The Democratic primary isn't anywhere as bitter as it looks online

Ok, find some stories about Clinton supporters harassing female reporters. While my apparent selection bias prevents me from reading such articles, you should be immune.

This particular narrative is intellectually deceitful.

All the article says is "some Bernie are harrassing some female reporters". This supports the desired narrative... and fulfills the confirmation bias. But it does nothing to question the narrative or ask the obvious questions.

1. Are Hillary supporters being more harrassed than Bernie supporters?
2. Are female reporters being more harrased than male reporters?
3. What does "full force" mean?
4. How many Bernie supporters meet the defininition of "Bernie Bro" (can a female be a Bernie Bro)?

These articles and this narrative in general is propaganda. It doesn't inform anyone. It makes insinuations with no factual evidence. And it doesn't allow for any questions or dissenting points of view.

Intellectual honesty requires the ability to question your own confirmation bias.

So you won't have any problem finding reporters talking about being threatened with rape or death by Clinton supporters, right?

Do we really have to do play this silly anti-intellectual game, Engineer?

Everyone who is being honest with themselves has known that Hillary would be the nominee a month ago.

The attacks on reporters are not excusable at all... but Hillary supporters were making some pretty ugly racist attacks at this point in 2008. These included Hillary supporters attacking Obama in blackface.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2008/08/the-shocking-racism-of-puma/5750/

There is no need for the Hillary supporters to attack reporters now... they have all been saying that Hillary has it for months.

It is not hard to find Hillary supporters in 2016 making anti-semitic attacks on Bernie.

The point is that this is a propaganda tactic. You take something that has some validity (yes there are some sexist and violent things being said). But then you blow it out of proportion to use it to attack your opponents.

I question propaganda... even when it is coming from my political side.

The goal of this narrative is to discredit any support for Bernie in advance of the campaign. Do you deny this?

Yes, I deny this, in fact, that wasn't my point at all. Online this campaign is very bitter (see the link to the thread title) and some of that bitterness takes a very particular form of sexual threats against women reporters. You ask if male reporters get threats also and of course they do but threats against women seem to have that sexual aspect to them and that is certainly true in the examples I gave and in the Nevada convention violence story last month. You will reflexively reject that narrative since you have done so on numerous threads despite fairly extensive documentation (check your own confirmation bias there) so I doubt we'll have lots to discuss, but there are others on the thread who might be interested.

But if you did have instances of Clinton supporters attacking women reporters supporting Sanders, that would make an interesting read. I haven't found any. Nor have I found Rubio or Bush or Kashch supporters accused of such, just Sanders and Trump.

I didn't reflexively reject what you are calling the "Nevada convention violence story". I thoughtfully rejected it because in spite of what you insist on calling a "violence story", there wasn't any violence. The violence (and some chair throwing) were invented by Hillary supporters to support their narrative. A chair raised became "chairs being thrown" ... sure there was a chair involved , but the narrative is more important than the actual facts.

This is how confirmation bias works. You start with a narrative. You find something that kind of supports your narrative. You exaggerate it to make it fully fit your narrative and to make it a better story. You reject any facts that contradict your story. And you ridicule anyone who questions your story.

Actually by "Nevada violence story" I was referring to the threatening emails and texts sent to the chairwomen of the Nevada Democratic party (in line with my previous comments about violence directed to women), but if you want to think I meant something about a chair, knock yourself out.

Is it your intent with this tangent to diminish what Bernie and his supporters accomplished in this election or to reduce the leverage of Bernie Sanders and his supporters have going into the convention?

If all you are saying is that some Bernie supporters have acted badly, then this really isn't an argument worth having. We agree on this (and frankly, whether Hillary supporters have acted badly too is rather irrelevant).

My impression is that your intent is to demonize Bernie and his supporters and to keep him from impacting the convention next month. If this is not your intent, than this argument is not really worth either of our times.

Hillary will win the nomination. Bernie enters the convention with some political capital. They will do the usual horse trading and hopefully end up on the same side, both having gained something for their cause.

That is how this is supposed to work.

Also Engineer,

Did you hear Hillary's speech tonight? She is sincerely and graciously reaching out to Sanders supporters. She talked clearly about not being bitter.

I agree with Hillary on this. I accepted more than a month ago that Hillary would be the nominee, and that we would have to be united to make sure we beat Trump in November.

Would you care to join us now, Engineer?

Join us? What a crock. You, like some of the Bernie faithful are like guys with picket signs standing outside and screaming at the people on the way to work as they pass, "Losers! Do you want to join the true winners on the sidewalk?!"
You seem confused about who's inside and who's out. Engineer is right - the biggest violent troublemakers have been Trump or Bernie supporters. That's just true. Engineer isn't trying to "influence the convention" by stating that truth. That you would even say something like that suggests a warped view of reality. We're in a political discussion forum, not shaping the policy of a national political party.

Snood,

Are you guys really this vindictive and narrow that you are going to shoot Hillary in the foot? What are your guys gaining here? Your behavior is completely irrational. Hillary is telling you that your behavior is irrational (you are even ignoring her). This isn't about a nasty war against fellow Democrats.

Hillary is the nominee. The enemy is Donald Trump. If Hillary is going to win, she is going to need to unite the Democratic party behind her. She is graciously reaching out to Bernie supporters to do this.

What they hell guys? Your nasty attacks on Bernie supporters are hurting Hillary and helping Trump.

If you want Hillary to win.. Stop it!

Stop what? Hillary is GOING to win.

For me, there are two takeaways from the "BernieBros" threats.

One is that jerks can join any cause. Niven's Law #17: No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads. Just because Bernie has jerks who act in his name doesn't mean that Bernie himself is a jerk. I don't hold Bernie accountable for their actions.

The other is that, in my opinion, Bernie hasn't really done much to try to rein in the abuses done in his name. Which either shows a lack of backbone, or a lack of awareness, and I find either of those things disturbing in a potential president.

Yes, Hillary is going to win Snood.

And she is going to win in the General election if she is able to reach out to Bernie Bros and unite the party. You don't here Hillary making assinine attacks on Bernie Bros. In fact, last night in Hillary's speech you heard her thank the Bernie Bros and congratulate them for all they are fighting for and all they have accomplished.

You and engineer insist on continuing this ridiculous attacks on Bernie Bros... the very Bernie Bros that Hillary is reaching out to. She wants their votes. She will widen her platform to include them.

What do you think you are achieving here by your obsessive demonizing of Bernie supporters? What psychological issue is preventing you from getting on board.

Right now there are two candidates, Snood. Hillary and Trump. If you are supporting Hillary, then Bernie supporters are your voters. You want them on your side.

So calm down.... why not focus your fire on Trump, rather than on fellow Democrats.

I was wondering why this particular affliction seems restricted to Trump and Sanders voters when there is plenty of vitriol from everyone's partisans online. It's not like Clinton and Cruz voters are all nice and loving on the Internet, but for some reason they do not feel the need to make threats to reporters or harass delegates. I thought the Rolling Stones article on the men who threatened the Nevada Democratic Party chairwoman online was very interesting for showing some of the thought processes behind the act of hunting down someone you don't know in another state and threatening them or their families. Do I think Trump or Sanders approves of these messages? Sanders, no, Trump maybe. But why do a small minority of Sanders and Trump voters do this when Clinton and Cruz voters do not?

Sanders and Trump will tell you they are pulling in outsiders and that is what they have in common. I would argue that they have something else in common - they both play the victim card as a major part of their campaigns. Both Trump and Sanders claim that the system is out to get them, that it is rigged, that the media is biased against them, that "the elite" is secretly working in back rooms to void the will of the people. This is something that can be directly laid at the feet of the candidate, and I think this persistent narrative is directly related to the violent behavior we see at the extremes of the spectrum. The Internet amplifies this by allowing people to cherry pick articles and editorials that they think supports their narratives while ignoring things that refute it. The Nevada convention is a perfect example. Long time political observers at the convention say the Democratic party and it's chairwoman did absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in the way they ran the convention, but the losses that the Sanders team took (mostly due to their own incompetence) was painted as oppression from "the man" and the result was death threats against Roberta Lange by people who would probably never curse in front of their mother. Every news article by respected reporters critical of Sanders is an attack by the "establishment", every deceptively edited Youtube critique of Clinton is the God's honest truth. Does Sanders support violence against Clinton supporters - absolutely not. Does his continued claims of victimhood fuel an irrational rage in his supporters that at the fringes results in threats of violence - IMO yes. Even Sanders statement after the Nevada convention continued this narrative. Yes, we condemn the violence, but we are the victims here. I think that is where Sanders contributes to the hostile atmosphere and why we see this behavior from his supporters and not from those of other candidates.

Engineer, listen! This is important.

If Sanders supporters are the same as Trump supporters... then Hillary has zero chance to win the general election. Hillary needs to unite the party. She needs Sanders supporters to vote for, and to support her.

This pathological impulse you have to drive Sanders supporters away from the party is damaging to Hillary.

In the next few weeks, Hillary is going to be talking about how Hillary supporters and Bernie Supporters are on the same side.. You are saying the opposite of what Hillary is saying. What are you gaining here. These vindictive attacks aren't helping Hillary or the Democratic party.

If you want Hillary to win. Get with the ******* program!

Not sure if that was satire, or not. In case it wasn't:


Have a characteristic in common is not being the same thing.

A platypus has a bill, but it's not a duck.


Are you brain damaged? Actually, that might be an insult to folks who are brain damaged.


I don't think he is.

You think I was referring to the nominee fight, and I was talking about the general.



You keep preaching as if you're saying something. tell me something I don't know. And she IS reaching out and she HAS BEEN reaching out. Your thinking is fuzzy.


Everyone knows this, and no one is disagreeing with this. It's like you're talking to yourself.



Wrong. No one's attacking Bernie or his followers. All engineer did was state facts, and I repeated them. And I will again - Bernie and Trump followers were the ones doing the ugly stuff at rallies. That's just true. That doesn't affect anything that's happening going forward.



You want to think of yourself as talking to us from some morally superior stance I guess; that's the only reason I can think of for your constantly stating the obvious as if someone's opposing it.




No one's not "on board". No one's said anything that would make a reasonable person come to that conclusion. You're talking nonsense.



No one's saying anything contrary to that. Simply stating that some Bernie voters were ugly isn't going to keep most Bernie voters from coming along with Hillary. I've said all along that most Bernie voters are NOT Bernie-or-Busters. You're arguing about nothing.



Bernie-or-bust voters were the ones making the most hostile attacks all during the primaries. And now you're trying to frame the whole thing as if Bernie voters are trying to move on, and Hillary voters are being divisive.

All Bernie voters are welcome to join with Hillary now, and that's all anyone is saying. but if you insist on having the last inane word, you go on. You're back on ignore because you make ZERO sense.

You're right, Engineer. I hold Bernie responsible for stoking the violence every time he didn't oppose the rising chorus of 'boos' at each mention of Hillary. I hold him responsible for tepidly condemning the violence, then immediately saying "but I understand the anger" - thus tacitly condoning it.

I'm not responding to Max's asinine attempts to try to place himself as a great uniter and us as instigators or something. His posts read like the ramblings of someone with a recent traumatic head injury.

[edit]
This is commentary about Bernie's speech after LAST NIGHT's Hillary Triumph:

Mr. Sanders waited until 15 minutes into his speech to utter Mrs. Clinton’s name. He referred, almost in passing, to a telephone conversation in which he had congratulated her on her victories. At that, the crowd of more than 3,000 inside an aging airport hanger booed loudly. Mr. Sanders did little to discourage them.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-made-history-but-bernie-sanders-stubbornly-ignored-it/ar-AAgMCGi?li=BBnb7Kz