Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 165: The State of the Secretaries

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, people seem to take "Bernie Bros" too personally. It's not referring to any Bernie voter or anything. It's basically referring to the dudebros that got on board the Bernie train because they thought it was funny or edgy and then either didn't vote or jumped alt right to continue being "funny" and "edgy."

I mean, no, it was never used that way, it was used to imply male Bernie supporters wanted Bernie because of misogyny.
---

Do you have a better source? The places I'm finding that quote seem like sites trying to either stir up controversy (Young Turks) or just trying to play a "Everybody else is out to get us!" card.
---

I mean, hell, the guy that first coined the term used it to describe Facebook douchebags
---

USA Today describes Bernie Bros as "the unsanctioned shock troops of Bernie Sanders' vaunted online army, digital rogues who've plagued Hillary Clinton's presidential bid and embarrassed Sanders' campaign."[6]

The Wall Street Journal described the Bros as generally "white, male" Sanders supporters who troll Clinton supporters, "leaving vitriolic comments on social media accounts and created memes showing Mrs. Clinton as trying too hard to be cool."[5]

The Los Angeles Times calls them "online trolls... who attack journalists, politicians and fellow voters they perceive to be pro-Clinton with misogynistic, often vulgar attacks."[7]

MTV correspondent Jamil Smith described these people as engaging in "trolling, misogyny, and 'hipster racism.'"[8] Washington Post reporter Janell Ross described some pro-Sanders online activists as "angry people who sometimes engage in or embrace bigotry," and believed they demonstrated an attitude she called "offensively dismissive, superior, let-us-tell-you-black-voters-what-you-need-and-how-you-should-vote commentary from some subset of Sanders supporters."[9]

Almost all of these are referring to the dudebro trolls, not all Bernie supporters.

I've never seen it used the way your quote suggests.

Hell, even Bernie himself spoke out against them.

In a February 2016 interview with CNN's State of the Union, Sanders criticized "Bernie Bros" for their sexist attacks against rival Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. "It's disgusting. [...] Anybody who is supporting me and who is doing sexist things, we don't want them. I don't want them. That is not what this campaign is about.

---

Which quote? The one about the conction of Bernie Bros? Its from Glenn Greenwald.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

Its become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual bros for whom the term was originally coined straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people theyre smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation.

I mean its hard to find the exact links at this point in time, but I recall just about every single pro-Hillary Facebook page or Twitter account I followed using Bernie Bro to describe the bulk of Bernies supporters.

Any critic of Hillary was shouted down as a Bernie Bro, and it was all bullshit.

Edit: And also Bernie didnt speak out against Bernie Bros, I dont recall him ever mentioning that term, and instead said basically, any of my supporters who are being sexist are no supporters of mine.
---

So what do you feel about Bernie supporters who used "Bernie Bros" to talk about the douchebags?

'Cause there were plenty of jerks on the Bernie wagon that loved to talk shit about Hillary supporters, to the point where plenty of other Bernie supporters were actually ashamed to be associated with them by a supposedly common cause.

If you weren't one of these jerks, why are you taking this so personally?
---

Well, I don't doubt that some more vocal pro-Hillary people overreacted to them and threw the term around too much

The term was basically meant to refer to the trolls and ones actually being dicks, though. If you weren't a troll or a dick, you weren't a Bernie Bro. I mean, hell, your quote right there even says it:

"actual bros for whom the term was originally coined"

I'm sure a lot of idiots overused it, but to say it never meant that is just factually wrong.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

So what do you feel about Bernie supporters who used "Bernie Bros" to talk about the douchebags?

'Cause there were plenty of jerks on the Bernie wagon that loved to talk shit about Hillary supporters, to the point where plenty of other Bernie supporters were actually ashamed to be associated with them by a supposedly common cause.

If you weren't one of these jerks, why are you taking this so personally?

...You still dont even understand the issue.

Yes, there were plenty of jerks on the Bernie wagon that loved to shit on Hillary supporters.

Just like there are plenty of jerks on any wagon that loved to shit on opposing candidates supporters.

My point is that Bernie supporters were not particularly nasty, but rather than the pro-Hillary journalists were particularly effective.

Read the article I posted:

Two of the most shared origin articles on Bernie Bros cite
A) A random woman calling Hillary a shitbag and

B) An anonymous tea party twitter troll as part of their primary examples of Bernie Bros.

Its a meaningless/propaganda phrase, and one that was literally also done against Obama in 2008 (citation for this is also in the article), but it didnt catch on because Obamas rise was so forceful.
---

i didnt pay attention to politics during the election cycle

but i feel like most people who really supported sanders ended up casting a ballot for clinton. to quote my good friend, a texas native for his own life: "you vote for the less shitty candidate. also, sanders sucked. blah blah blah blah"
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, people seem to take "Bernie Bros" too personally. It's not referring to any Bernie voter or anything. It's basically referring to the dudebros that got on board the Bernie train because they thought it was funny or edgy and then either didn't vote or jumped alt right to continue being "funny" and "edgy."

I mean, no, it was never used that way, it was used to imply male Bernie supporters wanted Bernie because of misogyny.

This straight up isn't true at all. Never has been.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, people seem to take "Bernie Bros" too personally. It's not referring to any Bernie voter or anything. It's basically referring to the dudebros that got on board the Bernie train because they thought it was funny or edgy and then either didn't vote or jumped alt right to continue being "funny" and "edgy."

I mean, no, it was never used that way, it was used to imply male Bernie supporters wanted Bernie because of misogyny.

This straight up isn't true at all. Never has been.

Read the article I shared yall, it has links to it literally being used improperly by primary sources, thus making the entire thing meaningless.

Its like when Vlado calls the Liberals communists.

Sure, sometimes the Liberal hes referring to is technically a Communist, but that doesnt make his usage of it helpful or accurate because hes applied it to 50 others who arent.
---

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there
---

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

Actually, that's a fairly good summary.
---

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

Pretty much this, yes. That's what the term meant. I'm sure it got misused over time as Tony contends, but it was never intended to "paint all male Bernie supporters as misogynistic."
---

It sounds to me like the "basket of deplorables" comment. It wasn't intended to insult EVERYONE, but those who it DIDN'T insult, didn't like the implication that they were connected to those it DID insult (either by unfairly labeling them with a similar broad brush, OR just not wanting to think they could associate with an ideology that draws such negative people in the first place.)
---

Inviso posted...

It sounds to me like the "basket of deplorables" comment. It wasn't intended to insult EVERYONE, but those who it DIDN'T insult, didn't like the implication that they were connected to those it DID insult (either by unfairly labeling them with a similar broad brush, OR just not wanting to think they could associate with an ideology that draws such negative people in the first place.)

And that's the impression I'm getting from this conversation, as well.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

Pretty much this, yes. That's what the term meant. I'm sure it got misused over time as Tony contends, but it was never intended to "paint all male Bernie supporters as misogynistic."

This is what it meant for like, five minutes. But it quickly got overused to the point that it's now in the same category of "useful" terms as SJW.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

Pretty much this, yes. That's what the term meant. I'm sure it got misused over time as Tony contends, but it was never intended to "paint all male Bernie supporters as misogynistic."

This is what it meant for like, five minutes. But it quickly got overused to the point that it's now in the same category of "useful" terms as SJW.

Anything to justify taking personal offense at something that wasn't even directed at you, eh?
---

redrocket_pub posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

Pretty much this, yes. That's what the term meant. I'm sure it got misused over time as Tony contends, but it was never intended to "paint all male Bernie supporters as misogynistic."

This is what it meant for like, five minutes. But it quickly got overused to the point that it's now in the same category of "useful" terms as SJW.

Thank you.

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

Also like I said above, as there are toxic supporters of literally everybody, so having a specific phrase for a specific subset of toxic Bernie fans is meaningless and dumb. You guys are lifelong internet users, think about it.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

This is what it meant for like, five minutes. But it quickly got overused to the point that it's now in the same category of "useful" terms as SJW.

That's why I included the note that I'm not too aware on how it's been used/twisted/distorted since. That definition never got distorted in my view, like how "fake news" was completely co-opted by Trump, but I fully admit ignorance on this - perhaps it was.

Personally, I just don't use the term in the first place. I only see it pop up in a few places these days and this kind of argument tends to follow, so if I really want to talk about the subset I feel it describes I feel I'm better off describing them more like I just did.

i also don't really think it's a good name anyway
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thank you.

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

I mean, you literally said it "never" meant what it was intended to mean, which is what I had a problem with.

Either way, whether it got twisted or not, it never applied to you, so who cares?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

Honestly?

Because I don't really find your source that credible. But I'm tired and pretty non-confrontational to begin with so I didn't want to start anything.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You guys are lifelong internet users, think about it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

meaningless and dumb.

checks out

More seriously, on a personal level, I voted for Sanders in the primary. But by the final stages of it, the behavior of some of the more extreme people in this subset I'm describing got me to the point where I was actually feeling regret for it. So, I mean, for me that term broadly speaking always referred to the kind of people exhibiting the behavior that made me feel that way. So yes, it's a term applying only to one candidate - but it was the candidate I voted for so naturally it's the one I'd have a connection to.

god i don't think that made any sense i should stop talking
---

my internet opinion is 100% of eddv's give or take a few percentage points
---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thank you.

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

I mean, you literally said it "never" meant what it was intended to mean, which is what I had a problem with.

Either way, whether it got twisted or not, it never applied to you, so who cares?

Exactly.

If you're not a Bernie Bro, why take offense?

You and rocket are acting like I personally visited your houses and pissed in your cereal and justified it by calling you Bernie Bros.
---

xp1337 posted...

My understanding of the term was along the lines of, "subset of Sanders supporters whose defining characteristic was being anti-Clinton rather than pro-progressive policy as evidenced by seeming more interested in tearing down the Democrats than opposing Trump/Republicans after the primary"

but i'll admit i tend to stay away from social media so i have no idea what was going on out there

That's how I saw it too.

I remember some Bernie supporters coming out (not here I don't think, but other places) saying they would vote for Trump. Which to me never made any sense, and made me wonder if they ever really supported Bernie, or were just hoping he'd defeat Hillary (and then start attacking Sanders)

I think Bernie Sanders said it very well, when he said that people should start running for office. Local office, state office. And I think a lot of them are taking it to heart. Which is a good thing. Though I think if we added Hillary as President to that, we'd be much better off. For one thing Neil Gorsuch wouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice. And who knows who Trump will put on there next, making it next to impossible to overturn the one decision we all want to be overturned: Citizens United)
---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thank you.

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

I mean, you literally said it "never" meant what it was intended to mean, which is what I had a problem with.

Either way, whether it got twisted or not, it never applied to you, so who cares?

Still didnt read the article, eh?

And I care because its a phrase that is so meaningless to be harmful to discourse tbh. Id point out this was originally brought up because BowserCuffs blamed it for Trump, which is silly.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thank you.

Dunno why none of these people admitting theyre not well-versed feel like clicking a link to see evidence of what Im talking about, and instead rely on their ideal assumption.

I mean, you literally said it "never" meant what it was intended to mean, which is what I had a problem with.

Either way, whether it got twisted or not, it never applied to you, so who cares?

Still didnt read the article, eh?

And I care because its a phrase that is so meaningless to be harmful to discourse tbh. Id point out this was originally brought up because BowserCuffs blamed it for Trump, which is silly.

No, I commented on the irony of people who were behind a Jewish man suddenly turning around, joining a group that gladly associates with neo-Nazis, and voting for Trump.

At no point did I say they were responsible for Trump becoming president.

What's silly is someone taking personal offense at a epithet that not only doesn't even apply to him, but is used 90% of the time to refer to a certain group of Bernie supporters that were, in fact, known for being especially awful.

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Still didnt read the article, eh?

No, because one guy's opinion isn't going to change my mind when several media outlets described it the way it was supposed to be used

EDIT: I mean, the article was written for The Intercept, which

"The Intercept is an online news publication dedicated to what it describes as "adversarial journalism""

So I'm not really going to go "Oh, they said it was an attack on all Bernie supporters, so they must be right"
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Exactly.

If you're not a Bernie Bro, why take offense?

You and rocket are acting like I personally visited your houses and pissed in your cereal and justified it by calling you Bernie Bros.

This is like the 4th time youve said Redrocket and I are both personally offended.

I dont think redrocket was a Bernie supporter, and why do we have to be offended to point out a stupid phrase was used?

xp1337 posted...

Honestly?

Because I don't really find your source that credible. But I'm tired and pretty non-confrontational to begin with so I didn't want to start anything.

You dont find an article by Glenn Greenwald, with links to the primary source articles in question about Bernie Bros, credible?
---

for the record, i think the initial use of it in this discussion was an unneeded swipe, but the reaction has been disproportionate imo

(also feel like it being "toxic to discourse" is more tautological than anything)
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You dont find an article by Glenn Greenwald

I mean, that is what I said. I felt I was pretty clear.

Perhaps credible was the wrong word. Impartial?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is like the 4th time youve said Redrocket and I are both personally offended.

I dont think redrocket was a Bernie supporter, and why do we have to be offended to point out a stupid phrase was used?

'Cause you wouldn't have chosen this hill to die on if you didn't have some personal stake in it, of course.

You could have just admitted you made a terrible assumption, overreacted, and left it at that.
---

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters against Obama.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

Edit: fuck because of the times I accidentally Trump instead of Obama lmao
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters under Trump.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

Doesn't this undercut your statement that it was only Sanders who had a "name" attributed to these kinds of supporters? Because those Clinton supporters went by "PUMAs" in 2008, right?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters against Obama.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

At the rate and extremity Bernie Bros jumped over to the alt-right? You sure about that?

I mean, they joined a group that thinks the candidate they preferred should die simply because he's Jewish?

Are you sure about that? Because I'm extremely skeptical.
---

I worked for Clinton in 2008 and when I got into the voter both I still hesitated - I hadn't fully committed to voting for Obama until I was in the both and even at one point had McCain clicked.
---

xp1337 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters under Trump.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

Doesn't this undercut your statement that it was only Sanders who had a "name" attributed to these kinds of supporters? Because those Clinton supporters went by "PUMAs" in 2008, right?

Was PUMAs also used to describe a very specific group of toxic supporters during the election too?

If so, then I think it supports my statement that singling out those people is dumb, because whats the name of Republicans who didnt vote McCain after their candidate lost?

If not, then its not the same thing.
---

Sidebar: Don't think trying to make this a numbers game is a productive line. I haven't seen much data towards that at all, but what very little I have seen suggests that percentage-wise Clinton holdouts went to McCain slightly more than Sanders holdouts went to Trump.

Again, this is just my recollection as I noted when Corrik asked for a source (since it was not my claim and I was just mentioning it was something I'd seen, and I can't speak to its reliability, but yeah.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Was PUMAs also used to describe a very specific group of toxic supporters during the election too?

well i mean it stood for Party Unity My Ass

It was the name for the group of Clinton supporters who refused to back Obama in 2008.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters against Obama.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

At the rate and extremity Bernie Bros jumped over to the alt-right? You sure about that?

I mean, they joined a group that thinks the candidate they preferred should die simply because he's Jewish?

Are you sure about that? Because I'm extremely skeptical.

None of what you said has anything to do with the phrase Bernie Bros.

The primary coverage was before the election, and if you think theres some monolithic group of Bernie supporters who all literally became Nazis youre fucking nuts.
---

xp1337 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Was PUMAs also used to describe a very specific group of toxic supporters during the election too?

well i mean it stood for Party Unity My Ass

It was the name for the group of Clinton supporters who refused to back Obama in 2008.

Now that you mention it, I do remember it, and as 20 year old VERY excited Obama supporter I remember not giving them much mind because I thought they were dumb as hell.

Anyway, as far the group of people who went from Bernie to Trump, I was not one of them, but in hindsight I see the logic in Hillary is more of the same, a shitty Republican might jump start a 2008 style awakening.

I can see the argument against the Pressure Valve theory, but Ive also seen firsthand my mildly Bernie supporter-turned abstaining voter best friend and his political group become energized vehemently against Trump for being so cartoonishly villainous, so it goes without saying 2018/2020 are going to be nuts.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean, it's not every day that the group is so awful that when their candidate loses, they go completely against everything their preferred candidate stood for out of spite, even siding with people who would want their candidate dead. That is fairly unique, yes.

This literally happened with certain Hillary supporters against Obama.

It happens literally every election.

Get the point, yet?

At the rate and extremity Bernie Bros jumped over to the alt-right? You sure about that?

I mean, they joined a group that thinks the candidate they preferred should die simply because he's Jewish?

Are you sure about that? Because I'm extremely skeptical.

None of what you said has anything to do with the phrase Bernie Bros.

The primary coverage was before the election, and if you think theres some monolithic group of Bernie supporters who all literally became Nazis youre fucking nuts.

...I was literally responding to what you said.

Sure, whatever, die on this hill for all I care. I was literally talking as a former Bernie supporter who was sick of that particular group of very vocal, very aggressive Bernie supporters. And I used a commonly accepted term for them. But sure, project all of your frustrations with the election on me, and try to paint me as a horrible jack-ass who is painting every Bernie supporter with the same brush despite having been one myself.

Now get the fuck off my dick.
---

Lmfao
---

did everyone know there were also very supportive sanders dudes on facebook aka what gamefaqs people dont use (lol)
---

I mean, I understand the idea behind the "Pressure Valve" theory, I'm just not totally sure it was a good idea. I touched on it before but while from a short-term electoral standpoint, a Clinton win would have been disastrous for Democrats in 2018/2020 and depending on the makeup of Congress not much may have been gained from it...

...I think it's just hard to try and weigh that against damage to institutions of government/democracy, damage to the ACA, DACA, etc. Not to mention we still don't know everything that will happen.

Sure, ideally you could repair some of that in time, but some of that damage you can't really. What do you say to a Dreamer for instance?

I just think it's really tough either way. So, I understand the thinking, I just don't know if it's really possible to weigh them against each other.
---

Guys this is the worst circlejerk.

The hivemind will be most unpleased.
---

At least this kinda disproves the whole "liberals just want an echo chamber" idea. I actually have something more substantial to say on the subject, but it's late and I need time to properly get my thoughts spelled out. So...yeah.
---

i mean trump, is, was, and will be a fucking travesty so who cares who you supported in the primaries unless you're dumb and argue on www.gamefaqs.gamestop.com in which case i mean i think when i die i can surely say "my website productivity really was great compared to like 30000 people my age who wasted time talking on random websites"

not like anyone cares, but thankfully i dont care that no one cares so im going to bed
---

Jesus. No wonder why conservatives always come home when it's time to vote and liberals don't. I can't think of any infighting between primary candidates like you all have.
---

Not that it really matters, but I think Hillary's health is really deteriorating. There was that video of her needing help to walk down steps after falling twice and now supposedly she fell in a bath tub and broke her wrist. Hope she is okay.
---