The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters

[Didymus 34,380]

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

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

He literally wrote an article about why Bernie supporters need to switch to Hillary. I'm not stupid. And there are enough references to Hillary being the victor of this election to warrant the conclusion that he wants Bernie supporters to change their vote to Hillary, even based on just this one article. Just because he doesn't literally say it, it's not true? Come on.

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

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.

He has no arguments though.. he has a philosophy, to be sure, but not arguments. And well, yeah I'm saying he's ignoring counterevidence, because guess what, polls show black Americans have no big problem with Bernie, but they just prefer Hillary, and as I've mentioned, I've read reputable journalists sources that explain this preference by referring to the relationship Hillary has had with the black community in the past, and the lack of such a relationship in Bernie's political career.

That's a great argument that should be acknowledged and successfully countered, which this author does not do: he just quickly writes that Bernie's campaign caters to white tribalist tendencies which is alienating colored minorities. I don't even get that argument since I've never seen Bernie do anything of the sort, and he's again not providing evidence for it.

So if he's not summoning the theory out of thin air, where is it coming from exactly? Personal experience? That's not enough. I can't believe you're demanding me to take that as a serious foundation for such a dramatic idea as racial bias obstacles towards sane political choices. You're gonna have to come up with something better than that.

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

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. 

But that's not what I'm trying to talk about I'm not debating that Sanders supporters aren't deluding themselves (I think this happens with every candidate and is a naturally occurring thing, as I wrote in my first post), I just take issue with the idea that they're deluding themselves because of a racial bias.

I also think it's incorrect to just swoop all of the arguments Bernie supporters bring to the table to prove there actually was corruption in the system aside and just disposing of it simply by calling it delusion and stubbornness. The fact of the matter is those Bernie supporters think they have strong arguments, and that conviction is genuine. That paints a different picture from Bernie supporters just randomly holding on to some clearly deluded cloud nine. Obviously having arguments doesn't mean you're right, but I'm not gonna be so quick and judgmental as to make generalized accusations about a group and their psychology just because I don't agree with them.

So for the last ****ing time: I don't want to deny that Sanders supporters are deluding themselves, I'm simply taking issue with this idea of white entitlement being the reason for it ànd Bernie's supposed "white tribalist"-friendliness being the cause of black people's alienation from his campaign and cause. So I don't need to give you any arguments about Sanders supporters. You need to give me arguments about why this racial theory is valid.

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

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

I only did that because I sincerely believe this racial claptrap is just a distraction from the actual point: Sanders' voters are deluding themselves and they should be voting for Hillary if they had any sense. Like I said, I don't really have an issue with that opinion (because it clearly is nothing more than an opinion), but when you're going to use that opinion as foundations for supposed facts which are just dolled up generalizations that I can't find an accurate source for, yes you are actively distorting reality to get a point across that could be gotten across without those unnecessary embellishments.

[uo111 5,285]

28 minutes ago, 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.

The Republican candidates were Donald and Ted. Whatever they say doesn't matter.

Only old repbulicans watch tv any more. Which explains their comments. Everyone else streams the debates if they even want to watch them.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

*snip*

 

I merely found the correlation between what he's saying and the voting booth to be consistent.

His points have merit, but the conclusions can vary. You choose not to have the same ones he does. That's fine  

[Didymus 34,380]

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

 

Nothing I said up there wasn't already said earlier.

So why did we need all this wasted time for you to get me?

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I merely found the correlation between what he's saying and the voting booth to be consistent.

Well.. duh.

We all know black people aren't voting enough for Bernie, and we all know Bernie's message resonates a lot with young white individuals, but that doesn't warrant any conclusions about either one of those groups.

So if you don't necessarily share his views, why did you post this at all? Just because of what you wrote earlier?:

"I'm inclined to agree with him that it's consistent that it's mostly young white males (many men on this forum have the same zealotry exhibited by those in his anecdote."

So that's 100% off-topic then lol. You're agreeing with him solely because you've talked to idiotic Sanders supporters? So what if they're zealous? Why in the world would that mean there's a racial bias present? And don't tell me "well, I don't agree with thàt" because that's what this opinion piece is about

If you just wanted to say that (many) Bernie supporters are overzealous self-deluded privileged brats, you really didn't need to post this, we've known this is your stance for quite a while now lol.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Didymus said:

If you just wanted to say that Bernie sanders are overzealous self-deluded privileged brats, you really didn't need to post this, we've known this is your stance for quite a while now lol.

Some are yes.

And it's always worth repeating

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Some are yes.

And it's always worth repeating

I guess we identified the actually overzealous supporter.

What a useless thread and conversation. My god.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

I guess we identified the actually overzealous supporter.

What a useless thread and conversation. My god.

I'm cracking a joke. I didn't post the article for those reasons but I'm not about to enter another ten page discussion with you about that.

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I'm cracking a joke. I didn't post the article for those reasons but I'm not about to enter another ten page discussion with you about that.

lol

It's your thread. If you don't wanna discuss its actual point, that's your choice.

[Bt1 5,213]

Based on GGD discussions, the article is 100% correct.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Didymus said:

lol

It's your thread. If you don't wanna discuss its actual point, that's your choice.

We both have strong opinions. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Florin said:

Based on GGD discussions, the article is 100% correct.

Hence my point 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Hence my point 

Next time just write your own opinion in the OP then.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Next time just write your own opinion in the OP then.

I didn't though.

In fact I didn't even state my opinion on this article following my post as I always do because I didn't necessarily agree with it completely 

I was just presenting his opinion and you took it as some proof of validation  

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I didn't though.

In fact I didn't even state my opinion on this article as I always do because I didn't necessarily agree with it.

Then why post it if your only point, as you just seem to have admitted, was to simply make another statement about how (some, apparently referring to GGD as you indeed mentioned on the first page too) Bernie supporters are engaging in self-delusion, unable or unwilling (I'm guessing more the latter) to face "reality", i.e. Hillary being the only valid choice at this point?

Throughout this thread you've claimed you don't necessarily agree with the opinion piece but you do agree with the observation. Then there's clearly no need for you to drag in the opinion piece at all, which you probably did just to be able to try to dress that simple opinion up in a more reputable jacket. It's really nasty tbh and a blatant misuse of this section and subsection.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Then why post it if your only point, as you just seem to have admitted, was to simply make another statement about how (some, apparently referring to GGD as you indeed mentioned on the first page too) Bernie supporters are engaging in self-delusion, unable or unwilling (I'm guessing more the latter) to face "reality", i.e. Hillary being the only valid choice at this point?

Throughout this thread you've claimed you don't necessarily agree with the opinion piece but you do agree with the observation. Then there's clearly no need for you to drag in the opinion piece at all, which you probably did just to be able to try to dress that simple opinion up in a more reputable jacket. It's really nasty tbh and a blatant misuse of this section and subsection.

I'm sorry but what is your motive behind your recent posts? I'm trying to disarm the volatility because it'll never end and you continue to press me aggressively.

I posted this because it's an opinion from a member of a minority who's discussing his own viewpoints, ones that I think may have some merit from even an objective viewpoint. Feel free to comment on them. I never said any counterarguments aren't valid. 

Speaking of, why are you stating that Hillary is the only "valid" choice? She isn't. Bernie was. So was O'Malley and Chafee. They all lost the race. Hillary is the clear choice right now for the Democratic party because she's ahead of every count you can think of where it matters. 

That is the reality. Fail to see it all you want. I couldn't care less. 

-----

I  LOVE how you're berating me for posting this opinion piece while simultaneously defending Susan's right to express her opinion. Susan clearly presented rational arguments right? Maybe for you, but that's exactly where bias comes into play. The same kind that may or may not influence my opinion of this particular piece. At least I didn't say he's right. 

If you're trying to mock me for being hypocritical, then look at yourself first.

I won't be responding to your posts in this thread anymore. It's clear you have an animus here.