The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

*snip*

Thank you for your expanded response.

In any case, he's not generalizing. He explicitly said "Some supporters". I agree that it appears he has some bias against white people but the entire point of this article is to establish the conclusion in the subtitle.

Also he never brought up Hillary. In fact he said he worked for Sanders and shares many of his ideas. 

He just doesn't understand their tribalist nature.

And yes it is tribalism.

You're being quick to generalize an entire race for being loyal to Clintons because of their previous relationships. Why do you dismiss the author's own generalizations?

Why are you bringing up Susan? I actually outlined why her statements make no sense  

You are trying to do that here but are extrapolating your own insinuations from his text.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Sycamore said:

We all know that this post is here to rubbish Sanders and his supporters, so you can uphold Clinton.

I didn't even mention Hillary. The guy in this article is only discussing Sanders

I provided an article about a minority's opinion on Sander's overzealous supporters.

He's actually someone who supports Bernie and worked for him

He's just not having the same tribalist anti-establishment mentality seen among young white male voters that have appeared on both Sanders and Trump camps.

Please shore up your victim complex. 

[brendablethyn 536]

6 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Do you actually believe saturday night debates are rigged for Hillary? I'd love (or maybe I wouldn't love) to hear the reasoning for that.

That's the night of the week with the lowest viewership. No party who wants decent viewership would put it on that night, yet 3 of the first 4 were on a Saturday night. The Republican candidates were openly mocking the Democrats over it.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, brendablethyn said:

That's the night of the week with the lowest viewership. No party who wants decent viewership would put it on that night, yet 3 of the first 4 were on a Saturday night. The Republican candidates were openly mocking the Democrats over it.

What is this 1970?

If people want to watch the debate there are dozens of ways to do it from streaming and downloading to reading outlines and going to Reddit for recaps.

Scheduling is the network's problem, not any potential viewer.

Stop giving people excuses 

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Also he never brought up Hillary. In fact he said he worked for Sanders and shares many of his ideas. 

Yes he does lol

He's clearly painting the picture of Hillary already being the victor and (young, white) Bernie supporters just not being able to take that "reality". The race theory is just a decoration of that central statement, so this article is actually about how Sanders supporters are blinded by a racial obstacle to obtain clear sight, which is 100% equated with voting for Hillary.

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

In any case, he's not generalizing. He explicitly said "Some supporters".

And then he makes statements like this:

"I could not join the tribe of Sanders’s belligerent, incensed supporters"

"we [i.e. non-white groups] know that losing is a reality we will confront"

He is generalizing. Obviously, otherwise he's uprooting his own arguments.

--

Anyway, you neglected to reply to my best argument: there are lots of good reasons why black Americans vote for Hillary instead of Bernie that have nothing to do with white privilege and/or entitlement. He fails to mention them completely, so do you, obviously distorting the facts just to be able to **** on Bernie supporters. If you think it's not transparent, think again.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Yes he does lol

He's clearly painting the picture of Hillary already being the victor and (young, white) Bernie supporters just not being able to take that "reality". The race theory is just a decoration of that central statement, so this article is actually about how Sanders supporters are blinded by a racial obstacle to obtain clear sight, which is 100% equated with voting for Hillary.

And then he makes statements like this:

"I could not join the tribe of Sanders’s belligerent, incensed supporters"

"we [i.e. non-white groups] know that losing is a reality we will confront"

He is generalizing. Obviously, otherwise he's uprooting his own arguments.

--

Anyway, you neglected to reply to my best argument: there are lots of good reasons why black Americans vote for Hillary instead of Bernie that have nothing to do with white privilege and/or entitlement. He fails to mention them completely, so do you, obviously distorting the facts just to be able to **** on Bernie supporters. If you think it's not transparent, think again.

I didn't. You just read so fast that my edits don't come to you 

I said

"You're being quick to generalize an entire race for being loyal to Clintons because of their previous relationships. Why do you dismiss the author's own generalizations?"

That isn't a best argument. That's in fact an ironic one.

---

You can think he's painting a picture. It's the one called REALITY. He's not stating that it's best to support Hillary. He's just stating that it's clear she's the winner, whether we like it or not.

You want to twist that for your own viewpoint? That's fine. It's still not what he said.

This article targets the OVERZEALOUS supporters who refuse to see that reality and are finding excuses to justify their loss because they're not used to it.

If you want to argue that point, then take it up with the social sciences, because they have come up with the exact same conclusions.

By the way we both fall in that demographic, and look at us now arguing because neither of us wants to "lose". Oops 

---

Also calm your tits I'm holding a conversation with you but if you're going to get easily triggered I'd rather not.

[Didymus 34,380]

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You're being quick to generalize an entire race for being loyal to Clintons because of their previous relationships. Why do you dismiss the author's own generalizations?

I'm not being quick and I didn't generalize. I've read several journalists' opinions in reputable sources about this and I do believe that those previous relationships move a lot of voters to Hillary. The polls show that, as I mentioned as well.

What I did was not generalizing and you know that, stop this please.

Just so everyone else can check I was not, direct quote from my previous post:

"There has already been lots of talk about why Bernie's campaign isn't successful among PoC minorities and not once have I heard this theory of white entitlement, in fact the conclusion seems to be that though black Americans show plenty of admiration for Bernie in polls, they simply don't vote for him because they already have personal ties to Hillary because of the history of her political career, in contrast to Bernie's. One important element is their relationship with Obama, as pointed out by various journalists."

Those conclusions are based on actual polls, which you yourself brought up to dismiss a reply from another user, so I don't see why I'm now suddenly doing something questionable.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Didymus said:

I'm not being quick and I didn't generalize. I've read several journalists' opinions in reputable sources about this and I do believe that those previous relationships move a lot of voters to Hillary. The polls show that, as I mentioned as well.

What I did was not generalizing and you know that, stop this please.

So why do you think the author did not read several journalist' opinions on reputable sources regarding his own viewpoints?

You literally assumed this anecdote was his only source based on circumstantial evidence.

In case you missed yet another edit

You can think he's painting a picture. It's the one called REALITY. He's not stating that it's best to support Hillary. He's just stating that it's clear she's the winner, whether we like it or not.

You want to twist that for your own viewpoint? That's fine. It's still not what he said.

This article targets the OVERZEALOUS supporters who refuse to see that reality and are finding excuses to justify their loss because they're not used to it.

If you want to argue that point, then take it up with the social sciences, because they have come up with the exact same conclusions.

By the way we both fall in that demographic, and look at us now arguing because neither of us wants to "lose". Oops 

---

Also calm your tits I'm holding a conversation with you but if you're going to get easily triggered I'd rather not.

[brendablethyn 536]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Stop giving people excuses 

Stop being one eyed

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, brendablethyn said:

Stop being one eyed

Don't get me wrong I see what you're saying but it's neither the DNC's job to schedule debates nor is it an excusable reason for why Sanders supporters, the millennials with incomparable access to online resources, would be gimped from viewing debates.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

You can think he's painting a picture. It's the one called REALITY. He's not stating that it's best to support Hillary. He's just stating that it's clear she's the winner, whether we like it or not.

You want to twist that for your own viewpoint?

I'm not twisting anything. He's literally saying young white privileged Sanders supporters aren't seeing what's best for them because of racial prejudice. That doesn't mean he's stating it's best to support Hillary, that is not what I said. But in the end it comes down to voting for Hillary anyway. I'm not blind, I know he was a Sanders supporter as he writes in his own article and in other ones on the same website. From my posts it's clear now I'm having a problem with his theory of white entitlement, not his idea that Hillary has won and it's irrational to continue to expect Bernie can still take it (though I personally disagree with that, I never brought it up here).

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This article targets the OVERZEALOUS supporters who refuse to see that reality and are finding excuses to justify their loss because they're not used to it.

If you want to argue that point, then take it up with the social sciences, because they have come up with the exact same conclusions.

I don't want to argue that point, which should be clear by now as stated above. What I have explicitly presented as worthy of arguing about is that this refusal to see that reality is rooted in a racial bias. You keep ignoring that even though it's the main point of his opinion piece, which I find pretty hilarious.

Another irony: I already admitted it's completely natural for zealous supporters to delude themselves into ignoring counterevidence to their cherished point of view. But that's not what I was debating. What I was debating is the veracity of this raical theory of white entitlement.

So no, quit deviating. I've repeated my exact issues with this piece from my first post onwards and you're determined to avoid what I'm actually saying. As I've told you at least four times in the last twenty four hours: reply to what I'm saying or don't. I'm not triggered yet, I know I'm presenting good arguments even though I have to repeat myself. But I might leave the conversation if you refuse to acknowledge what I'm actually talking about and what I'm not talking about.

[Didymus 34,380]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

So why do you think the author did not read several journalist' opinions on reputable sources regarding his own viewpoints?

You literally assumed this anecdote was his only source based on circumstantial evidence.

I assumed that based on his own writing and on the fact that I've never encountered this theory before in journalistic writing, which I literally said on the previous page. You already know why, so again: quit deviating.

It's very possible my assumption is wrong, but the author is not giving me any reason to take that option seriously: I've never encountered the theory before (you don't seem to have either, since you're not trying to confirm it's not an isolated view) and the journalistic writing I've personally read is completely out of line with what he is presenting here. Since there are no arguments or no reference to actual measurable results in his piece, I do think that's sufficient to disqualify the believability of his ideas.

None of what I'm saying is very difficult to grasp. All of it was already present in my first posts. Maybe you're just trying to extend the conversation hoping I'll lose my cool or whatever, but this is honestly getting quite annoying and boring. I wanted to have a discussion about how valid this theory of white entitlement in the context of this election really is, and all I'm getting from you is false accusations about my intentions, readings, and arguments (even though my actual ones were all explicitly present in my earlier posts) and no intention to actually move the conversation forward.

[brendablethyn 536]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Don't get me wrong I see what you're saying but it's neither the DNC's job to schedule debates nor is it an excusable reason for why Sanders supporters, the millennials with incomparable access to online resources, would be gimped from viewing debates.

But that's my point. It's not the millennials, it's all the other people who miss viewing them, who on Saturday night are socializing, and don't rush online to stream it the next day.

The DNC do schedule the debates, at least they are heavily involved in the process with the networks. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, brendablethyn said:

But that's my point. It's not the millennials, it's all the other people who miss viewing them, who on Saturday night are socializing, and don't rush online to stream it the next day.

The DNC do schedule the debates, at least they are heavily involved in the process with the networks. 

Once again I fail to see how not viewing it on the same day is relevant. People will watch it anyway.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I'm not twisting anything. He's literally saying young white privileged Sanders supporters aren't seeing what's best for them because of racial prejudice. That doesn't mean he's stating it's best to support Hillary, that is not what I said. But in the end it comes down to voting for Hillary anyway. I'm not blind, I know he was a Sanders supporter as he writes in his own article and in other ones on the same website. From my posts it's clear now I'm having a problem with his theory of white entitlement, not his idea that Hillary has won and it's irrational to continue to expect Bernie can still take it (though I personally disagree with that, I never brought it up here).

I don't want to argue that point, which should be clear by now as stated above. What I have explicitly presented as worthy of arguing about is that this refusal to see that reality is rooted in a racial bias. You keep ignoring that even though it's the main point of his opinion piece, which I find pretty hilarious.

Another irony: I already admitted it's completely natural for zealous supporters to delude themselves into ignoring counterevidence to their cherished point of view. But that's not what I was debating. What I was debating is the veracity of this raical theory of white entitlement.

So no, quit deviating. I've repeated my exact issues with this piece from my first post onwards and you're determined to avoid what I'm actually saying. As I've told you at least four times in the last twenty four hours: reply to what I'm saying or don't. I'm not triggered yet, I know I'm presenting good arguments even though I have to repeat myself. But I might leave the conversation if you refuse to acknowledge what I'm actually talking about and what I'm not talking about.

No...he literally does not say that. 

You did say that he's stating that he's supporting Hillary when there is no mention of it.

The rest of your argument is incoherent. I have already noted he has racial bias. it doesn't make his arguments less valid when the reasoning is very clearly stated. He's not summoning them out of thin air.  You claim he's deluding himself into ignoring counterevidence.

Fine.

What's the counter-evidence that SOME Sanders supporters are NOT deluding themselves into thinking the system is rigged and their candidate should win when the math and logic isn't there.

Especially when there is a very clear correlation with the demographic that is being presented.

Give me those arguments or don't give them at all. 

You can't because they're conclusions for a subset of his supporters which do exist.

Also you already started hurling cusses and opinions about my distortion of facts a mere post into our conversation so there's that.