So we have Bernie supporters issuing death threats over twitter and gathering on IRC to run slander campaigns on ideological opponents? Like what does that mean exactly?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Black Lives Matter shuts down a Bernie Sanders rally
- Thread starter soleil
- Start date
- Status
So we have Bernie supporters issuing death threats over twitter and gathering on IRC to run slander campaigns on ideological opponents? Like what does that mean exactly?
People have been forced out of their homes for not supporting Sanders?
Got a link to this?
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Once again to understand the meaning of blacklivesmatter add the word "too" to the end of #Blacklivesmatter. The idea behind the slogan is black people are being being killed by police because they think black lives don't matter in comparison to everyone elses life.
Thinking that blacklivesmatters disregards the lives of other people is completely disregarding the circumstances that led to the slogan to begin with
There is a clear distinction. Black issues are not American issues, unless a CVS burns. And Black lives are considered less than by society.
And #alllivesmatter is use used to shut down discussion, a white kid got killed a week ago by police, #alllivesmatter was oddly silent on it, but #blacklivesmatter was talking about it. Getting it out on social media.
Maninthemirror
Banned
that might have been at its conception, but is it the same definition now? looking at it now the definition as changed to the literal wording of the hashtag.
Its such an easy slogan to subvert though. The movement will have that boulder pushing them down the hill forever.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
no I am pretty sure the meaning is the same as was originally created. Its just enough public persons have made the hollow argument that it means something else that its confused the issue. Its been co-opted by some people who want to make it seem like black people are being racist when the hashtag is asking for equal treatment......
If fact I am going to go on a limb and say #alllivesmatter was created by a republican just due to its nature.
But what does that prove really? The implication is that Hillary is somehow behind this when they mention Soros, but there is zero evidence of that besides conjecture.
All this did was boost Sanders' popularity. They made him a martyr among white liberals that feel like they're the victims of racism today. No one who's heard of this is on the BLMers side here. Why the hell would Hillary pay people for that?
Funny how you demand evidence for something that disparages Sanders' supporters, but not for this conspiracy theory.
Only by assholes, you have to already be up for some mental gymnastics if you want to twist black lives matter.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
What? This is not boosting Sander's popularity. That would imply he is more electable and has gained ground on becoming president, this is not helping his goal of becoming president.
Also, WTF at the demand for evidence? Saying his supporters are like gamergate people is a pretty big deal with how vile gamergate is so this shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you that you should probably backup what most would consider an outrageous view.
Also, I've said nothing about conspiracy theories, that's all bullshit you've made up in your head. I said he is factually wrong which he was. Soros is pumping in money and does support Clinton. I've said nothing else, you however have made up plenty in your head though it seems.
I get that people aren't "getting" black lives matter, but can you really get that mad when every single time they do this there's a big misunderstanding and everyone has to explain the specific meaning of chanting "black lives matter" ? maybe some of problem lies with the slogan and people shouldn't be expected to know what the hell everyone is talking about all the time. Also, how mad can you really get that someone is saying "yes all lives matter" in response? Like yeah they don't get it and they stepped over the exact issue being represented, which yeah is very important, but it wasn't on purpose and its not straight up saying black lives don't matter either. And it's a thought with good intentions..
Like the reasonable response should be "no. We are talking about the systemic racism inherent in the system and the disadvantage it provides to the black community, etc."
Not "wowwww such bullshit don't you fucking get it? When we say black lives matter were talking about X, so when we say it you respond to that. I can't believe these people said all lives matter!"
Just try to convey the real message. You're not going to gain support by rolling your eyes at everyone e who doesn't understand your slogan. It's a good cause stick to it, but why antagonize and be outraged by the people you want to see your side of things?
You guys really think these people saying yes all lives matter are assholes who understand the black lives matter movement and are trying to subvert it? Really? I mean even in this thread you're having to elaborate to people who mean well but misunderstand, and almost the same thing is happening as the rally. Instead of enlightening people you're pushing them away and putting them down for not knowing what you know. It's not "bullshit", its a misunderstanding.
Like the reasonable response should be "no. We are talking about the systemic racism inherent in the system and the disadvantage it provides to the black community, etc."
Not "wowwww such bullshit don't you fucking get it? When we say black lives matter were talking about X, so when we say it you respond to that. I can't believe these people said all lives matter!"
Just try to convey the real message. You're not going to gain support by rolling your eyes at everyone e who doesn't understand your slogan. It's a good cause stick to it, but why antagonize and be outraged by the people you want to see your side of things?
You guys really think these people saying yes all lives matter are assholes who understand the black lives matter movement and are trying to subvert it? Really? I mean even in this thread you're having to elaborate to people who mean well but misunderstand, and almost the same thing is happening as the rally. Instead of enlightening people you're pushing them away and putting them down for not knowing what you know. It's not "bullshit", its a misunderstanding.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Oh people understand what it means alright, but they choose to be assholes about it.
I'm at work and I'm mobile but the host of the Black Guy Who Tips podcast made #berniesoblack after the netroots fiasco in response to arguing with Bernie Supporters on Twitter who kept saying shit like "he marched with MLk, what have you done for the black community?" Since making that hashtag, in jest, he's been getting harassment from some of Bernie's obsessive supporters non-stop online. The same thing happens to Elon James White who's affiliated with netroots. He was blamed online for the protestors, was sent harassment, and people was also demanding his job.
Zoe
Member
I've seen a few non-black minorities in my circle say that if blacks are protesting Bernie, he must not be the candidate for them and how dare any non-blacks try to explain why Bernie would be in their best interests. Followed by reasons why Clinton would.
Rod is going to be on fire this week.
Not once did I say that guy didn't need evidence. I'm just saying you should apply your own standards here for the Soros deal. Also, you need to backtrack this quote chain. One guy responded to someone saying the Soros-Hillary connection was "dirty if true" which obviously refers to the assumptions she paid off those BLMers. Someone else responded that it isn't true, and you responded by disagreeing with that guy and citing that there were sources confirming the money trail. I interpreted this as you saying the conspiracy checks out because of this, which may have been wrong and I apologize for that.
And ya, this definitely helps Bernie's campaign in the long run. Getting a lot of exposure on the news, a ton of people are mentioning his civil rights record everywhere, and he handled the whole situation with class. This only strengthened the fanaticism for the man.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
"This doesn't help Bernie..."
Ha. His crowd grew larger after leaving that speech. If anything, he'll gain more followers just in spite of the movement.
Why? Because ally has become a very loose word as of late. Dead ass, if Black Lives Matter dies out, and reform doesn't happen, I'm sure black people will be blamed for it.
But it won't be them who puts a bullet in it. It won't be conservatives, it won't be the government or law enforcement. This thread should give you a hint of whom will end it. And all because we weren't "acting right".
(and no, I don't just mean white liberals, it'll be liberals of different races, but all with that same paternalistic yet inactive mindset.)
And either Bernie or Hillary will use the movement's dead body as a stepping stone.
Ha. His crowd grew larger after leaving that speech. If anything, he'll gain more followers just in spite of the movement.
Why? Because ally has become a very loose word as of late. Dead ass, if Black Lives Matter dies out, and reform doesn't happen, I'm sure black people will be blamed for it.
But it won't be them who puts a bullet in it. It won't be conservatives, it won't be the government or law enforcement. This thread should give you a hint of whom will end it. And all because we weren't "acting right".
(and no, I don't just mean white liberals, it'll be liberals of different races, but all with that same paternalistic yet inactive mindset.)
And either Bernie or Hillary will use the movement's dead body as a stepping stone.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
No, it hasn't. This is not strengthening his campaign, this is beyond misguided.
down 2 orth
Member
Yeah I was wondering how Hilary's advisers were going to deal with the competition this time around.
Fenderputty
Banned
This isn't wholy true. Occupy went in the same direction. There was support, but as the movement grew it became a disjointed mess. The anger was being pushed without any understanding of why.
You might think it's wrong to judge an entire movement based on actions of a few, but that's what everyone is gonna do. With the help of the media, they deligitimized occupy as well.
Now occupy wasn't a total failure as we still talk of he 1 vs the 99, but it fell massively short. BLM has brought issues like police brutality forward too, but if it wants to continue to do so, they're gonna have to stop attacking the people who want to help the most.
electroshockwave
Member
As far as I can tell those BLM protesters don't care about Bernie Sanders' actual views or what he plans to do as President. There is no dialogue there. They're just using the event to hijack it for their cause, apparently because as more of an outsider he doesn't have the security that a Clinton or Bush would.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
Question is who is paying this group to disrupt his rallies, don't see any other reason they would be doing this.
Makes no sense.
Makes no sense.
You aren't providing any reasoning to you're argument here. From what I'm seeing, Bernie has gotten a ton of exposure that he otherwise wouldn't have, and he's being painted by the media and all those commenting as a poor martyr. You're saying this doesn't help him at all, but I'm not seeing any reason as to why that is.
I skimmed through a bunch of this thread after not looking in for a while.
Perhaps it's not so apparent, but Bernie and his campaign have been improving on the front regarding race issues since Netroots where he received a wake up call. I think the outreach and visibility takes a bit of time to spread even in this day and age.
However, it's not an excuse for the condescending attitudes from Bernie supporters about how Black Lives Matters or black people should act to effect change. Bringing up how Bernie was a civil rights activist in the 1960s and how he marched with MLK is good for information, but bad as an argument to shut black people up. It comes off with the impression that Bernie supporters are telling black people Bernie did his time already, let him focus on issues that speak to the rest of the voting population (essentially implying that race issues take a backseat), or worse yet, suggesting that because Bernie was a civil rights activist 50 years ago, he knows more about race issues than black people themselves.
They also do themselves no favors when their 'defense' of Bernie on race issues consists of attacking BLM, attacking other candidates, and claiming conspiracies and sabotage. If Bernie has merit on race issues, find his voting record, his list of actions to address race as mayor, etc. (Voting record will require some digging though, it's pretty long.) Attack on the basis of the quality of your candidate, rather than on the lack of quality in others.
On the opposite side, I think saying "that's not enough" is unspecific and unhelpful. It's clear Bernie's campaign has been working on the issue. When presented with what the Bernie campaign has been putting out (it's pretty detailed!), saying "that's not enough" gives the impression of not listening at all. That's an unsatisfactory answer that leads the people who are presenting a case to think you're not someone who is open to conversation at all.
I think ultimately what hurts Bernie the most is that both at Netroots and this rally, he opted to just back out as opposed to engaging. Defenders will claim he has no reason to engage with the unreasonable. But if you're going to back out when heckling and disruption happens, it's unpresidential. Obama, Hillary, O'Malley, Biden, etc. have experienced that kind of thing, and they didn't just back out. Even Romney and McCain. When you campaign to be president, even if you are white and male, you need a thick skin.
Also, the panic over the left eating itself is kind of funny. Do you see Trump on the other side of the fence? I wouldn't panic about the differences in opinion on the left until we have a Trump in here. I think these discussions are substantial and helpful in a way, because we probably should be talking about this. Rather than about what Donald Trump said about Megyn Kelly's nose.
Perhaps it's not so apparent, but Bernie and his campaign have been improving on the front regarding race issues since Netroots where he received a wake up call. I think the outreach and visibility takes a bit of time to spread even in this day and age.
However, it's not an excuse for the condescending attitudes from Bernie supporters about how Black Lives Matters or black people should act to effect change. Bringing up how Bernie was a civil rights activist in the 1960s and how he marched with MLK is good for information, but bad as an argument to shut black people up. It comes off with the impression that Bernie supporters are telling black people Bernie did his time already, let him focus on issues that speak to the rest of the voting population (essentially implying that race issues take a backseat), or worse yet, suggesting that because Bernie was a civil rights activist 50 years ago, he knows more about race issues than black people themselves.
They also do themselves no favors when their 'defense' of Bernie on race issues consists of attacking BLM, attacking other candidates, and claiming conspiracies and sabotage. If Bernie has merit on race issues, find his voting record, his list of actions to address race as mayor, etc. (Voting record will require some digging though, it's pretty long.) Attack on the basis of the quality of your candidate, rather than on the lack of quality in others.
On the opposite side, I think saying "that's not enough" is unspecific and unhelpful. It's clear Bernie's campaign has been working on the issue. When presented with what the Bernie campaign has been putting out (it's pretty detailed!), saying "that's not enough" gives the impression of not listening at all. That's an unsatisfactory answer that leads the people who are presenting a case to think you're not someone who is open to conversation at all.
I think ultimately what hurts Bernie the most is that both at Netroots and this rally, he opted to just back out as opposed to engaging. Defenders will claim he has no reason to engage with the unreasonable. But if you're going to back out when heckling and disruption happens, it's unpresidential. Obama, Hillary, O'Malley, Biden, etc. have experienced that kind of thing, and they didn't just back out. Even Romney and McCain. When you campaign to be president, even if you are white and male, you need a thick skin.
Also, the panic over the left eating itself is kind of funny. Do you see Trump on the other side of the fence? I wouldn't panic about the differences in opinion on the left until we have a Trump in here. I think these discussions are substantial and helpful in a way, because we probably should be talking about this. Rather than about what Donald Trump said about Megyn Kelly's nose.
Fenderputty
Banned
It was conservative radio, but it was pushing the exact opposite message. They were asking their audience why BLM wasn't standing up for the white kid.
Which is really nonsense. They didn't raise as much of a ruckus like when a black teenager gets killed, but they sure did more than #alllivesmatter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zachary-hammond-police-killing_55c0e240e4b0c9fdc75dfda3
AlimNassor
Banned
They weren't wrong. if Sanders meant any of the shit he said he would have empathized with them, he would have given them a voice, and refuted his goal. Instead he ignores it and bows out proving himself to be a weak president. I don't see why we should condemn them when blacks are being shot and killed on the streets. If i were black I would be furious that nothing is being done to stop the over zealous Police.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
To add to this, about the people of Seattle.
Honestly, the policy reflects the POV of the people, namely the majority. And that policy has been very anti-black. If not racist, than apathetic is the right word.
Well Bernie is a white liberal, and white liberals are the greatest enemy of the BLM movement.
#BowDownBernie
Didn't he give them a voice by letting them take his entire speaking time?
Nah, he didn't bow down. Literally.
Aaronology
Member
Posts like these make it really clear when people legitimately have no idea who Bernie Sanders is, what he's done, what his voting record reflects and what his stances are and have been for almost half a goddamn century.
They were offered time to speak and they kept squealing about how they were being silenced.
Why should people that accused the crowd of being 'white supremacists' be given a voice?
I suggest you watch the video.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
No, they should keep going. And go after as many politicians as possible.
Because it's illuminating how white people really feel about them. Especially that first image.
It's either we're with y'all, or we ain't shit. Definitely not our voices.
Poor racists, how will they ever recover.
Uh, no. When people start storming the stage you get the fuck out of there--especially when you're pulling a stunt like Sanders is and not running any security. Just ask George Wallace >.>
EDIT: I just realized how badly my post might be misconstrued in light of this thread's subject matter and Mr. Wallace's stance on African American rights during those days and I feel the need to point out that I am absolutely not trying to make an attempt to link the two events on any basis other than security protocol.
I don't think that the majority of the Bernie supporters are really aiming for this (shutting black people up or indicating that Bernie already did those things and that he can focus on other things now). Of course there are people with this opinion but they're not representative just like those BLM individuals with the microphone.
There are people (quite a few in this thread too) saying "yeah he pretends to support the black movement but what has he done in the past? Actions are more important than words". I guess that this whole he walked with MLK thing is an answer to this, because the support of minorities was one of Bernie's key goals ever since and these people are trying to back it up. It isn't on point every time but I don't think that they need to be demonized for this.
There's just one thing I can't understand. People who support this appearance of these BLM individuals at the speech say that Sanders also benefitted from this because he gained more followers/ was in the focus. But is this really beneficial especially for you when a discrepancy between BLM and the only candidate not ignoring the problems of minorities is forced? It doesn't seem to be that good of a move for supporters of BLM (at least it looks like that for me). I mean Sanders doesn't seem to be that type of guy that has to be addressed in that way to support minorities.
I don't mean to blame BLM btw because I know that many don't support this way those few handled their approach.
Big Baybee
Member
This just mirrors my experience. AllLivesMatter is typically used as a silencing technique to shut up people saying that BlackLivesMatter.
They're also missing the point behind the genesis of BLM:
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.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Nope, not this time.
A LOT of them are doing exactly this and worse, whether they "aim to" or not. Enough to get the ire of me and most black activist I follow.
Aaronology
Member
Black voters don't need someone who will sincerely champion their causes? They don't need someone opposed to police brutality? The prison industry?
How does this street not go both ways?
If they don't need Sanders they'll wind up needing Clinton, Bush or (god forbid) Trump.
The strategy of these activists seems to be to attack the candidate already most allied to their cause, and scream that the audience are all racist for not liking it.
- Status