• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR

Status
Not open for further replies.

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,594
0
0
I think it is more of a "care for the points, not the person."

For much of social thought, the person matters more than the points. Look at the Republican party to see this. You can't even get all of the candidates to talk together to come up with one unified plan of any substance.

I may be too Zen to really 'get' why person>points, because points can transcend people and groups if they're accountable. But I suppose I empathize with those think people can bring about points that work for them, because again, we can look at Republicans for the Law of Attraction regarding anti-reason.
It's the person and the points. The nuance is typically lost when people try and express themselves, but when someone says they're voting for someone because they're part of X group, it's not typically the entirety of the calculus. Someone voting for Barack Obama "because he's black" is unlikely to vote for Herman Cain or Ben Carson. Someone voting for Hillary Clinton "because she's a woman" isn't likely to vote for Carly Fiorina or Michelle Bachmann.

And it's generally fine if personal identities don't matter for a given person's vote. The problem arises in telling someone else it should/shouldn't matter to them.

Voting for a woman only because its a woman might be understandable from an emotional standpoint, but its not smart from an intellectual standpoint.
.................
I think you should have probably thought through the way you expressed your point a bit more. But read above.
 

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Nov 24, 2012
8,436
234
675
munich
I don't particularly think it's a good look for a straight, white, cis- man to say that it's wrong for a voter from any marginalised group to make identity-related considerations part of their decision process, even if it has never mattered to him personally.

Voting for a woman only because its a woman might be understandable from an emotional standpoint, but its not smart from an intellectual standpoint.
But its not like people usually vote based on careful consideration of all the candidates policies, so this wouldn't be anything special either.

Going by the policies I'd say Sanders is a better feminist than Clinton, so I find this discussion rather pointless.
 

Brakke

Banned
Jan 21, 2014
16,743
0
0
www.terrisus.com
Did they just reduce a woman to a uterus? Even if a woman said it that is rediculous.

No, they're censuring women who might do that. So they're reducing some women to people who might reduce a woman to a uterus. Which means we're down enough levels of indirection that this is all optics and no substance.
 

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Apr 24, 2010
22,725
0
0
Voting for a woman only because its a woman might be understandable from an emotional standpoint, but its not smart from an intellectual standpoint.
But its not like people usually vote based on careful consideration of the candidates policies, so this wouldn't be anything special either.

Going by the policies I'd say Sanders is a better feminist than Clinton, so I find this discussion rather pointless.

This isn't happening, and the fact you think it is and dismiss it as "emotional"...
 
May 31, 2008
14,068
54
1,195
I find it interesting how sanders lacks support in the +45 department. You know the people who were actually voters in the 90s.

Half the people I hear railing about the 90s are kids in their 20s who were 5.

There are a lot of things we can point to causing issues or things the clinton did wrong but this complete divorce effort to completely define the 90s from the 2010s is intersting

Because time has shown the supposed "good times" of the 90s to be mostly smoke and mirrors, and to have little to do with Clinton, to boot.
 
Jul 3, 2008
13,434
2
885
I think it is more of a "care for the points, not the person."

For much of social thought, the person matters more than the points. Look at the Republican party to see this. You can't even get all of the candidates to talk together to come up with one unified plan of any substance. Conversely, you can see how people call Hillary a shill and a flip flopper, because her image as a person, however true or untrue, supersedes all points she ever makes.

I may be too Zen to really 'get' why person>points, because points can transcend people and groups if they're accountable. But I suppose I empathize with those think people can bring about points that work for them, because again, we can look at Republicans for the Law of Attraction regarding anti-reason.
There is the thought that people are generally self-serving, and leaders will enact policies that serve themselves and people like themselves.

I think this is generally true, at least in the sense that people wouldn't enact policies that hurt themselves, but there are so many ways to categorize a person, and simply choosing one aspect to dwell on isn't my preferred thing to do.
 

GamerJM

Banned
May 19, 2013
11,839
2
0
California
It's okay to defame Bernie supporters by using "Bernie-bro's" and still claim moral high-ground against the usage of SJW on here apparently (another term i'm against).

People aren't defaming Bernie supporters by mentioning Bernie bros, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious Bernie supporters.
 

Soyongdori

Member
Mar 9, 2012
3,910
0
0
home
I really wish The Boondocks didn't end and Aaron McGruder was still working on it. He could've made a one hell of an episode over this presidency race.
 

Silver Arrows

Banned
Mar 2, 2015
10,394
0
0
Best Coast
I really wish the election season would end so that I could quit hearing the knob slobbering from Killer Mike.

I wonder how El-P feels? Can I please just get another album, Michael?
 

johnsmith

remember me
Jan 5, 2005
14,934
0
1,690
He was quoting a woman who said that. Also, he is right.

That's not a defense. People need to stop using that as a defense. Defend the comment itself, but don't defend it by saying he was quoting a woman. By repeating the quote with his own mouth it became his statement.

This is the Donald Trump "I didn't call Ted Cruz a pussy. She called him a pussy" defense.
 

Pizoxuat

Junior Member
Apr 17, 2013
867
0
0
In-group criticism is a very different beast from out-group criticism and neither Killer Mike nor Bernie are going to win any points with me from going "but it was quoting a woman!"
 

noshten

Member
Oct 20, 2014
4,199
623
615
[tweet]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Let's face it: if you're a Sanders' fan, unless you're white and male, you're in for the leftovers that trickle down. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KillerMike?src=hash">#KillerMike</a></p>&mdash; Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/700096352227823619">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/tweet]

This whole episode would be a lot more fun if more older people had twitter


We aren't advanced for that shit

What year is this



Just checked Killer Mike's timeline, why is he retweeting all these rightwing sites?

Killer Mike loves the second amendment
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,882
4,874
1,905
[tweet]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Let's face it: if you're a Sanders' fan, unless you're white and male, you're in for the leftovers that trickle down. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KillerMike?src=hash">#KillerMike</a></p>&mdash; Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/700096352227823619">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/tweet]

This whole episode would be a lot more fun if more older people had twitter

Your link is fucked up

You tried to do this

[twitter]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Let's face it: if you're a Sanders' fan, unless you're white and male, you're in for the leftovers that trickle down. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KillerMike?src=hash">#KillerMike</a></p>&mdash; Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/700096352227823619">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We aren't advanced for that shit
 

Jay-Hova

Banned
Jan 22, 2016
177
0
0
People aren't defaming Bernie supporters by mentioning Bernie bros, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious Bernie supporters.
Don't buy that.
It's been specifically used on here as a catch all term for Bernie supporters even in situations totally separate from what you're saying it would be used for, as well has having been used to associate non race/gender related opinions with the label just to support Hilary.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
Argh, Killer Mike, I get what your saying but you should generally avoid using that line of logic on oppressed groups. It automatically implies there is no legitimacy to the candidate you're applying it to and that's not the look you want to portray.
 
Nov 16, 2007
16,625
4
0
34
My general opinion would be that if a statement would be unacceptable for a member of a group to make (man, woman, black, white, straight, gay, etc), than it is unacceptable for them to make even if "I was quoting (member of such and such group)"
 

ezrarh

Member
Apr 22, 2007
5,426
0
0
New York
If you're the wage class and/or a low income minority, how much better is today's economy for you than 25 years ago? I think it's fair to look critically at the policies passed by the Clinton administration.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
There is the thought that people are generally self-serving, and leaders will enact policies that serve themselves and people like themselves.

I think this is generally true, at least in the sense that people wouldn't enact policies that hurt themselves, but there are so many ways to categorize a person, and simply choosing one aspect to dwell on isn't my preferred thing to do.

[To the bolded] In politics, this is not a foregone conclusion.

People aren't defaming Bernie supporters by mentioning Bernie bros, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious Bernie supporters.

You haven't been paying much attention to the internet lately then. No, they're not just talking about a subset of Bernie supporters, it's used as a generalization towards any Bernie supporter that criticizes Hillary Clinton and/or her talking points.
 

IrishNinja

Member
May 12, 2009
40,052
9
1,150
Nah too the bushes with Mike


aw dude's down for the cause, ima assume he just batch retweeted stuff agreeing with him...damn

I really wish the election season would end so that I could quit hearing the knob slobbering from Killer Mike.

I wonder how El-P feels? Can I please just get another album, Michael?

let mike live/get slobbered, he's a good dude
im sure El catches it here & there too
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Sep 26, 2013
31,941
1
0
The fact that so many people are saying they "understand what Mike is saying but think it shouldn't be said that way" is exactly why Bernie has no shot.

It's also kind of weird that you agree with the sentiment but not the wording, considering that the point of the wording is to convey sentiment since that's how language works.
 

Aylinato

Member
Sep 20, 2008
6,202
0
0
Yup.

And it is the same with the rise of Trump.

People are just sick of the establishment and their inability to solve problems while they ramble on about "Change".



Yeah because Barack Obama had so much time with a democrat controlled senate and house for 2 out of 8 years to change everything he wanted. We only got the most massive change to healthcare and most massive reforms to other areas including the American reinvestment act.
 

BudokaiMR2

Member
Dec 18, 2005
11,063
0
0
Osaka
People aren't defaming Bernie supporters by mentioning Bernie bros, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious Bernie supporters.

It's a two-way street.

"People aren't defaming social equality supporters by mentioning SJWs, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious people who look for every opportunity to be outraged."

If someone's rhetoric falls back on some generalization or acronym then they may just be as problematic as the person or group they are criticizing.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Sep 26, 2013
31,941
1
0
It's a two-way street.

"People aren't defaming social equality supporters by mentioning SJWs, they're talking about a specific subset of incredibly obnoxious people who look for every opportunity to be outraged."

If someone's rhetoric falls back on some generalization or acronym then they may just be as problematic as the person or group they are criticizing.

Arguing the semantics of the language is when you know your point should be re-evaluated to start with.
 

Volimar

Member
Jun 11, 2011
34,722
3
685
steamcommunity.com
This woman thing is so stupid. I can't imagine there are many, if any women out there who were planning on voting for Hillary SOLELY because she is a woman. Much more believeable is the notion that there are democrats out there who agree with both Bernie and Hillary on many issue and the fact that it would be historic to vote for the first female president is enough to tip the scales in her favor. But whenever people reduce that tipping of the scales to JUST voting for her because she is a woman it is insulting to those voters and to Hillary because it reduces everything else she stands for as if it is nothing. As a Bernie supporter it really turns me off when other Bernie supporters do that.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,684
830
815
I don't understand. Saying that having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president is supposed to be something controversial? As in there's an argument that it does qualify you?

What about the penis? I have a dick. Does that make me qualified? I don't know what the hell is even going on here. I must be missing something.
 

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Nov 24, 2012
8,436
234
675
munich
This isn't happening, and the fact you think it is and dismiss it as "emotional"...

But thats what Sanders and Killer Mike are arguing against.
You can call their argument a strawman, but what they're saying is certainly not wrong.

And yes, I would view this as emotional. There is nothing inherently wrong about an emotional vote, though.
I read a lot about this last week because of Gloria Steinems comments about how younger women vote for Sanders because "thats where the boys are" and I think Steinems and other peoples support of Clinton is partially based on the emotional value it has for people like her, who fought basically all their life for womens rights, to finally see a woman in office.
From watching her interviews and reading her texts about Clinton I also didn't get the sense that she is particularly fond of Clintons policies. The symbolic value of the first female president seems to be her main motivation for her support of Clinton.

Now, we can discuss how important the symbolic value of the first female president is(how important was the symbolic value of the first black president?), but its certainly a factor.
Nontheless I think that actual policies should matter a lot more and thats what Sanders and Killer Mike are talking about.
Sanders is the better liberal and his positions are, according to national opinion polling, more popular.
 

Merc_

Member
Sep 6, 2014
3,731
1
0
Just checked Killer Mike's timeline, why is he retweeting all these rightwing sites?

Same reason that the Bernie Sanders subreddit keeps posting that Fox News poll result. I don't think they realize that the right wing wants Sanders to be the nominee because they think they can beat him.

The infighting that results from it is something they're happy to see too.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Sep 26, 2013
31,941
1
0
I don't understand. Saying that having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president is supposed to be something controversial? As in there's an argument that it does qualify you?

What about the penis? I have a dick. Does that make me qualified? I don't know what the hell is even going on here. I must be missing something.

Forest through the trees.
 

Pizoxuat

Junior Member
Apr 17, 2013
867
0
0
This woman thing is so stupid. I can't imagine there are many, if any women out there who were planning on voting for Hillary SOLELY because she is a woman. Much more believeable is the notion that there are democrats out there who agree with both Bernie and Hillary on many issue and the fact that it would be historic to vote for the first female president is enough to tip the scales in her favor. But whenever people reduce that tipping of the scales to JUST voting for her because she is a woman it is insulting to those voters and to Hillary because it reduces everything else she stands for as if it is nothing. As a Bernie supporter it really turns me off when other Bernie supporters do that.


This is what is killing me. I love Bernie on economic issues. If I could get his economic policies paired up with Clinton's passionate defense of women's rights and Planned Parenthood, I would be a much happier Democrat. I am going to early vote this Monday and I have a lot to think about.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Arguing the semantics of the language is when you know your point should be re-evaluated to start with.

Or maybe the language as a whole should be re-evaluated, which it is, on a constant basis.

Language has been evolving for thousands of years and a lot of that has to do with semantical argumentation.
 

Jay-Hova

Banned
Jan 22, 2016
177
0
0
Same reason that the Bernie Sanders subreddit keeps posting that Fox News poll result. I don't think they realize that the right wing wants Sanders to be the nominee because they think they can beat him.

The infighting that results from it is something they're happy to see too.
They do.
But we think Bernie can beat whatever republican candidate that's thrown at us.
 

Foffy

Banned
May 14, 2009
22,560
2
0
They do.
But we think Bernie can beat whatever republican candidate that's thrown at us.

I'm not sure. You can literally have Carl Sagan (if he were still alive and in his prime Cosmos days) run for president and he'd risk losing, because of how anti-reason America is. For many of Sanders' domestic points, he's on point, but that doesn't mean a thing in this society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.