they rely too much on reason. The way to fight an emotional appeal is with an emotional appeal. This is why I personally think Bernie would have won easily (although I don't think he would have been a great president, but definitely better than DJT).

So for example, the idea is not to explain to poor rural voters how Trump's policies are against their best interest, which will always come across as condescending and disingenuous. The idea instead is to examine Trump's rhetoric to determine its appeal and then coopt it with a more powerful message of your own.

[prognastat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

This is an interesting point. I agree that fascist ideas are viral (see Trump, Donald J.) and the traditional "vaccines" may not be so effective, but I would posit that's because they rely too much on reason. The way to fight an emotional appeal is with an emotional appeal. This is why I personally think Bernie would have won easily (although I don't think he would have been a great president, but definitely better than DJT).

So for example, the idea is not to explain to poor rural voters how Trump's policies are against their best interest, which will always come across as condescending and disingenuous. The idea instead is to examine Trump's rhetoric to determine its appeal and then coopt it with a more powerful message of your own.

I partially disagree and agree with this.

I disagree that you can't explain it to a voter without coming across as condescending and disingenuous. The problem is most people are being condescending and disingenuous when doing this. The problem is that these people get told that their experience in life is invalid and they are just too stupid to see this because they are dumb racist bigots. Meanwhile no one is trying to talk to them instead of preach to find out what has lead them to this point to understand what is at the root of it. For some Trump voters sure the root is they are just simply racist bigots and likely nothing will change this. However for a not insignificant portion this isn't the case. They believed the hope and change Obama promised and when that never came that soured them. Then they were sold Hillary, someone who takes money from whoever is willing to buy her and has on multiple occasions supported anti-working class policies while Trump says hey I know you've had it rough and I'm going to make sure that changes. Who are they to vote for? The person that says they are racists and bigots and need to just get with the times? Do you vote for someone you suspect is probably lying(Trump), but is offering to help you or do you vote for the person that won't even genuinely listen to your concerns?

I agree though that it isn't only reason and logic, though it needs to be the bedrock of the discussion you have, however there also needs to be some talking about the feelings these people have and not just how they are wrong, but their source and attempt to understand that.

I also agree Bernie would likely have defeated Trump given that I believe he was a better populist than Trump even was and unlike Hillary it is hard to not at least like him even if you disagree with him for many. I know multiple people that can't stand Hillary and though they disagree with Bernie they at least tell me they do believe he is genuine and fighting for what he thinks is best for America. He wouldn't be a perfect president, but in my opinion he would be infinitely better than both Hillary, Trump and even Obama turned out to be.

[Lagom]

OK that's fair, but I would still argue the messaging needs to be based in emotion. You need to get people to believe that you hear them and genuinely care about their problems. That you are as outraged as they are and that you'll fight every day to make things better. Then you can add the details of how and why. Trump didn't bother with the latter because it wasn't necessary. But to do both? That to me sounds like the best and most effective path.

And to get back to the original point of discussion for this tangent, the only way you can do the above is if you encourage open discourse. Let the bigots be bigots, but don't then turn around and call everyone that listens an idiot racist. Like I said before, we should listen to the bigots so you can understand why so many others are listening to them. Because it's not always (or even often) due to racism, etc.

[ariapluscat]

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

idk if it was justified, like i agree this is not pre ww 2 germany, but would also prefer we don't get to that point. it'd be helpful to hear how this moment is distinct, why these actions aren't (or may never be) necessary.

[ariapluscat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

This is an interesting point. I agree that fascist ideas are viral (see Trump, Donald J.) and the traditional "vaccines" may not be so effective, but I would posit that's because they rely too much on reason. The way to fight an emotional appeal is with an emotional appeal. This is why I personally think Bernie would have won easily (although I don't think he would have been a great president, but definitely better than DJT).

So for example, the idea is not to explain to poor rural voters how Trump's policies are against their best interest, which will always come across as condescending and disingenuous. The idea instead is to examine Trump's rhetoric to determine its appeal and then coopt it with a more powerful message of your own.

if i get you correctly, emotional appeals and for the new improved version to come from within the community?
idk if you can coopt some of the message without importing some of the problems. i guess since we make a ton of bernie appeals, the example might be how he and trump can both support expanding entitlements/safety nets like social security, medicare, medicaid. but both of them seemed to do so by throwing minority working class ppl under the bus, bernie at least rhetorically.

[prognastat]

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

idk if it was justified, like i agree this is not pre ww 2 germany, but would also prefer we don't get to that point. it'd be helpful to hear how this moment is distinct, why these actions aren't (or may never be) necessary.

Isn't this logic no different though than what Trump and his supporters use to say we should ban Muslims? "They have terrible beliefs and there is no way to have a dialog with them and look at ISIS obviously this rhetoric is viral so we must make sure this doesn't spread even at the cost of our core liberal values?"

To me this reasoning sounds exactly the same. It is ok to use violence despite this compromising our liberal values because not doing so might open people up to dangerous ideas.

I think it is far more dangerous to let these ideas fester.

[Midwest]

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

idk if it was justified, like i agree this is not pre ww 2 germany, but would also prefer we don't get to that point. it'd be helpful to hear how this moment is distinct, why these actions aren't (or may never be) necessary.

One of the characteristics of pre-war Germany was shutting down the free exchange of ideas.  The violence perpetrated by these Blac Block is doing exactly that (shutting down free exchange of ideas).

People have a right to lawful, peaceful protest what certain individuals did at Berkley was indefensible. 

[prognastat]

Pretty much the same here. I would rather despicable people speak their mind and then we all know what they are thinking than have them speak only behind closed doors with like minded people for fear of violence and then nobody knows who the dangerous people with crazy ideas are. Also chances are no one will be addressing these unpermitted ideas so it is easier for people to maintain bad ideas and also easier to draw new people in to these bad ideas.

If bad ideas are like a virus then being able to openly discuss them without violence being a concern then we can inoculate people by using reason instead of violence to show why these ideas are bad and if you can't use reason to defend your positions then maybe you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your beliefs, even if they aren't wrong you might not be believing them for the right reasons.

Also as for why this conversation lead down the rabbit hole of the current politics is likely because the two aren't all that unrelated deep down.

Totally agree. I'm not sure how many people actually read it based on subsequent discussion, but again, I think the Glenn Beck piece makes this point quite well (although he is a bit too hard on the university IMO).

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

i'd find it helpful for those who believe in the free market of ideas as a resistance to fascism to distinguish clearly what's new/different about the current time period's market that would make this work when it hasn't before.

This is an interesting point. I agree that fascist ideas are viral (see Trump, Donald J.) and the traditional "vaccines" may not be so effective, but I would posit that's because they rely too much on reason. The way to fight an emotional appeal is with an emotional appeal. This is why I personally think Bernie would have won easily (although I don't think he would have been a great president, but definitely better than DJT).

So for example, the idea is not to explain to poor rural voters how Trump's policies are against their best interest, which will always come across as condescending and disingenuous. The idea instead is to examine Trump's rhetoric to determine its appeal and then coopt it with a more powerful message of your own.

if i get you correctly, emotional appeals and for the new improved version to come from within the community?
idk if you can coopt some of the message without importing some of the problems. i guess since we make a ton of bernie appeals, the example might be how he and trump can both support expanding entitlements/safety nets like social security, medicare, medicaid. but both of them seemed to do so by throwing minority working class ppl under the bus, bernie at least rhetorically.

Sorry but how did Bernie throw minority working class people under the bus by wanting to expand social security, medicare and medicaid?

Other than Asians most minorities in the US average lower income than white people. These programs would effectively help those communities disproportionately for the good compared to white people. Not seeing your reasoning here. On top of that Bernie has fought for equal rights for minorities on multiple occasions and in my opinion even said some stupid things that would be considered things he said with helping minorities in mind, things like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

[trollwithamustache]

Viral ideas appear to be defined as ideas that grow in popularity quickly and one's politics don't like that idea.

That leads me to conclude viral ideas should very much be protected speech. If they are so terrible its pretty easy to debunk them without whining about something someone on the other side said/did last year or 5 years ago.

[Lagom]

if i get you correctly, emotional appeals and for the new improved version to come from within the community?
idk if you can coopt some of the message without importing some of the problems. i guess since we make a ton of bernie appeals, the example might be how he and trump can both support expanding entitlements/safety nets like social security, medicare, medicaid. but both of them seemed to do so by throwing minority working class ppl under the bus, bernie at least rhetorically.

I mean connecting with people on an emotional level. So not "I care about the working class and that is why I have introduced this groundbreaking legislation bla bla bla." Basically, I'm saying populist rhetoric resonates for a reason. But I don't believe populist rhetoric needs to throw other groups under the bus. It often does, historically, but I think that's just because it is historically used by candidates with more extreme views/particularly sharp ideologies. They are also lazy. It's still ultimately easier to find scapegoats than to win hearts and minds on your ideas alone. But I would suggest that doesn't mean its impossible to do so.

[ariapluscat]

Sorry but how did Bernie throw minority working class people under the bus by wanting to expand social security, medicare and medicaid?

Other than Asians most minorities in the US average lower income than white people. These programs would effectively help those communities disproportionately for the good compared to white people. Not seeing your reasoning here. On top of that Bernie has fought for equal rights for minorities on multiple occasions and in my opinion even said some stupid things that would be considered things he said with helping minorities in mind, things like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

oh sorry, context: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224
i disagree w some of the ways that he has framed his opposition to identity politics and desire to increase the focus on white working class voters (presumably over non-white voters).
there's also a larger political trend democrats fall prey to in being able to build social safety nets by making a racial distinction between recipients. i think that on the media podcast had a good cover of this in their series on poverty; idk how to narrow down my understanding to single forum post.

[prognastat]

OK that's fair, but I would still argue the messaging needs to be based in emotion. You need to get people to believe that you hear them and genuinely care about their problems. That you are as outraged as they are and that you'll fight every day to make things better. Then you can add the details of how and why. Trump didn't bother with the latter because it wasn't necessary. But to do both? That to me sounds like the best and most effective path.

And to get back to the original point of discussion for this tangent, the only way you can do the above is if you encourage open discourse. Let the bigots be bigots, but don't then turn around and call everyone that listens an idiot racist. Like I said before, we should listen to the bigots so you can understand why so many others are listening to them. Because it's not always (or even often) due to racism, etc.

I can totally agree with that. In my opinion by shutting down open discourse you aren't addressing these beliefs/issues. You are simply sweeping it under the carpet and you can only do this for so long before it turns in to a massive problem. Instead of putting on demonstrations calling for people to be silenced even if these protests are peaceful are in my mind counter productive and instead they should either insist that this is held as a debate instead if the inviting group and/or invitee agree and then put forth someone they believe can effectively counter the speaker using their point of view or put on their own discussion or speaker either before or after the speaker has come. On top of this violence isn't just slightly counter productive it makes the other side in to martyrs at which point they come of as reasonable even if they are absolutely wrong.

As for the Germany thing mentioned before by Aria to me it shows a lack of knowledge on the situation in their national history leading up to Hitler, the Nazis and WW2. After WW1 Germany lost and was hit extremely hard with sanctions by the victors to have to pay for the damage "they did". The only reason Hitler was able to rise to power is by preying upon people's feelings of being oppressed and no one being concerned with their situation and convincing them that since these other people didn't care about them, why should they care in return? I would say this is more of an example of what happens when people are told to shut up and take it and that they were in the wrong and have no right to object and how this facilitates an extreme backlash. None of this absolves the people that were actual Nazis and did horrible things, but it does show how ordinary people can be lead to a path that enables this. Most Germans weren't active members of the Nazi party after all.

[prognastat]

Sorry but how did Bernie throw minority working class people under the bus by wanting to expand social security, medicare and medicaid?

Other than Asians most minorities in the US average lower income than white people. These programs would effectively help those communities disproportionately for the good compared to white people. Not seeing your reasoning here. On top of that Bernie has fought for equal rights for minorities on multiple occasions and in my opinion even said some stupid things that would be considered things he said with helping minorities in mind, things like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

oh sorry, context: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224
i disagree w some of the ways that he has framed his opposition to identity politics and desire to increase the focus on white working class voters (presumably over non-white voters).
there's also a larger political trend democrats fall prey to in being able to build social safety nets by making a racial distinction between recipients. i think that on the media podcast had a good cover of this in their series on poverty; idk how to narrow down my understanding to single forum post.

Sorry but rather than provide context your provide a tweet that doesn't demonstrate your point unless there is some context I am missing. He said nothing wrong nor anything against minority working class. He came from a white working class family. Yeah he did, simply being honest about his origins. Also the Democratic party has completely lost focus on white working class voters and only barely panders to non-white voters(unless they are rich) as long as it doesn't harm their corporate donors at this point. Also yes the Democratic party has lost touch with the people he is talking about. Nothing in his statement nor his politics says that we should do less for minority working class people than white working class people.

It is stuff like this that has lead to the current situation. You are implicitly calling Bernie a racist despite his politics potentially being a huge boon to minorities and also nothing he said actually showing this. This is why people don't listen to you when you tell them they should vote for your candidate and continuing down this road will lead to Trump 2020 and worse.

[ariapluscat]

Sorry but how did Bernie throw minority working class people under the bus by wanting to expand social security, medicare and medicaid?

Other than Asians most minorities in the US average lower income than white people. These programs would effectively help those communities disproportionately for the good compared to white people. Not seeing your reasoning here. On top of that Bernie has fought for equal rights for minorities on multiple occasions and in my opinion even said some stupid things that would be considered things he said with helping minorities in mind, things like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

oh sorry, context: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224
i disagree w some of the ways that he has framed his opposition to identity politics and desire to increase the focus on white working class voters (presumably over non-white voters).
there's also a larger political trend democrats fall prey to in being able to build social safety nets by making a racial distinction between recipients. i think that on the media podcast had a good cover of this in their series on poverty; idk how to narrow down my understanding to single forum post.

Sorry but rather than provide context your provide a tweet that doesn't demonstrate your point unless there is some context I am missing. He said nothing wrong nor anything against minority working class. He came from a white working class family. Yeah he did, simply being honest about his origins. Also the Democratic party has completely lost focus on white working class voters and only barely panders to non-white voters(unless they are rich) as long as it doesn't harm their corporate donors at this point. Also yes the Democratic party has lost touch with the people he is talking about. Nothing in his statement nor his politics says that we should do less for minority working class people than white working class people.

It is stuff like this that has lead to the current situation. You are implicitly calling Bernie a racist despite his politics potentially being a huge boon to minorities and also nothing he said actually showing this. This is why people don't listen to you when you tell them they should vote for your candidate and continuing down this road will lead to Trump 2020 and worse.

... i don't know how to begin. (￢_￢;)
he did come from a white jewish working class home. however, by recontextualizing his personal background and the democratic loss as an inability to communicate w white working class people, he dismisses the non-economic-class motivations white voters had and dismisses a point you wisely made: a large portion of working class people are racial minorities. bernie is participating in a larger context of democratic and leftist politicians refocusing on white-ness and white voters rather than economic or racial class issues. idk how to explain that more simply w/o giving like a long most likely condescending sounding lecture on the last 40 yrs of welfare reform so like, go listen to podcast? or read social-science texts on the racialization of welfare and poverty?? or focus on the racial breakdown vs. popular culture view of the recipients of a shrinking pool of welfare and entitlements??? idk how to explain in a short way.

i mean i don't think i called my fave a racist, but i can still find specific actions - and maybe it was just the poor wording - to have racist implications. if that means no one can listen to me, i guess i'm willing to take that political cost. bernie seemed to listen to that kind of criticism around race, having refined his messaging and recently supporting the reading of scott king's letter.

i find it hard to believe that i personally am the reason trump won or will win, but ok i guess? i am glad that i am Super Powerful and can control the future. if i can get trump elected in 2020, can i get the new 4.0 nge movie to come out by then too?

[prognastat]

Sorry but how did Bernie throw minority working class people under the bus by wanting to expand social security, medicare and medicaid?

Other than Asians most minorities in the US average lower income than white people. These programs would effectively help those communities disproportionately for the good compared to white people. Not seeing your reasoning here. On top of that Bernie has fought for equal rights for minorities on multiple occasions and in my opinion even said some stupid things that would be considered things he said with helping minorities in mind, things like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

oh sorry, context: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224
i disagree w some of the ways that he has framed his opposition to identity politics and desire to increase the focus on white working class voters (presumably over non-white voters).
there's also a larger political trend democrats fall prey to in being able to build social safety nets by making a racial distinction between recipients. i think that on the media podcast had a good cover of this in their series on poverty; idk how to narrow down my understanding to single forum post.

Sorry but rather than provide context your provide a tweet that doesn't demonstrate your point unless there is some context I am missing. He said nothing wrong nor anything against minority working class. He came from a white working class family. Yeah he did, simply being honest about his origins. Also the Democratic party has completely lost focus on white working class voters and only barely panders to non-white voters(unless they are rich) as long as it doesn't harm their corporate donors at this point. Also yes the Democratic party has lost touch with the people he is talking about. Nothing in his statement nor his politics says that we should do less for minority working class people than white working class people.

It is stuff like this that has lead to the current situation. You are implicitly calling Bernie a racist despite his politics potentially being a huge boon to minorities and also nothing he said actually showing this. This is why people don't listen to you when you tell them they should vote for your candidate and continuing down this road will lead to Trump 2020 and worse.

... i don't know how to begin. (￢_￢;)
he did come from a white jewish working class home. however, by recontextualizing his personal background and the democratic loss as an inability to communicate w white working class people, he dismisses the non-economic-class motivations white voters had and dismisses a point you wisely made: a large portion of working class people are racial minorities. bernie is participating in a larger context of democratic and leftist politicians refocusing on white-ness and white voters rather than economic or racial class issues. idk how to explain that more simply w/o giving like a long most likely condescending sounding lecture on the last 40 yrs of welfare reform so like, go listen to podcast? or read social-science texts on the racialization of welfare and poverty?? or focus on the racial breakdown vs. popular culture view of the recipients of a shrinking pool of welfare and entitlements??? idk how to explain in a short way.

i mean i don't think i called my fave a racist, but i can still find specific actions - and maybe it was just the poor wording - to have racist implications. if that means no one can listen to me, i guess i'm willing to take that political cost. bernie seemed to listen to that kind of criticism around race, having refined his messaging and recently supporting the reading of scott king's letter.

i find it hard to believe that i personally am the reason trump won or will win, but ok i guess? i am glad that i am Super Powerful and can control the future. if i can get trump elected in 2020, can i get the new 4.0 nge movie to come out by then too?

Sorry to have to say this, but you are the cancer in the left. Not you personally, but the reasoning you and others like you use.

You are ok with silencing people. Make excuses for those doing the silencing through violence and call people fighting for rights and improving their lives for all people including minorities racist whether explicitly implicitly. Then you manage to wrap all of this up in some nice condescension.

All I can say is you and people like you are why Democrats lost this election and why they will lose next election if they don't stop listening to people like you.

Instead of fighting to unite working class people you make arguments that divide and meanwhile the corporatists in both the DNC and RNC are running to the bank laughing.

By your reasoning deep down Trump isn't bad because he is a fascist. He is wrong because he isn't your fascist.

[ariapluscat]

Sorry to have to say this, but you are the cancer in the left. Not you personally, but the reasoning you and others like you use.

You are ok with silencing people. Make excuses for those doing the silencing through violence and call people fighting for rights and improving their lives for all people including minorities racist whether explicitly implicitly. Then you manage to wrap all of this up in some nice condescension.

All I can say is you and people like you are why Democrats lost this election and why they will lose next election if they don't stop listening to people like you.

Instead of fighting to unite working class people you make arguments that divide and meanwhile the corporatists in both the DNC and RNC are running to the bank laughing.

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

[prognastat]

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

How is saying someone is throwing minority people under the bus for white people not saying they are racist or at minimum saying something racist or advocating something racist? Even if your intent is not to say this that is effectively what many people will hear when you say that in such a way. I also disagree that we need to refocus on racial class issues. Though a larger percentage of minority people are working class the minority people are not the majority of working class people. This doesn't mean that we should argue it from a white centric view, however the opposite is unhelpful too. I think democrats need to unify the working, lower and lower middle class people of all heritages and show them they care about them and are working in their best interest without pitting them against one another. I don't think using the word white in the description was necessary and probably should be left out, but it isn't some kind of mark against Bernie in my opinion. If he had said jewish working class would it have been a problem? If an italian american said he was from an italian working class background would you have a problem with that? If a person of hispanic heritage said that the democratic party has lost touch with hispanic working class voters would this be throwing white people under the bus?  Or is it just the word white? This is the alienation I am talking about. Even if it isn't your intent to do so by lecturing people instead of listening to their concerns it is the result.

Also if you can't say it is unacceptable that people violently responded to an invited speaker who has not advocated for violence, but instead say hey violence worked against Nazis and Fascist before. You understand that comes off as saying hey I wouldn't do it myself, but they might have good reason to be violent to someone who isn't being violent or advocating violence.

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

And

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

Both come off very much as making excuses for using violence to silence someone who isn't advocating violence. If this isn't your intent then it might be better to make that clearer.

I am not particularly upset by you personally as you are just one person, I am however quite determined to make sure we turn this ship around preferably in 2 years and hopefully at least by next presidential election and in my opinion the points you have made a counterproductive to this end and the rhetoric you are using is the same or at the least part of what caused this election to go so horribly. I also believe if this isn't changed and the democratic party does not do some massive restructuring to get back to being the party of the working and lower class that it will lose again and again.

And don't we all wish we could control that.

I am deeply saddened that Trump ended up winning, but so far I don't see too much actual analysis happening within the DNC currently. The fact that Tim Kain, Cory Booker and even possibly Hillary again are being floated as ideas for potential candidates next election show a severe lack of introspection.

[Gin1984]

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

How is saying someone is throwing minority people under the bus for white people not saying they are racist or at minimum saying something racist or advocating something racist? Even if your intent is not to say this that is effectively what many people will hear when you say that in such a way. I also disagree that we need to refocus on racial class issues. Though a larger percentage of minority people are working class the minority people are not the majority of working class people. This doesn't mean that we should argue it from a white centric view, however the opposite is unhelpful too. I think democrats need to unify the working, lower and lower middle class people of all heritages and show them they care about them and are working in their best interest without pitting them against one another. I don't think using the word white in the description was necessary and probably should be left out, but it isn't some kind of mark against Bernie in my opinion. If he had said jewish working class would it have been a problem? If an italian american said he was from an italian working class background would you have a problem with that? If a person of hispanic heritage said that the democratic party has lost touch with hispanic working class voters would this be throwing white people under the bus?  Or is it just the word white? This is the alienation I am talking about. Even if it isn't your intent to do so by lecturing people instead of listening to their concerns it is the result.

Also if you can't say it is unacceptable that people violently responded to an invited speaker who has not advocated for violence, but instead say hey violence worked against Nazis and Fascist before. You understand that comes off as saying hey I wouldn't do it myself, but they might have good reason to be violent to someone who isn't being violent or advocating violence.

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

And

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

Both come off very much as making excuses for using violence to silence someone who isn't advocating violence. If this isn't your intent then it might be better to make that clearer.

I am not particularly upset by you personally as you are just one person, I am however quite determined to make sure we turn this ship around preferably in 2 years and hopefully at least by next presidential election and in my opinion the points you have made a counterproductive to this end and the rhetoric you are using is the same or at the least part of what caused this election to go so horribly. I also believe if this isn't changed and the democratic party does not do some massive restructuring to get back to being the party of the working and lower class that it will lose again and again.

And don't we all wish we could control that.

I am deeply saddened that Trump ended up winning, but so far I don't see too much actual analysis happening within the DNC currently. The fact that Tim Kain, Cory Booker and even possibly Hillary again are being floated as ideas for potential candidates next election show a severe lack of introspection.

What the hell is wrong with Cory Booker as a candidate?

[ariapluscat]

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

How is saying someone is throwing minority people under the bus for white people not saying they are racist or at minimum saying something racist or advocating something racist? Even if your intent is not to say this that is effectively what many people will hear when you say that in such a way. I also disagree that we need to refocus on racial class issues. Though a larger percentage of minority people are working class the minority people are not the majority of working class people. This doesn't mean that we should argue it from a white centric view, however the opposite is unhelpful too. I think democrats need to unify the working, lower and lower middle class people of all heritages and show them they care about them and are working in their best interest without pitting them against one another. I don't think using the word white in the description was necessary and probably should be left out, but it isn't some kind of mark against Bernie in my opinion. If he had said jewish working class would it have been a problem? If an italian american said he was from an italian working class background would you have a problem with that? If a person of hispanic heritage said that the democratic party has lost touch with hispanic working class voters would this be throwing white people under the bus?  Or is it just the word white? This is the alienation I am talking about. Even if it isn't your intent to do so by lecturing people instead of listening to their concerns it is the result.

Also if you can't say it is unacceptable that people violently responded to an invited speaker who has not advocated for violence, but instead say hey violence worked against Nazis and Fascist before. You understand that comes off as saying hey I wouldn't do it myself, but they might have good reason to be violent to someone who isn't being violent or advocating violence.

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

And

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

Both come off very much as making excuses for using violence to silence someone who isn't advocating violence. If this isn't your intent then it might be better to make that clearer.

I am not particularly upset by you personally as you are just one person, I am however quite determined to make sure we turn this ship around preferably in 2 years and hopefully at least by next presidential election and in my opinion the points you have made a counterproductive to this end and the rhetoric you are using is the same or at the least part of what caused this election to go so horribly. I also believe if this isn't changed and the democratic party does not do some massive restructuring to get back to being the party of the working and lower class that it will lose again and again.

And don't we all wish we could control that.

I am deeply saddened that Trump ended up winning, but so far I don't see too much actual analysis happening within the DNC currently. The fact that Tim Kain, Cory Booker and even possibly Hillary again are being floated as ideas for potential candidates next election show a severe lack of introspection.

shrug, i'm not in black bloc and, at this point, i don't support black bloc. i simply wanted to explain the view since no one in the thread seemed to. there's so overlap so i may not have explicitly stated this here, but i only participate in non violent protests and activism. if we get to some level of ww2 level of acceptance for nazis or fascism, i will probs be ok with punching nazis. i'm not doing anything to silence anyone or saying berkeley protesters were justified or excusing them. i think i've posted in a diff thread about how very diligent protesters need to be in training and determing their best methods. i'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise. i'm more than willing to admit that my writing style isn't well suited to the forum and i'd go further to say it's hard to write about these ideas, just in the format here. i mean, i'm not the only one to have the problem of tone being misunderstood in this thread. i'd say being called cancerous could be pretty irritating and makes it hard to get your point of view too

at least we can agree that the hindsight is 2020 pic is funny? and probably that the nazi punching in indiana jones is ok? so there's that :)

[prognastat]

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

How is saying someone is throwing minority people under the bus for white people not saying they are racist or at minimum saying something racist or advocating something racist? Even if your intent is not to say this that is effectively what many people will hear when you say that in such a way. I also disagree that we need to refocus on racial class issues. Though a larger percentage of minority people are working class the minority people are not the majority of working class people. This doesn't mean that we should argue it from a white centric view, however the opposite is unhelpful too. I think democrats need to unify the working, lower and lower middle class people of all heritages and show them they care about them and are working in their best interest without pitting them against one another. I don't think using the word white in the description was necessary and probably should be left out, but it isn't some kind of mark against Bernie in my opinion. If he had said jewish working class would it have been a problem? If an italian american said he was from an italian working class background would you have a problem with that? If a person of hispanic heritage said that the democratic party has lost touch with hispanic working class voters would this be throwing white people under the bus?  Or is it just the word white? This is the alienation I am talking about. Even if it isn't your intent to do so by lecturing people instead of listening to their concerns it is the result.

Also if you can't say it is unacceptable that people violently responded to an invited speaker who has not advocated for violence, but instead say hey violence worked against Nazis and Fascist before. You understand that comes off as saying hey I wouldn't do it myself, but they might have good reason to be violent to someone who isn't being violent or advocating violence.

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

And

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

Both come off very much as making excuses for using violence to silence someone who isn't advocating violence. If this isn't your intent then it might be better to make that clearer.

I am not particularly upset by you personally as you are just one person, I am however quite determined to make sure we turn this ship around preferably in 2 years and hopefully at least by next presidential election and in my opinion the points you have made a counterproductive to this end and the rhetoric you are using is the same or at the least part of what caused this election to go so horribly. I also believe if this isn't changed and the democratic party does not do some massive restructuring to get back to being the party of the working and lower class that it will lose again and again.

And don't we all wish we could control that.

I am deeply saddened that Trump ended up winning, but so far I don't see too much actual analysis happening within the DNC currently. The fact that Tim Kain, Cory Booker and even possibly Hillary again are being floated as ideas for potential candidates next election show a severe lack of introspection.

shrug, i'm not in black bloc and, at this point, i don't support black bloc. i simply wanted to explain the view since no one in the thread seemed to. there's so overlap so i may not have explicitly stated this here, but i only participate in non violent protests and activism. if we get to some level of ww2 level of acceptance for nazis or fascism, i will probs be ok with punching nazis. i'm not doing anything to silence anyone or saying berkeley protesters were justified or excusing them. i think i've posted in a diff thread about how very diligent protesters need to be in training and determing their best methods. i'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise. i'm more than willing to admit that my writing style isn't well suited to the forum and i'd go further to say it's hard to write about these ideas, just in the format here. i mean, i'm not the only one to have the problem of tone being misunderstood in this thread. i'd say being called cancerous could be pretty irritating and makes it hard to get your point of view too

at least we can agree that the hindsight is 2020 pic is funny? and probably that the nazi punching in indiana jones is ok? so there's that :)

I would agree that when people are actually advocating for violence and not just terrible ideas that may or may not lead to violence in the future then violence is entirely justified. Unfortunately a subsection of people larger than I am comfortable with have been either outright ok with using violence on people not advocating or perpetrating violence or at least advocating that it may be reasonable to do so. To me the only right response to people perpetrating violence for a political cause against an opponent that has not so far condoned or perpetrated violence themselves is to utterly condemn those violent actions.

The cancerous statement though crass is at the same time quite poetic to me in that I feel this rhetoric is slowly eating the democratic party from the inside, but possibly overly dramatic and I can admit it may not have been the most productive in a conversation so my apologies for that.

[Unionville]

The funeral director at my mom's funeral misspelled my town Berkeley as "Burkly" on the notecards.  You didn't fail too much at it, but it still stings.

[Gin1984]

idk where i was silencing ppl or making excuses for violence. could you maybe be more clear? was it merely asking a question about what's distinct in our time period to make free market of ideas work better than it did in key time periods? i never said i supported the black bloc or participated in black bloc activities.

i can't even figure out how to make more clear that i'm not calling bernie racist.
honestly, i don't understand why you're so upset by things i've written here. i just? i can promise that i'm not going out and punching ppl i disagree with or starting fires on college campuses.

_{but i really wish i did control the 2020 election. that would be great}

How is saying someone is throwing minority people under the bus for white people not saying they are racist or at minimum saying something racist or advocating something racist? Even if your intent is not to say this that is effectively what many people will hear when you say that in such a way. I also disagree that we need to refocus on racial class issues. Though a larger percentage of minority people are working class the minority people are not the majority of working class people. This doesn't mean that we should argue it from a white centric view, however the opposite is unhelpful too. I think democrats need to unify the working, lower and lower middle class people of all heritages and show them they care about them and are working in their best interest without pitting them against one another. I don't think using the word white in the description was necessary and probably should be left out, but it isn't some kind of mark against Bernie in my opinion. If he had said jewish working class would it have been a problem? If an italian american said he was from an italian working class background would you have a problem with that? If a person of hispanic heritage said that the democratic party has lost touch with hispanic working class voters would this be throwing white people under the bus?  Or is it just the word white? This is the alienation I am talking about. Even if it isn't your intent to do so by lecturing people instead of listening to their concerns it is the result.

Also if you can't say it is unacceptable that people violently responded to an invited speaker who has not advocated for violence, but instead say hey violence worked against Nazis and Fascist before. You understand that comes off as saying hey I wouldn't do it myself, but they might have good reason to be violent to someone who isn't being violent or advocating violence.

i mean the black bloc idea is that fascist ideas are viral in the sense that normal vaccines (counter arguments, discourse, questioning) don't work. historically, the free market of ideas didn't work in 1930s italy or pre wwII germany. what did work was an armed resistance.

And

Am I correct that you are defending the violence committed by the Blac Bloc as justified?  The US isn't pre-war ww2 Germany.

Both come off very much as making excuses for using violence to silence someone who isn't advocating violence. If this isn't your intent then it might be better to make that clearer.

I am not particularly upset by you personally as you are just one person, I am however quite determined to make sure we turn this ship around preferably in 2 years and hopefully at least by next presidential election and in my opinion the points you have made a counterproductive to this end and the rhetoric you are using is the same or at the least part of what caused this election to go so horribly. I also believe if this isn't changed and the democratic party does not do some massive restructuring to get back to being the party of the working and lower class that it will lose again and again.

And don't we all wish we could control that.

I am deeply saddened that Trump ended up winning, but so far I don't see too much actual analysis happening within the DNC currently. The fact that Tim Kain, Cory Booker and even possibly Hillary again are being floated as ideas for potential candidates next election show a severe lack of introspection.

shrug, i'm not in black bloc and, at this point, i don't support black bloc. i simply wanted to explain the view since no one in the thread seemed to. there's so overlap so i may not have explicitly stated this here, but i only participate in non violent protests and activism. if we get to some level of ww2 level of acceptance for nazis or fascism, i will probs be ok with punching nazis. i'm not doing anything to silence anyone or saying berkeley protesters were justified or excusing them. i think i've posted in a diff thread about how very diligent protesters need to be in training and determing their best methods. i'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise. i'm more than willing to admit that my writing style isn't well suited to the forum and i'd go further to say it's hard to write about these ideas, just in the format here. i mean, i'm not the only one to have the problem of tone being misunderstood in this thread. i'd say being called cancerous could be pretty irritating and makes it hard to get your point of view too

at least we can agree that the hindsight is 2020 pic is funny? and probably that the nazi punching in indiana jones is ok? so there's that :)

I would agree that when people are actually advocating for violence and not just terrible ideas that may or may not lead to violence in the future then violence is entirely justified. Unfortunately a subsection of people larger than I am comfortable with have been either outright ok with using violence on people not advocating or perpetrating violence or at least advocating that it may be reasonable to do so. To me the only right response to people perpetrating violence for a political cause against an opponent that has not so far condoned or perpetrated violence themselves is to utterly condemn those violent actions.

The cancerous statement though crass is at the same time quite poetic to me in that I feel this rhetoric is slowly eating the democratic party from the inside, but possibly overly dramatic and I can admit it may not have been the most productive in a conversation so my apologies for that.

The problem with this statement is you assume or act like you assume that Yiannopoulos did not condone or encourage the violence done by his supporters.
http://patch.com/washington/seattle/man-who-shot-milo-yiannopoulos-protester-uw-student-report
http://wgntv.com/2016/05/27/reports-of-noose-found-on-depaul-campus-in-lincoln-park/
He also was one of the people responsible for gamergate:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-five-horsemen-of-wikipedia-paid-the-price-for-getting-between-trolls-and-their-victims-9c835aeafdc8#.r84imtxch
https://thinkprogress.org/feminist-video-game-critic-driven-out-of-her-home-by-death-threats-from-gamers-89e84eb3b850#.m3tqeruzv
People feel attacked and some are willing to respond with non-violence but some are not.  There is a reason we consider self-defense differently than the perpetrator of the assault.  And now you are treating those who are fight back as the attacker.  I think you need to look at the violence rates for these groups, both on them and by them.  There is a stark difference.

[ariapluscat]

The cancerous statement though crass is at the same time quite poetic to me in that I feel this rhetoric is slowly eating the democratic party from the inside, but possibly overly dramatic and I can admit it may not have been the most productive in a conversation so my apologies for that.

idk, you seem really comfortable criticizing my language/tone while calling me cancerous. i may be "hyper sensitive" to it, but it's like a month away from the anniversary of my grandmother dying from colon cancer. so like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ guess i'm just #triggered. i just don't feel like you have any rhetorical or moral high ground when you're ok with putting words in my mouth, suggesting i control an election and going so far as blaming me for how other ppl vote rather than, idk, the actual pro-trump voter, all while refusing to accept the reality that milo has called for attacks on specific individuals and supported with a wink and nod the shooting of (nonviolent) protesters even when a whole plethora of links and info has been provided to you. like, the whole framework is skewed in this, from a larger historical reality of either the racialization of poverty or the small reality of i never called bernie racist and the whole point of left politics is to be able to criticize specific policies or statements and their material implications

like, actually amazed here. i just wanted someone to make fun of the dude who threw a chair and next thing i know, i'm in the black bloc, getting trump re-elected, and causing cancer. it's been a wild ride but not a pleasant one

[ariapluscat]

if i get you correctly, emotional appeals and for the new improved version to come from within the community?
idk if you can coopt some of the message without importing some of the problems. i guess since we make a ton of bernie appeals, the example might be how he and trump can both support expanding entitlements/safety nets like social security, medicare, medicaid. but both of them seemed to do so by throwing minority working class ppl under the bus, bernie at least rhetorically.

I mean connecting with people on an emotional level. So not "I care about the working class and that is why I have introduced this groundbreaking legislation bla bla bla." Basically, I'm saying populist rhetoric resonates for a reason. But I don't believe populist rhetoric needs to throw other groups under the bus. It often does, historically, but I think that's just because it is historically used by candidates with more extreme views/particularly sharp ideologies. They are also lazy. It's still ultimately easier to find scapegoats than to win hearts and minds on your ideas alone. But I would suggest that doesn't mean its impossible to do so.

i think a lot of the liberal/conservative and authoritarian/individualism think pieces have me in doubt that the same emotional appeals will work across the aisle.

i'd also agree that a lot of populists use scapegoats to justify or determine who they're willing to sacrifice in compromise.

i think fascism is one of those weird things that doesn't appeal to ppl logically. it seems like the "'i can't believe the jaguar is going to eat my face,' said the lady who voted for the cats-eating-faces party" or 'and then there was no one left to speak for me' type of warnings. otoh, i feel the no-hate speech limit of free speech isn't going to eventually over-expand so it might be that i'm just incapable of seeing the other side due to my own emotional worries.

but if milo wins by getting kids to break stuff, he clearly had to go pretty far for it to happen and it took a weird subset of republicans on campus + conditions of poor campus security + emotional pique due to actual harassment and doxing to even give him/the angry kids the opportunity.