There's a few examples in Greenwald's article. If I wanted to tediously screenshot nasty "Hillary supporters" all day I certainly could, but this argument is extremely tangential to actual issues in the first place.
If you would like to see it for yourself, check out Robert Reich's facebook feed, or Elizabeth Warren's, and click through the comments. It's a pretty target rich environment.
By the way, are you saying that shaming entire populations based on gender from a position of authority and attention is better than attacking individuals in comment threads?
Right, because this argument is tangential to important issues, is a complete distraction, absurdly childish, and my energy is better spent elsewhere. If you want to pretend that professed Bernie supporters have a monopoly on hateful internet trolls, then no I won't try hard to stop you. Have at it.
As if cherry picking screenshots is evidence in the first place. You seeing it for yourself would be useful. My picking out a dozen or three examples would really not be useful at all. For either of us.
They're both "mean", and they're both bad politics.
Glenn Greenwald has more journalistic integrity and credibility than most random groups of a thousand journalists you could gather.
That a bunch of blogs and op eds have run with the "Bernie Bros" meme and posted their own screenshots isn't really proof of anything. It's fluff. It's bone standard electioneering with absolutely no credible foundation.
There are nasty Bernie supporters, or those who claim to be Bernie supporters. There are nasty professed Trump supporters. There are nasty professed Hillary supporters (whose favorite tactic seems to be first to use gender based shaming before moving on to "but the GOP will win!", because voting your conscience is for losers), there are nasty professed Cruz and Rubio supporters. You can sample the internet and find some nasty troll saying nasty things in ostensible support of literally anything, and then write an article about that. It doesn't prove a thing, however (except that some specific people said some specific things and then the author generalized it into some kind of epidemic.)
This is no different than the European press being bombarded with stories that 20 out of 2 million refugees committed rapes in their host countries after seeking asylum. It is exactly the same flavor of propaganda. Exactly the same formula.
I agree that there's crap and filler on the Intercept, which is a shame. It's not unique to the Intercept at all, but I would like to be able to hold them to a higher standard.
Man I don't even care if Bernie Bros are real or not. Every political commentator outside this Forum terrifies me, regardless of who they support. I only come in on the side of proper rhetoric.
I am extremely sensitive to politics and get very emotional very easily. This thread, a small amount of select people on Twitter, and living with my dad is all the politics I can do without going overboard.
I also get way wrapped up in it, but I also take our nation's lack of universal healthcare and Clinton's vote in favor of Bush's gutting of Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection pretty personally as I've been busted flat more than a few times simply by medical expenses, starting when I was 17 years old two decades ago.
So... in this particular race, for me, it's very personal.
Cremlian I hope you're kidding about Fark for good political commentary. Cripes.
So... in this particular race, for me, it's very personal.
It's very personal for me too. We're in very different positions outside politics, tho, so I may have to be careful around these things in ways and for reasons that aren't particularly applicable to you.
So... in this particular race, for me, it's very personal.
It's very personal for me too. We're in very different positions outside politics, tho, so I may have to be careful around these things in ways and for reasons that aren't particularly applicable to you.
Politics aside, I have to say this is an incredibly civil discussion over something as personal as politics. The dream of being an ivory tower of the internet is alive in my head.
I kinda take a hopeful but realistic approach with Bernie. He's my first choice, and he's got my vote in the primary. But I'm realistic about who I think is going to get the nomination.
Politics aside, I have to say this is an incredibly civil discussion over something as personal as politics. The dream of being an ivory tower of the internet is alive in my head.
I am terrified of whatever internet makes you think this thread is an ivory tower.
Politics aside, I have to say this is an incredibly civil discussion over something as personal as politics. The dream of being an ivory tower of the internet is alive in my head.
I am terrified of whatever internet makes you think this thread is an ivory tower.
Literally any comments section of any remotely politically relevant issue on any website.
Yes, here we are much better at agreeing with each other than publications with wide readership and diverse opinions. That is not an ivory tower, that is an era of good feelings, and anyone who knows my opinions on Jackson knows my problems with that.
The New Hampshire primary is officially a fucking mess for the Republicans. Nearly a 20-point win for Trump at the moment, and Kasich of all people in second. It doesn't look like any of Kasich, Bush, and Rubio will be dropping out before the end of the month. It's looking like a loooooong primary season.
God willing, the entire GOP will implode. I think the moneyed interests have been expecting that for a while though. The Dems certainly get their share of checks.
So journalistic integrity only applies when it fits your narrative. Otherwise the reporter is mistaken? Glenn Greenwald is kind of a hack I guess.
If you want to take me on about the media, Mup, you will lose.
And I'm not saying Greenwald is mistaken - I'm saying he's publishing opinion as journalism, and using his platform at The Intercept(where the few people who can tell him no, refuse to because they trade essentially on his reputation) to publish what amounts to campaign PR under the guise of news, and frankly, he's completely fucking wrong. Let me let you in on a secret from inside the media conspiracy - no matter who you are, publishing your opinion in an outlet, as fact with zero proof to back it, is such bad journalism that it's not even journalism. It's the opposite of journalism, it's that propaganda you so dearly like to accuse every other outlet of when they say something you don't like.
What, you think Burnie and his campaign are speaking out against them because the SJW boogeyman is forcing them to? Or do you simply think Burnie is a liar? Do you think they'd speak out against their own supporters, going as far as telling them they don't want them, if they didn't think it was a problem?
Also, Gamergate-class use of the word narrative there, bravo.
That a bunch of blogs and op eds have run with the "Bernie Bros" meme and posted their own screenshots isn't really proof of anything. It's fluff. It's bone standard electioneering with absolutely no credible foundation.
Oh and look, another "It's just the media!" conspiracy theory. Sad, though, it's the free space on my Burniebro bingo card.
I wish I could say that I'm surprised that you refuse to listen to the people who aren't just middle-class white dudes who agree with you, but I'm not. You might support Burnie, but you don't stand for what he stands for.
If one of your little bigot buddies said that eating fresh horseshit helped Burnie's chances and struck a blow against the eeeevil media, you'd be chasing livestock around with a spoon, while hollering about how Hilary is a stupid evil bitch who is too evil and stupid to eat fresh shit shit with a smile.
What Greenwald is saying is that there's no evidence of a population of uniquely abusive people among Bernie supporters,
And what I'm saying is that greenwald is full of shit, because practically everybody who isn't a white dude has encountered Burniebros, no matter if they support Burnie or Hillary. You might have noticed, if you'd actually read all those links I gave you, rather than just dismissing them as a media conspiracy because they didn't agree with you.
I'm not even discussing it further - if you want to defend bigots, or pretend they don't exist just because they stump for the same candidate you do, leave. Fuck right off, right now, and don't come back. If that is how you want to carry on, no matter how fond of you I am, there is no place for you here.
And even if I'm generally a realist about the whole thing, as someone who supports Sanders - and despite what your wee xenophobe mate things, has a vote at their disposal - We don't want you either. Go support a candidate who more closely represents you, like Trump.
You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen. Or you're asking me to produce screenshots of or links to Hillary supporters being abusive to people online. In what way does that constitute proof that a representative sample of Hillary supporters are abusive? It's nonsense. No, I will not go and make 3 or 4 screenshots (the same standard of proof in any of your linked articles) and then go "See! See?!" because that's ridiculous.
Not too many middle class white dudes have been bankrupted over half a dozen times in their lives for the sin of being hospitalized, but denied bankruptcy protection. Not too many of them have lost jobs when their car broke down and they were forced to bike to work, then the bike was stolen and they were forced to walk until they got so sick they couldn't walk to work anymore. Not too many of them have had to choose medicine or food, or medicine for themselves or their chronically ill child. So, I don't fit in that shoebox either. Sorry. More gender/race shaming (which incidentally seems to be the only toolbag Hillary supporters have anymore since they lose on the real issues.)
As for why Bernie addresses it, he addresses everything. He's a compassionate guy. When his rally was crashed he took the crashers up on stage with him. It's how he conducts himself. He didn't say "Sorry my supporters are angry bigoted shits." He said "We don't want those type of supporters." And WE don't.
I don't lose when I take you on about the media. It's just something that incites you into posting a nine paragraph effort post with very, very little substance. As predictable as the sunrise.
Saying that Bernie supporters aren't any more likely to be misogynistic, angry bigots than any other candidate's supporters is not in any way even remotely equivalent to "defending bigots or pretending that they don't exist."
And yes, not supporting Hillary = supporting Trump. There's pure rationality, right there. Good grief, dude. Bernie took 58% of the female vote in New Hampshire today. I guess that makes most New Hampshire women gender traitors. I mean, that's on the same level of analysis.
A bunch of blogs running screenshots is not news. That's not "It's the media!" it's a bunch of blogs running screenshots as news. Sorry bud, but the rest of your argument is at about that quality (except, you know, where you compose infantile visuals of me spooning up livestock excrement, that was pretty great). Their analysis generalizing it into some kind of trend unique to the Sanders campaign is opinion not backed by evidence, which is what Greenwald is saying (and which you are dismissing as Greenwald editorializing, which is on a level of irony I'm not sure how to quantify.) I'm not going to continue this perpetual see saw with you. You want to believe that Bernie supporters are uniquely predisposed to be misogynistic, abusive shits, you go right ahead man. It's nonsense, but you go with it.
If one of your little bigot buddies said that eating fresh horseshit helped Burnie's chances and struck a blow against the eeeevil media, you'd be chasing livestock around with a spoon, while hollering about how Hilary is a stupid evil bitch who is too evil and stupid to eat fresh shit shit with a smile.
If one of your little bigot buddies said that eating fresh horseshit helped Burnie's chances and struck a blow against the eeeevil media, you'd be chasing livestock around with a spoon, while hollering about how Hilary is a stupid evil bitch who is too evil and stupid to eat fresh shit shit with a smile.
I am terrified of whatever internet makes you think this thread is an ivory tower.
I'm debating between "ivory tower is a relative term" and "I stand corrected" as responses. I'm not sure which one is more accurate towards how I feel.
I mean, it's better than /r/politics or the youtube comments on anything even remotely political.
It's normally better, and I'm normally rather less cross. I've just got zero time for playing nice with those who'd defend bigots and deny their existence, just because they support the same political candidate.
Piss off. I'm done with your cosying up to bigots and your childish, idiotic twisting of everything so that you're the victim and it's all just a conspiracy against you. Waaah waah waaah, you're the only one with problems, nobody else can understand, and you can't be criticized because you have problems. Nope, you're still a bigot by virtue of trying to cover for bigots, and you're a detriment to the Sanders campaign by your mere existence. No matter how awful your circumstances have been, or are. For the sake of the campaign, and other supporters, just stop. Go stump for trump.
Also, lol "Just because I don't support hillary" - No, stupid. It's because you're a childish, insufferable arse trying to cover for bigots and other assorted human garbage, just because they might stick a bit of paper in a box, with a name you like on it. People disagreeing with you are not automatically Hillary shills.
No, be fucking quiet. You don't know dick about the media, and you sound like a Gator desperately twisting and trying to justify how it really IS all about ethics in gaming journalism, really, seriously. Stop embarrassing yourself, for your own sake. It's not even entertaining, anymore, it's just depressing how proud and confident you are in your ignorance.
Comments
If you would like to see it for yourself, check out Robert Reich's facebook feed, or Elizabeth Warren's, and click through the comments. It's a pretty target rich environment.
By the way, are you saying that shaming entire populations based on gender from a position of authority and attention is better than attacking individuals in comment threads?
As if cherry picking screenshots is evidence in the first place. You seeing it for yourself would be useful. My picking out a dozen or three examples would really not be useful at all. For either of us.
As for what's being said, one is mean and the other is bad politics :-p
Glenn Greenwald has more journalistic integrity and credibility than most random groups of a thousand journalists you could gather.
That a bunch of blogs and op eds have run with the "Bernie Bros" meme and posted their own screenshots isn't really proof of anything. It's fluff. It's bone standard electioneering with absolutely no credible foundation.
There are nasty Bernie supporters, or those who claim to be Bernie supporters. There are nasty professed Trump supporters. There are nasty professed Hillary supporters (whose favorite tactic seems to be first to use gender based shaming before moving on to "but the GOP will win!", because voting your conscience is for losers), there are nasty professed Cruz and Rubio supporters. You can sample the internet and find some nasty troll saying nasty things in ostensible support of literally anything, and then write an article about that. It doesn't prove a thing, however (except that some specific people said some specific things and then the author generalized it into some kind of epidemic.)
This is no different than the European press being bombarded with stories that 20 out of 2 million refugees committed rapes in their host countries after seeking asylum. It is exactly the same flavor of propaganda. Exactly the same formula.
So... in this particular race, for me, it's very personal.
Cremlian I hope you're kidding about Fark for good political commentary. Cripes.
I kinda take a hopeful but realistic approach with Bernie. He's my first choice, and he's got my vote in the primary. But I'm realistic about who I think is going to get the nomination.
Also 4chan.
And I'm not saying Greenwald is mistaken - I'm saying he's publishing opinion as journalism, and using his platform at The Intercept(where the few people who can tell him no, refuse to because they trade essentially on his reputation) to publish what amounts to campaign PR under the guise of news, and frankly, he's completely fucking wrong.
Let me let you in on a secret from inside the media conspiracy - no matter who you are, publishing your opinion in an outlet, as fact with zero proof to back it, is such bad journalism that it's not even journalism. It's the opposite of journalism, it's that propaganda you so dearly like to accuse every other outlet of when they say something you don't like.
What, you think Burnie and his campaign are speaking out against them because the SJW boogeyman is forcing them to? Or do you simply think Burnie is a liar? Do you think they'd speak out against their own supporters, going as far as telling them they don't want them, if they didn't think it was a problem?
Also, Gamergate-class use of the word narrative there, bravo. Oh and look, another "It's just the media!" conspiracy theory. Sad, though, it's the free space on my Burniebro bingo card.
I wish I could say that I'm surprised that you refuse to listen to the people who aren't just middle-class white dudes who agree with you, but I'm not. You might support Burnie, but you don't stand for what he stands for.
If one of your little bigot buddies said that eating fresh horseshit helped Burnie's chances and struck a blow against the eeeevil media, you'd be chasing livestock around with a spoon, while hollering about how Hilary is a stupid evil bitch who is too evil and stupid to eat fresh shit shit with a smile. And what I'm saying is that greenwald is full of shit, because practically everybody who isn't a white dude has encountered Burniebros, no matter if they support Burnie or Hillary. You might have noticed, if you'd actually read all those links I gave you, rather than just dismissing them as a media conspiracy because they didn't agree with you.
I'm not even discussing it further - if you want to defend bigots, or pretend they don't exist just because they stump for the same candidate you do, leave. Fuck right off, right now, and don't come back. If that is how you want to carry on, no matter how fond of you I am, there is no place for you here.
And even if I'm generally a realist about the whole thing, as someone who supports Sanders - and despite what your wee xenophobe mate things, has a vote at their disposal - We don't want you either. Go support a candidate who more closely represents you, like Trump. More reliable and predictable than the sunrise.
Not too many middle class white dudes have been bankrupted over half a dozen times in their lives for the sin of being hospitalized, but denied bankruptcy protection. Not too many of them have lost jobs when their car broke down and they were forced to bike to work, then the bike was stolen and they were forced to walk until they got so sick they couldn't walk to work anymore. Not too many of them have had to choose medicine or food, or medicine for themselves or their chronically ill child. So, I don't fit in that shoebox either. Sorry. More gender/race shaming (which incidentally seems to be the only toolbag Hillary supporters have anymore since they lose on the real issues.)
As for why Bernie addresses it, he addresses everything. He's a compassionate guy. When his rally was crashed he took the crashers up on stage with him. It's how he conducts himself. He didn't say "Sorry my supporters are angry bigoted shits." He said "We don't want those type of supporters." And WE don't.
I don't lose when I take you on about the media. It's just something that incites you into posting a nine paragraph effort post with very, very little substance. As predictable as the sunrise.
Saying that Bernie supporters aren't any more likely to be misogynistic, angry bigots than any other candidate's supporters is not in any way even remotely equivalent to "defending bigots or pretending that they don't exist."
And yes, not supporting Hillary = supporting Trump. There's pure rationality, right there. Good grief, dude. Bernie took 58% of the female vote in New Hampshire today. I guess that makes most New Hampshire women gender traitors. I mean, that's on the same level of analysis.
A bunch of blogs running screenshots is not news. That's not "It's the media!" it's a bunch of blogs running screenshots as news. Sorry bud, but the rest of your argument is at about that quality (except, you know, where you compose infantile visuals of me spooning up livestock excrement, that was pretty great). Their analysis generalizing it into some kind of trend unique to the Sanders campaign is opinion not backed by evidence, which is what Greenwald is saying (and which you are dismissing as Greenwald editorializing, which is on a level of irony I'm not sure how to quantify.) I'm not going to continue this perpetual see saw with you. You want to believe that Bernie supporters are uniquely predisposed to be misogynistic, abusive shits, you go right ahead man. It's nonsense, but you go with it.
I mean, it's better than /r/politics or the youtube comments on anything even remotely political.
Also, lol "Just because I don't support hillary" - No, stupid. It's because you're a childish, insufferable arse trying to cover for bigots and other assorted human garbage, just because they might stick a bit of paper in a box, with a name you like on it. People disagreeing with you are not automatically Hillary shills. No, be fucking quiet. You don't know dick about the media, and you sound like a Gator desperately twisting and trying to justify how it really IS all about ethics in gaming journalism, really, seriously. Stop embarrassing yourself, for your own sake. It's not even entertaining, anymore, it's just depressing how proud and confident you are in your ignorance.