• Social justice activists heckle Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley "What side are you on?" #blackliv
    110 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Baconator;48247298]these people deserve Jeb Bush or Donald Trump to become president, for they can learn to appreciate their candidates they don't deserve. That or Hillary Clinton wins and she goes Obama 2.0 aka nothing done about their problems at all for what could be end up 8 straight years in a row.[/QUOTE] Certain people look at Obama and Hilary and support them no matter what. In my opinion alot of that comes from their race/sex/gender.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48244723]Liberal on its own should mean liberal in both senses, but everyone got confused because they're idiots who can't see beyond left/right spectrum and now the word is meaningless so even though 'liberal' describes my beliefs very accurately I can't use it anymore[/QUOTE] But they're totally different and separate things. Really, you need a qualifier. It's not like if you say you're liberal that means you're fiscally liberal, socially liberal and really liberal with how much tomato ketchup you put on your chips. They're different things.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48247382]Certain people look at Obama and Hilary and support them no matter what. In my opinion alot of that comes from their race/sex/gender.[/QUOTE] Prefacing something with "in my opinion" isn't a get-out-of-being-wrong-free card. Black people and women tend to favour the democratic candidate over the republican one. Obama was the most electable democrat in the previous election, and until Sanders began getting momentum Hillary was the most promising democratic candidate for the next one. The thing is, [url=http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/19/viewpoint-will-blacks-vote-for-obama-because-hes-black/]support amongst black people for Obama in 2012 was in line with black people's support for Gore and Kerry.[/url] You [i]might[/i] be a tad more on base when it comes to Clinton, but there's no way to tell yet: [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx]in 2012, Obama was leading amongst women by 12 points.[/url] It's impossible to compare that number to anything right now since that was an election statistic and we're not in an election, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hillary-clinton-retains-strong-appeal-american-women.aspx]but 56% of women approve of Clinton.[/url] It's not a perfect comparison, but Obama's approval rating amongst women [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/179753/obama-approval-drops-among-working-class-whites.aspx]ranges from 29-45% depending on education[/url], (as of 2014).
i think ranger was talking about democrats in general, not people voting for their own race or gender [editline]19th July 2015[/editline] that a democrat of any race or gender, if given the choice between sanders and clinton, are more likely to vote for clinton because she is a woman
The #BlackLivesMatter movement is so fucking annoying, fuck off you twats.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48248060]i think ranger was talking about democrats in general, not people voting for their own race or gender[/QUOTE] He said "certain people", given that this rhetoric of black people and women only voting for people who look like them has been around for decades I found it quite clear which tune the dog whistle was playing.
[QUOTE=TheCreeper;48240811]Why are they booing at a perfectly legitimate statement?[/QUOTE] From what I can tell, they want to keep it simple. Black and white, some big irredeemable evil to fight against and feel righteous. Naturally they attack those who say there are more than two sides to the conflict and more shades than two, but for me it's a new low to witness being hostile towards towards those wanting to focus on the roots of the problem, rather than feel-good bandaid solutions or knee-jerk reactions they seem to love so much.
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48248144]The #BlackLivesMatter movement is so fucking annoying, fuck off you twats.[/QUOTE] how dare people fight for independent oversight for investigations of police-related deaths how dare they fuckin' twats trying to get rid of widespread blatant corruption and self-granted immunity to consequences
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48256198]how dare people fight for independent oversight for investigations of police-related deaths how dare they fuckin' twats trying to get rid of widespread blatant corruption and self-granted immunity to consequences[/QUOTE] That's all noble and well, but the people inside the movement? Why go after this guy? [video=youtube;LtkGLk7M7zs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtkGLk7M7zs[/video] He's already addressed the importance of police accountability.
[QUOTE=TheCreeper;48240811]Why are they booing at a perfectly legitimate statement?[/QUOTE] Because that's not what people mean by "all lives matter." There was a reddit post a few days ago that absolutely flawlessly explained the entire meaning behind "black lives matter," and why "all lives matter!" isn't taken as a fact (obviously it's true), but as a dismissal (because that's exactly what it is). I've pasted it below, because it fucking [I]exactly[/I] explains why "all lives matter" is a complete dismissal of hundreds of deaths just to say "nobody [I]should[/I] die, right guys?" [QUOTE]Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any! The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society. The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally. Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem. TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.[/QUOTE] [editline]20th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Velocet;48256222]That's all noble and well, but the people inside the movement? Why go after this guy? [/QUOTE] Because every movement has its fair share of idiots. I am friends with numerous people who regularly tweet or post on facebook about Black Lives Matter, and [I]absolutely none[/I] of them have condemned Bernie Sanders. The overwhelming majority of them have posted something in favor of Bernie Sanders. There's always idiots.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48256223]Because every movement has its fair share of idiots. I am friends with numerous people who regularly tweet or post on facebook about Black Lives Matter, and [I]absolutely none[/I] of them have condemned Bernie Sanders. The overwhelming majority of them have posted something in favor of Bernie Sanders. There's always idiots.[/QUOTE] I just don't understand how people who took the time to attend Netroots (a paid political event which actually sold out) would not search up the person they're protesting and their campaign's platform. I mean Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter response was a top result, now because of these stupid antics, it doesn't show up and they shit up public opinion of their legitimate movement. Luckily on YouTube, it's the second hit.
How much How much a completely mentally impaired idiot do you have to be in order to heckle Sanders regarding racism and black people? Like, read at least some fucking theories from where does racism comes, and then, THEN, try to say something about Sanders. Because just saying "Dur hurr Sanders where are you" is just being plain stupid. The fact that Sanders, from the start, says that racism is a product of economic inequality and the solution to the perceived criminality of black people is to put more kids into school and sustain their basic needs, just completely owns any opinion against him.
its funny how stupidly "Anti racist" these people are that they actively go out of their way to target people who are against racism your view of the world is fucking erratic and psychotic
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48240684]The fact that people boo'ed and jeered this is infuriating. They think he's dodging the issues but he addressed the heart of the issues.[/QUOTE] People like this don't do research into anything they complain about. If someone isn't repeating what they say word for word it's immediately wrong.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48256222]That's all noble and well, but the people inside the movement? Why go after this guy? [video=youtube;LtkGLk7M7zs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtkGLk7M7zs[/video] He's already addressed the importance of police accountability.[/QUOTE] Well, if you read the article, you'd see that it was mostly the other guy at the rally dodging the question that agitated the crowd. After that the crowd was still disappointed with Sanders's handling of the question. Honestly stupid in a disorganized crowd isn't anything new.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48257204]Well, if you read the article, you'd see that it was mostly the other guy at the rally dodging the question that agitated the crowd. After that the crowd was still disappointed with Sanders's handling of the question. Honestly stupid in a disorganized crowd isn't anything new.[/QUOTE] Criticism of Sanders was very high for the next 48 hours on social media for mind numbingly stupid reasons and several opinion pieces went up calling Sander's response to the crowd a failure.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48257216]Criticism of Sanders was very high for the next 48 hours on social media for mind numbingly stupid reasons and several opinion pieces went up calling Sander's response to the crowd a failure.[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, if this is the response then it clearly was.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48257227]Well, I mean, if this is the response then it clearly was.[/QUOTE] Not really, you can say the right thing and still have the public at large think you're full of shit.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48257232]Not really, you can say the right thing and still have the public at large think you're full of shit.[/QUOTE] You don't become president by being right and having the public at large think you're full of shit. That's actually how you lose. So, what? Bernie is right. Doesn't mean jack shit if he don't win.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48257227]Well, I mean, if this is the response then it clearly was.[/QUOTE] considering a lot of the outrage is coming from twitter, i can safely say that a large percentage of the people complaining about his statements have never made any contact with the original statements, rather through what the people they follow have said. twitter has an even worse time actually reading sources than facepunch does
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48257227]Well, I mean, if this is the response then it clearly was.[/QUOTE] Nope.... I read literally hundreds of tweets that showed people had no idea what they were actually angry about or who Sanders even was. I understood the outrage at O'Malley for his useless contribution to the conversation but they literally had no idea who Sanders was or what he stood for and it was pretty disturbing. [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;48257242]You don't become president by being right and having the public at large think you're full of shit. That's actually how you lose. So, what? Bernie is right. Doesn't mean jack shit if he don't win.[/QUOTE] By public at large you mean a few thousand people on twitter using the #blacklivesmatter without knowing what they are talking about. He went on the next day to speak in front of his largest crowd yet in Dallas (Republican territory). [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] Look at this guy, literally mentions O'Malley's all lives matters comment in reference to Sanders. The goof doesn't even understand who said what. [img]http://i.gyazo.com/9fa3b9026b25ba9f2af2f25574d354b8.png[/img] [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] Apparently being white is what some people are angry about. [img]http://i.gyazo.com/06852a634dec0a2ce6a13c53655356e6.png[/img] [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] There has been some massive backlash to people mentioning Bernie's civil rights track record. Seemingly saying that white people don't have any business explaining civil rights to black people or something. [img]http://i.gyazo.com/d0702cd07873d8ab40ec83daa4182720.png[/img] [img]http://i.gyazo.com/3167f74283ac4ec9bee0b8841d7998fc.png[/img]
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48257204]Well, if you read the article, you'd see that it was mostly the other guy at the rally dodging the question that agitated the crowd. After that the crowd was still disappointed with Sanders's handling of the question. Honestly stupid in a disorganized crowd isn't anything new.[/QUOTE] And the way the media portrayed it was as if Sanders was the only person there. Not only did I read the article, I posted it. [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] [img]http://i.gyazo.com/3167f74283ac4ec9bee0b8841d7998fc.png[/img] Alright, then listen to his speech from a month ago about the importance of police accountability you stupid idiot.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;48257242]You don't become president by being right and having the public at large think you're full of shit. That's actually how you lose. So, what? Bernie is right. Doesn't mean jack shit if he don't win.[/QUOTE] So he should continue the trend of pandering to the stupidity inside of people? Isn't one of the reason people like him because he doesn't do that shit?
I got blocked by the guy who started the #berniesoblack for mentioning legislation bernie has been a part of that directly affects the black community lol.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48258027]I got blocked by the guy who started the #berniesoblack for mentioning legislation bernie has been a part of that directly affects the black community lol.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but why would someone block someone on Twitter simply for linking to legislation that takes away from the narrative that Bernie Sanders is a racist that doesn't care about African Americans? Hillary supporter? Or maybe I'm looking too much into it and people don't like looking like dumbasses.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48258043]I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but why would someone block someone on Twitter simply for linking to legislation that takes away from the narrative that Bernie Sanders is a racist that doesn't care about African Americans? Hillary supporter? Or maybe I'm looking too much into it and people don't like looking like dumbasses.[/QUOTE] I don't know but these people are insufferable (different guy) [IMG]http://i.gyazo.com/5624b33890ab1114daab91e285e2d6ad.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Velocet;48258043]I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but why would someone block someone on Twitter simply for linking to legislation that takes away from the narrative that Bernie Sanders is a racist that doesn't care about African Americans? Hillary supporter? Or maybe I'm looking too much into it and people don't like looking like dumbasses.[/QUOTE]Because it kills the stupid hate train, removes the righteous indignation.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48258144]Because it kills the stupid hate train, removes the righteous indignation.[/QUOTE] i feel this whole situation is continuing proof that these people don't actually care about black people, only about getting mad and looking like they care about black people to their peers. if they truly did care they would rally behind sanders [editline]20th July 2015[/editline] because frankly he is the best chance this country has at healing these racial wounds, moreso than people getting mad at cops with no solutions
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48258199]i feel this whole situation is continuing proof that these people don't actually care about black people, only about getting mad and looking like they care about black people to their peers. if they truly did care they would rally behind sanders [editline]20th July 2015[/editline] because frankly he is the best chance this country has at healing these racial wounds, moreso than people getting mad at cops with no solutions[/QUOTE] These are the people who are going to get Hillary elected because "sorry Sanders, it's time for a woman president."
This controversey is disengunous. 1.) Bernie supporters believe #BernieSoBlack is intended as an assault on Bernie for not being pro-Black/Civil Rights. 2.) Conservatives think #BernieSoBlack are black people wising up to how 'racist' democrats are. 3.) And Black Twitter really are using #BernieSoBlack as a meta commentary on liberal values. I.e: that black issues take 2nd fiddle to class issues, and that when people raise concern over a canidates attempts to have alleviate structural racism they are told, "Well, he marched with MLK" as super condescending to the black experience. As a sort of, "Well, he knows/has done more about black problems than you!" It is unfortunate that Bernie has been dragged into this, and I think bernie is actually super good for black folks/minorities/women/everyone/except the rich. But lets recognize #BernieSoBlack is a coded social critique for.. well...people like facepunch. People who think racism is over / the primary thing we should be talking about is class. [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] Pretend the person saying 'Bernie so Black' is a bernie supporter. I think thats their arguement. Not that Bernie is actually racist or isn't good for black people, just that his supporters are a little well....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.