Bernie Sanders clarifies his statement about ghettos

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think there's much I hate more in politics than people dismissing a statement because of "optics". It's literally admitting you're taking the statement and stripping it of it's context and intended meaning to better serve your political position. It's natural that people who support candidate A will put anything candidate B does and says under a microscope, but arguing "optics" is just a lazy way to extract any soundbite which can be skewed negative out of the actual content of the message.

At least have the intelligence and courage to argue the content of what Bernie said, like foxtrot3d, instead of taking the soundbite and conjuring an infinite number of imaginary strawmen which are easily dismissed.
 
Neogaf outraged about this?

Old guy uses slightly outdated terminology in a harmless way. A guy who has a long history of fighting for racial justice.

Attacking Bernie over this is pathetic.

A fair thing could be to say he is old and out of touch. To imply anything more is embarrassing.

We have already seen him update his jargon. He stopped saying blacks and using African Americans instead.

No big deal...

Be honest, if Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc., said something similar, there'd be 15 pages about it and everybody would be in agreement that they are out of touch and insensitive to racial issues.

If Donald Trump said the same, and then said he'd build a wall around the ghetto, it'd be 40 pages, and his poll numbers would go up.
 
I feel like I know what Bernie meant, but WHOOOOOO was that not a good look. You know what though? The criticism that everything is about economics to Bernie is true, and it reared its head here. I believe that he meant "neighborhoods where police brutality, poor schools, and violence are common," but he phrased it in economic terms. Now, poor white people do have to deal with those things to differing degrees as well, but had he said that, no one would have blinked twice.

Still, the optics are better than that racist Elvis Presley, the guy who stole Roy Hamilton's career, singing "In the Ghetto," so at least Bernie has that.

I love Bernie and will vote for him to make an ideological point, but Hillary runs rings around him when talking about issues that concern people like myself. That's obvious to everyone, I'm sure, but I still need to say it.
 
Be honest, if Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc., said something similar, there'd be 15 pages about it and everybody would be in agreement that they are out of touch and insensitive to racial issues.

If any of those people said white people don't know what it's like to live in ghettos or be poor it would be fucking mindblowing, are you kidding me? It would come out of nowhere and they'd get torn apart by conservatives.

I meant talk to not deliver a speech at.

....okay....?

Clinton was all over the place meeting with community leaders and mothers who lost children to police violence. She was grassrooting.

Mr. Sanders will begin the day speaking to faith leaders at a prayer breakfast in South Carolina with the actor Danny Glover and the former N.A.A.C.P. president Benjamin T. Jealous, who have both endorsed him. Mr. Sanders will then host town-hall-style meetings at the University of South Carolina and at an auditorium in Charleston, S.C. Mr. Sanders will also travel to Morehouse College in Atlanta.
 
Be honest, if Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc., said something similar, there'd be 15 pages about it and everybody would be in agreement that they are out of touch and insensitive to racial issues.
implying that these guys would acknowledge that white privilege exists

If Donald Trump said the same, and then said he'd build a wall around the ghetto, it'd be 40 pages, and his poll numbers would go up.
that's not the same at all
 
Well put.

And count me in with those who would like to know specifically what Hillary has supposed to have done, in terms of her record, her words, or her current platform, that make her a better candidate on racial issues.

I'm not saying she isn't, just that I honestly don't know what makes her stand apart here and that underlies her polling.

Well, for one she's been speaking about these issues and meeting with victims and communities before she even announced her candidacy. You can also examine the difference between Bernie and Hilary with regards to handling Flint, Michigan:

Flint Water Response Perfectly Captures The Difference Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton
 
For the new page:
MSNBC's Joy Reid did a nice break down on why these statements from Bernie were a mistake in this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mFQYhgNbc


Really? Being involved in potentially dangerous protests and civil rights movements, leading the University charge on such events, writing about them in party letters and uni papers, and even getting arrested for it, is less impressive than what is mostly lip service today, and what today essentially guarantees positive electoral results (from the relevant voter demographic) without any negative or dangerous repercussions?
It's not very impressive to me, in 2016. I'm looking for someone who brings the type attitude today and Bernie doesn't seem to be the one.


I also never brought up Hillary so I confused by people acting like I did.
 
Could someone clarify why this is offensive for black people? Seems to be offensive to poor white people since he's claiming they didn't exist, but the article suggests it's alienating black voters and those are who is apologizing too?
 
It's hard to distinguish concern trolling, especially in these discussions. I'll gamble on your sincerity.

Optics and appearances are important(far more then they should be) in politics. I agree with you to an extent there. Anyone who's been paying attention should understand the intent and message behind his words, however. He could and should, work on being well spoken, but he's arguing about giving a shit about the less fortunate, those who are poor and suffer from racial discrimination. Optics don't matter half as much as genuine intent, and his track record speaks for that.

In my personal experience, genuine intent isn't worth that much in isolation. When you are talking about communication, two types of knowledge are at play. Knowledge of what you are talking about and knowledge of who you are talking to. I would argue that the issue here is the latter.

The current american presidential campaign process has many obvious flaws, but one thing I like about it is that it tests a candidate's ability to build a team that can complete a complex task, involving thousands of moving parts all while under constant scrutiny. It's actually a pretty good analog to being President.

Just like when Sander's called Planned Parenthood part of the establishment, I give him leeway on the initial statement, but I will closely judge the follow up he and his team create after the fact. That is where the rubber hits the road for me because it's a test of his organization's understanding and priorities. Coming back the next day with a prepared answer of: “What I meant to say, is when you talk about ghettos, traditionally what you’re talking about is African-American communities.” is not an effective way of demonstrating that he understands why people had an issue with what he said.

It's not the end of the world and it doesn't single handedly disqualify him as a presidential candidate, but it does feed into the negative narratives about him. Narratives that I would hope he and his people had identified and made a point of focus.
 
Um, the article wasn't criticizing Bernie for doing that, at the time, it was criticizing him for only doing that, at the time. Did you even read the full article?
It clearly criticizes him for his calling for resignation and paints him as someone unwilling to work with the "man" and being unrealistic. One of Clintons aides copied the sentiment of this article exactly and also criticized him on CNN one hour before Clinton also called for that "unrealistic" resignation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy-k183yps8&feature=youtu.be
 
Well, for one she's been speaking about these issues and meeting with victims and communities before she even announced her candidacy. You can also examine the difference between Bernie and Hilary with regards to handling Flint, Michigan:

Flint Water Response Perfectly Captures The Difference Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton
This definitely counts for me on this particular issue, thanks. The substantive argument here being that while both Clinton and Sanders met with local residents and made public calls for Snyder's resignation and for accountability from other officials, only Clinton reached out to the mayor to offer help.

I'd be interested in more stuff along these very lines to judge the candidates by, but I worry it'd only derail this thread.

In my personal experience, genuine intent isn't worth that much in isolation. When you are talking about communication, two types of knowledge are at play. Knowledge of what you are talking about and knowledge of who you are talking to. I would argue that the issue here is the latter.
True, but these debates aren't exactly structured to aid in that kind of communication. You've got an incredibly compressed amount of time to say as little as possible about issues that require nuance and elaboration. Jumping on somebody for the optics even when the intent is taken as a given reads like pure gotcha politics.
 
Um, the article wasn't criticizing Bernie for doing that, at the time, it was criticizing him for only doing that, at the time. Did you even read the full article?

The response that was provided suggests that the article wasn't read in full. Even if it was, it was viewed through a lens that prevented an objective evaluation of the argument that was presented in the article
 
It clearly criticizes him for his calling for resignation and paints him as someone unwilling to work with the "man" and being unrealistic. One of Clintons aides copied the sentiment of this article exactly and also criticized him on CNN one hour before Clinton also called for that "unrealistic" resignation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy-k183yps8&feature=youtu.be

No, it doesn't. The very worst you should be getting from that article is that Mayor Weaver was unimpressed by Bernie calling for Snyder's resignation. The writer says that Sanders went further than just calling Snyder out in the debate. It's a good thing, it's just not as good as what Hillary did.

Hillary doing something else is the main focus of the article, by far. It was a positive article about her, not a negative one about Bernie.
 
Thing is, when you're trying to reach people who don't know about and may never look into your track record, which is what campaigning is to a large degree, you've got to know how to work people.

What a lot of people are saying and then having it handily dismissed as moronic is not that what Sanders was saying is wrong, but that he has trouble conveying it in a way that is understood unequivocally and that is an issue for him while campaigning.
I wish American voters were allowed to be more informed about their representatives and leaders. The current environment of apathy and fatigue in American politics is a shame. For the common person who only knows what they hear, miscommunication is a problem. In that sense, public perception does matter a great deal more, for sure. For people on message boards who are relatively more informed, they should know better, which was my original qualm.

In my personal experience, genuine intent isn't worth that much in isolation. When you are talking about communication, two types of knowledge are at play. Knowledge of what you are talking about and knowledge of who you are talking to. I would argue that the issue here is the latter.

The current american presidential campaign process has many obvious flaws, but one thing I like about it is that it tests a candidate's ability to build a team that can complete a complex task, involving thousands of moving parts all while under constant scrutiny. It's actually a pretty good analog to being President.

Just like when Sander's called Planned Parenthood part of the establishment, I give him leeway on the initial statement, but I will closely judge the follow up he and his team create after the fact. That is where the rubber hits the road for me because it's a test of his organization's understanding and priorities. Coming back the next day with a prepared answer of: “What I meant to say, is when you talk about ghettos, traditionally what you’re talking about is African-American communities.” is not an effective way of demonstrating that he understands why people had an issue with what he said.

It's not the end of the world and it doesn't single handedly disqualify him as a presidential candidate, but it does feed into the negative narratives about him. Narratives that I would hope he and his people had identified and made a point of focus.

The pessimist in me leans the other way in regards to the highlighted. Donald Trump is sitting right there, man. Marketing to people is absolutely the big thing in this election. I just despise that fact from an idealistic perspective. It is a detestable reality.

I would also disagree with the assertion that running a good campaign(being a good salesman) is analogous to actively being a good President(having a quality product).

Well put.

And count me in with those who would like to know specifically what Hillary has supposed to have done, in terms of her record, her words, or her current platform, that make her a better candidate on racial issues.

I'm not saying she isn't, just that I honestly don't know what makes her stand apart here and that underlies her polling.

I always saw it as a numbers game. It's safer to roll Hillary(because of her solid political facade) and prevent any significant loss of progression made to this point, then to roll Bernie(The radical Jewish Socialist) and risk having a significant setback should he lose. Considering how high the stakes have raised, it's certainly not an unwise perspective.
 
This definitely counts for me on this particular issue, thanks. The substantive argument here being that while both Clinton and Sanders met with local residents and made public calls for Snyder's resignation and for accountability from other officials, only Clinton reached out to the mayor to offer help.

I'd be interested in more stuff along these very lines to judge the candidates by, but I worry it'd only derail this thread.


True, but these debates aren't exactly structured to aid in that kind of communication. You've got an incredibly compressed amount of time to say as little as possible about issues that require nuance and elaboration. Jumping on somebody for the optics even when the intent is taken as a given reads like pure gotcha politics.

When i hear gotcha politics I always think gacha politics and I think of these:

tXgraMr.jpg


I think that the type of compressed communication present in these Debates is pretty comparable to many of the situations Presidents face. You just have to be incredibly precise and efficient with your message.

It's why it's important to be well prepared. He knew a question like this would be coming in a Michigan debate, he had to. I think he is trying to tie the answer to something that he perceives as a strength and it got away from him.

And again, I will give him more leeway on the initial statement than I will on his clarification the next day.
 
Could someone clarify why this is offensive for black people? Seems to be offensive to poor white people since he's claiming they didn't exist, but the article suggests it's alienating black voters and those are who is apologizing too?

It's basically implying unintentionally that being black means you are poor and that white people do not have the "problem" of being poor. For those who know Bernie Sanders they understand he meant no harm. For those who he is trying to appeal to it could be a turn off and seen as patronizing. In the US the well meaning I advert racism seems to be more readily tolerated and accepted. I am in no ways calling Bernie a racist but some of his white base and the African American community will take it to mean what I stated above. Trust me there are a portion as well meaning naive liberal leaning individuals who would interpret it as wide spread poverty is a minority exclusive problem.
 
Because that's all he did

Just because he doesn't advertise what he did and shoot commercials in Flint for his campaign doesn't mean he hasn't been involved. Should he have had a press event on Feb 15 when he met those families sharing their devastating problems, just to score political points. Judging from your posts this is exactly what he should be doing to win your vote, politicizing such meetings with Flint residents because otherwise it doesn't count for much, in your eyes.
In the end Bernie will run his campaign the same way because he can't change, this is who he is.
 
Just because he doesn't advertise what he did and shoot commercials in Flint for his campaign doesn't mean he hasn't been involved. Should he have had a press event on Feb 15 when he met those families sharing their devastating problems, just to score political points. Judging from your posts this is exactly what he should be doing to win your vote, politicizing such meetings with Flint residents because otherwise it doesn't count for much, in your eyes.
In the end Bernie will run his campaign the same way because he can't change this is who he is.


Maybe?

He's running for President and folks often complain that people just don't know Sanders

But anywho I'm not talking about commercials. Clinton sent some of her top aids to go to work there in any way they could.
 
I wish American voters were allowed to be more informed about their representatives and leaders. The current environment of apathy and fatigue in American politics is a shame. For the common person who only knows what they hear, miscommunication is a problem. In that sense, public perception does matter a great deal more, for sure. For people on message boards who are relatively more informed, they should know better, which was my original qualm.



The pessimist in me leans the other way in regards to the highlighted. Donald Trump is sitting right there, man. Marketing to people is absolutely the big thing in this election. I just despise that fact from an idealistic perspective. It is a detestable reality.

I would also disagree with the assertion that running a good campaign(being a good salesman) is analogous to actively being a good President(having a quality product).

See I think the campaign is a product. Last time around the organization that Obama built ran circles around Clinton's. His ground game was more organized, his delegate strategy was sound, he spent his resources incredibly wisely, he leveraged technology in ways that revolutionized the game for everyone.

All of that reflected on his abilities as a leader. He surrounded himself with talent, the right mix of old guard insiders and newcomers, trusted friends who would go to bat for him and outsiders who would challenge his decisions. These campaigns are basically Fortune 500 companies that are spun up out of nothing incredibly quickly and need to constantly adapt.

The logistics are staggering and the whole process is a battle of stamina for the candidate who has to keep this incredibly fragile thing running without missing a beat. Again, pretty close to the day to day job of the President and the reason why Presidents tend to look like they age 5 times faster when they are in office.
 
Just because he doesn't advertise what he did and shoot commercials in Flint for his campaign doesn't mean he hasn't been involved. Should he have had a press event on Feb 15 when he met those families sharing their devastating problems, just to score political points. Judging from your posts this is exactly what he should be doing to win your vote, politicizing such meetings with Flint residents because otherwise it doesn't count for much, in your eyes.
In the end Bernie will run his campaign the same way because he can't change, this is who he is.

Yes. He should have done that.

Tired of people insinuating that you can't even attempt to appeal to minorities unless it's seen as "completely genuine."

YOU BETTER PANDER IF YOU WANT THIS VOTE
 
Maybe?

He's running for President and folks often complain that people just don't know Sanders

But anywho I'm not talking about commercials. Clinton sent some of her top aids to go to work there in any way they could.

The best thing Sanders personally can do for the people of Flint is get elected for president. He is not a millionaire like Clinton so he can't invest his own money into fixing it. He doesn't have experience running an organization like the Clinton Foundation with all the numerous successes that foundation has in Haiti among other places. He is also not a doctor to help the children there. He is also not a very good politician so he doesn't politicize human suffering by making his talk with Flint families a campaign "event"

Yes. He should have done that.

Tired of people insinuating that you can't even attempt to appeal to minorities unless it's seen as "completely genuine."

YOU BETTER PANDER IF YOU WANT THIS VOTE

I wouldn't insinuated anything regarding pandering if she didn't literally shoot an ad there 2 weeks ago.
 
Alright, so as a black guy I'm going to try to explain to people why Bernie's comment and other similar comments he's made in the past are troubling and do not resonate with black people. He stated that white people don't know what it's like to be "poor" and/or live in a "ghetto." Now, the statement is problematic for a whole host of reasons but I'm going to trying to break it all down for people to understand, First, the statement is simply false, there are plenty of white people who have and are experiencing poverty in addition to living in "ghettos."

Second, it's part of a larger problem which Bernie has landed himself in where he inadvertently reinforces the notion that black people and poverty go hand in hand. This is troubling as it paints the picture that black people are a child like race who must be raised up by the responsible and caring adult white savior. This is a problem of many ultra-liberal white people, it's simply the liberal side of racism. The republicans paint minorities as moochers who are always trying to take from the government so they can sit on their butts, collect their welfare, and spend it on lottery tickets and 40 oz. beer. However, for liberal democrats the racism is more subtle in that it is veiled in an attempt to "better" black folk and other minorities. Obviously, this notion that blacks need to be cared for and bettered is code-word racism in the guise of smiling white faces. These liberals talk about providing more welfare, food drive programs, free lunches, and inner city education.

But, while these all sound like great things it is part of an underlying narrative that A) all black folks are poor and B) they must be coddled and cared for like children by we wise white people that know what's best for them. Thus, when Bernie Sanders attacks Hilary Clinton because her husband reformed welfare and thus making it less available to minorities he plays right into this narrative. It sounds as if he believes the only issues the black community cares about is welfare and other social programs directed against poverty. However, we are not stupid and we do not need to be talked down to. Black people care about everything else the same as white people including foreign policy, debt relief, free education, health care, etc. We don't just care about "the ghetto."

I want to end with a personal anecdote that should give you an idea what some black people feel when Bernie makes such comments. So, my mother is pretty religious and when I was younger my parents made me and my brothers go to church every other Sunday or so. Now my parents, due to hard work, are pretty well off and live in a very affluent neighborhood and at this time went to the church that was literally at the end of the street where we lived. Now, on this particular day the church was hosting a poor black family from I believe a rougher part of the city for whatever reason.

At the end of the service my mother always likes to hang around to speak with people who live in the area and what not and at some point a very nice white lady comes up and speaks to her. She begins to ask my mother how difficult a trip it was coming all the way up to this church. Obviously, my mother has clued into what is going on this lady believes that because she is black she must be with the same group as the poor family the church was hosting. My mom, being ever so coy, says nothing and just nods her head until soon after one of our neighbors seeing my mother speaking with this other lady goes up to introduce yourself. She of course oblivious to the conversation tells the other lady how my mother lives just down the street in that big house. As my mother tells it the other lady's face went white.

Now, was that lady trying to be a mean-spirited racist? No. But, in her attempt to be caring and understanding she achieved the same effect as any "nigger" calling red neck. That is what Bernie Sanders ends up sounding like at times when he makes those statements.

Yea I can understand that perspective. Bernie means well, but it can come off as patronizing and he's making economic inequality the big talking point, while forgetting to talk about institutionalized racism that even affluent black Americans have to deal with

Well, for one she's been speaking about these issues and meeting with victims and communities before she even announced her candidacy. You can also examine the difference between Bernie and Hilary with regards to handling Flint, Michigan:

Flint Water Response Perfectly Captures The Difference Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton

Damn. Hillary's strategy definitely started getting results, which Bernie's ends up looking like rhetoric. I'm sure he was genuine in his sentiments, but results matter.

And the bit where it talks about their healthcare plans, yea it's true. I want single payer, it would be so great... but realistically? Good fucking luck getting that in the next 10 - 15 years, let alone 4. So it's almost just political rhetoric because Bernie knows it can't be done soon either
 
See I think the campaign is a product. Last time around the organization that Obama built ran circles around Clinton's. His ground game was more organized, his delegate strategy was sound, he spent his resources incredibly wisely, he leveraged technology in ways that revolutionized the game for everyone.

All of that reflected on his abilities as a leader. He surrounded himself with talent, the right mix of old guard insiders and newcomers, trusted friends who would go to bat for him and outsiders who would challenge his decisions. These campaigns are basically Fortune 500 companies that are spun up out of nothing incredibly quickly and need to constantly adapt.

The logistics are staggering and the whole process is a battle of stamina for the candidate who has to keep this incredibly fragile thing running without missing a beat. Again, pretty close to the day to day job of the President and the reason why Presidents tend to look like they age 5 times faster when they are in office.
Obama's run was extremely special. I still feel as though the transformation from running a campaign to acting as the POTUS is still more severe then that. Obama was a unique case, but he also went through hell after he was basically left to die by the Dems. He still came out mostly clean after climbing through that shit. Obama is an incredible President that will be remembered well in the history books.

I see your point, but I'm just not sure that Sander's and Clinton's potential for leadership should be so heavily weighted towards the quality of their campaigns, and even if we do, I would put a huge asterisk next to it considering how off the rails America has gone compared to previous elections.
 
It's basically implying unintentionally that being black means you are poor and that white people do not have the "problem" of being poor.

It still blows my mind that people arrived at this conclusion. Like it really makes me think they went in wanting to see the negative. Because his comment was literally about white privilege, and in the exact same way as it's always framed "White people don't know so and so experience everyone can face, but which black people face unique challenges with", yet so many black people are misinterpreting it. Then there are the white people who normally throw a fit hearing about white privilege ALSO throwing a fit. Man...I just don't understand...
 
It still blows my mind that people arrived at this conclusion. Like it really makes me think they went in wanting to see the negative. Because his comment was literally about white privilege, and in the exact same way as it's always framed "White people don't know so and so experience everyone can face, but which black people face unique challenges with", yet so many black people are misinterpreting it. Then there are the white people who normally throw a fit hearing about white privilege ALSO throwing a fit. Man...I just don't understand...

Do you think we're dumb?

Do you think we all just have it out for Bernie?

You said it yourself: a lot of black people are "misinterpreting" him. Care to explore why you think that might be?

Sure, it just has to be something other than Bernie's word choice being piss poor.
 
At this point... just end this Bernie. Do it so you can maintain some remaining dignity in these proceedings. Winning is impossible, and you don't want to tarnish your image further with "mistakes" like this.
But...he has no image because no one knows who he is which is why he's totally unelectable, right? Oh, and he's a stinky Socialist, so he has no dignity in this society to begin with or something.

Honestly, this is no worse than any number of things Clinton has said or done across her various campaigns for office, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. She somehow manages to maintain some dignity, after all.
 
I'm not American and I view "ghetto" as a word used for a specific place like "Warsaw Ghetto" that is historic, existed but doesn't anymore. Ghettos were made for a specific intention, in another time and place, and I would never consider a current, active community as "a ghetto", like "he lives in the ghetto."

So from my perspective, it sounds offensive. But I don't know?
 
It's really awkward to see people defending Bernie's phrasing. Defending his intent is one thing, but there's no denying he's a bit out of touch when it comes to the modern vernacular surrounding these issues. It might seem harmless on the surface to throw the word ghetto around like he did (basically "old white dude is harmless, also he marched with MLK!!!"), but the weird doubling-down he did is... not good. And I don't know why anyone would deny that when black people are explicitly saying it bothers them.

#NotAllBlackPeople, though, right??

This is coming from someone who wants Bernie to win, by the way. Yo it's okay to criticize someone for saying something dumb. It doesn't make him an inherently bad person. Nobody's perfect. I mean, look at Hillary. Super predators! But she's since fixed the way she talks about these things and apologized. (Not that I buy anything she says as genuine - she just wants to win - but that's not the point.)
 
But...he has no image because no one knows who he is which is why he's totally unelectable, right? Oh, and he's a stinky Socialist, so he has no dignity in this society to begin with or something.

Honestly, this is no worse than any number of things Clinton has said or done across her various campaigns for office, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. She somehow manages to maintain some dignity, after all.

GAF has an passionate Clinton following. Save your breath. They'll blow up petty issues like this that no one else other than the Clinton-camp is talking about. Seriously, no one is talking about this outside of Clinton-circles. Not even the media gives a shit. The most viewed clip from the debate last night is the "Excuse me, I'm talking" bit and that has been met with overwhelming praise online.
 
I don't really think anybody had any issues with the terminology behind "ghetto". It's a relevant word and is used to describe a segregated area of minorities, usually at a lower socio-economic level. The term "urban ghetto" is still used in academia, and it's not like saying "ghetto" is some taboo.

People in this thread, however, have real problems with both his perception and/or way he made his comments. Some of the main concern draws from his phrasing, which I guess some thought he was being patronizing or only focusing on the economic perspective of persons of color.
 
It still blows my mind that people arrived at this conclusion. Like it really makes me think they went in wanting to see the negative. Because his comment was literally about white privilege, and in the exact same way as it's always framed "White people don't know so and so experience everyone can face, but which black people face unique challenges with", yet so many black people are misinterpreting it. Then there are the white people who normally throw a fit hearing about white privilege ALSO throwing a fit. Man...I just don't understand...

This is my takeaway. Almost feels like it's just two sides of the "best way to end racism is to stop talking about it" coin.

The term "urban ghetto" is still used in academia, and it's not like saying "ghetto" is some taboo.

You're right that it is still an appropriate term in certain contexts (though there were people in this thread taking issue with it), but it is taboo in other contexts. Like "her hair is so ghetto" is not cool.
 
It's really awkward to see people defending Bernie's phrasing. Defending his intent is one thing, but there's no denying he's a bit out of touch when it comes to the modern vernacular surrounding these issues. It might seem harmless on the surface to throw the word ghetto around like he did (basically "old white dude is harmless, also he marched with MLK!!!"), but the weird doubling-down he did is... not good. And I don't know why anyone would deny that when black people are explicitly saying it bothers them.

#NotAllBlackPeople, though, right??

This is coming from someone who wants Bernie to win, by the way. Yo it's okay to criticize someone for saying something dumb. It doesn't make him an inherently bad person. Nobody's perfect. I mean, look at Hillary. Super predators! But she's since fixed the way she talks about these things and apologized. (Not that I buy anything she says as genuine - she just wants to win - but that's not the point.)

and the root of this all really just leads back to his messaging. he is not messaging his points correctly when he has the floor, he is plainly not appealing to the black vote in this party vs. clinton, and all you see is people saying "that's not what he means! he means xyz"

well why doesnt he SAY XYZ in a debate for once? He always leans back on the economy/wall street. It would be nice to hear him say something different for once, personally, as a problem to something going on in this country. Governmental policy is also a big way to change things, and at least going into depth about his position in other ways than the economy-at-large is important. Clinton already does it, and maybe would be forced to go into it more if Bernie would actually get into the details during a debate where people are watching. I watch News almost everyday and have seen every debate, even watched some of his rallies, but he barely goes into it in any impressive way. and if you say "he does!" then how come his messaging in that regard isn't as good as for the economy/wall street? He needs to be known for a multitude of things here
 
GAF has an passionate Clinton following. Save your breath. They'll blow up petty issues like this that no one else other than the Clinton-camp is talking about. Seriously, no one is talking about this outside of Clinton-circles. Not even the media gives a shit. The most viewed clip from the debate last night is the "Excuse me, I'm talking" bit and that has been met with overwhelming praise online.

LOL - has it?
 
I don't really think anybody had any issues with the terminology behind "ghetto". It's a relevant word and is used to describe a segregated area of minorities, usually at a lower socio-economic level. The term "urban ghetto" is still used in academia, and it's not like saying "ghetto" is some taboo.

People in this thread, however, have real problems with both his perception and/or way he made his comments. Some of the main concern draws from his phrasing, which I guess some thought he was being patronizing or only focusing on the economic perspective of persons of color.

Ghetto just has a sour connotation given that we're talking about black people.

As a black person who watched the debate with (some) other black persons, none of us so much as bat an eye but it evidently rubbed a few people the wrong way. This is apparently the end for him though.
lol



Thank you for posting this individual article literally written by one person.

Expand your horizons, bud. Both twitter and facebook blew up during the moment. Very many people found it both comical and satisfying.
 
and the root of this all really just leads back to his messaging. he is not messaging his points correctly when he has the floor, he is plainly not appealing to the black vote in this party vs. clinton, and all you see is people saying "that's not what he means! he means xyz"

well why doesnt he SAY XYZ in a debate for once? He always leans back on the economy/wall street. It would be nice to hear him say something different for once, personally as a problem to something going on in this country. Governmental policy is also a big way to change things, and at least going into depth about his position in other ways than the economy-at-large is important. Clinton already does it, and maybe would be forced to go into it more if Bernie would actually get into the details during a debate where people are watching. I watch News almost everyday and have seen every debate, even watched some of his rallies, but he barely goes into it in any impressive way. and if you say "he does!" then how come his messaging in that regard isn't as good as for the economy/wall street? He needs to be known for a multitude of things here

I agree that he falls back on the wall street lines too often, but did you actually listen to what he said? In the quote that spawned this thread, he was talking about police bias and a corrupt criminal justice system, calling for the end of institutional racism.
 
Thank you for posting this individual article literally written by one person.

Expand your horizons, dude. Both twitter and facebook blew up during the moment. People found it both comical and satisfying.

psst! Two articles.

I also have a Twitter feed. It showed the exact opposite.
 
Yeah, not going to lie, but him doubling down on "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" lost him my support. Yeah, white privilege exists. But so do 19,520,800 white people living below the poverty line. Dismissing the largest group (by number) of poor people as not existing because white privilege exists frankly pisses me off. Privilege means all things being equal, you're better off being white than black in America. White skin doesn't negate poverty or how destructive it is to entire communities.
 
I agree that he falls back on the wall street lines too often, but in the quote that spawned this thread, he was talking about police bias and a corrupt criminal justice system, calling for the end of institutional racism.

solutions being XYZ, which he doesnt mention. he just says "you don't know" and "we need to end it!"

he goes into specifics about taxing wall street speculation, how the rigged economy works, how to fund rebuilding infrastructure, etc. but he doesn't say much about how institutional racism is going to end with X policy
 
The question was "What racial blind spots do you have?"

he should be finding any excuse to talk about his platform, especially when he is at a disadvantage to Clinton in this broad regard. he doesn't seem to have a problem interjecting wall street reform when he is asked a question about foreign policy (which happened during a debate).

why in this case does he feel like he needs to stay within the bounds on this question? its not like its wholly unrelated anyway.
 
psst! Two articles.

I also have a Twitter feed. It showed the exact opposite.

Go beyond your feed. It's your feed. Of course it's more likely to be representative of ideas that you agree with. Checking live tweets from the trending page is much more accurate of people's opinions. Twitter and much of the web as a whole, was overwhelmingly pro-Sanders.



Is this representative of the American people though? Sure isn't. You can argue it rubbed the average non-vocal viewer the wrong way. I'd argue otherwise of course.


He was before this, but this hurts both his huge weaknesses with black voters and could turn off a large part of his major voting base (poor whites).

It won't really matter since the election was basically over after Super Tuesday.

Not at all. In all likelyhood, Clinton will take the nom, but it's still a race whether people are comfortable with that reality or not. Superdelegates will not go against the people's will or it'll be a shit-show.

True delegate count is what matters.

ulj2J28.png


^ If you look at this and see a race that's "over", I don't know what'll convince you to look beyond GAF rhetoric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom