I was watching the "Is Bernie good enough on civil rights" back and forths ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

and it came to me (after reading rating comparison that included the aclu) ... as with a lot things of late, the partisans are speaking different languages/using different definitions ... just as we did in the social justice/economic justice back and forths.

I suspect those saying "What has Bernie done recently" define civil rights from a marginalized group frame (e.g., PoC, women, LGBT, the Disabled); whereas, those saying, "Bernie's GREAT on civil rights", (when not referring to 50+ year old stuff) reflect a relatively new DU bent towards civil rights being stuff like opposing the Patriot Act, the NSA, standing for unfettered "Freedom of Speak" and the 4th amendment.

And there probably is a reason for that ... it reflects the ideological divide on DU, where all rights/justice are equal; but, some are more equal than others.

[notadmblnd]

1. I think when it comes to us white folks that there is always room for improvement

However, I do think Bernie would be a champion of civil rights and equality.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Those items of the new 'civil rights' crowd

To me - go to Civil Liberties as opposed to Civil Rights.


I wish they would break it down -

Because on Civil Rights - Obama is the best we've had since LBJ. There are many who are focused on Civil Liberties who are so blinded by the NSA -

They can't see what he's done to protect minorities, women, and the GLBT community. They can't see it because perhaps they are seeing all of those items as one?

Been many years since I've taken a Civ Libs or Con Law class - but Civ Libs IIRC are being mistaken for Civil Rights?

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. +1 ...

Civil Liberties as opposed to Civil Rights. I wish they would break it down

And out themselves??? Look they just had the G.A.S. dust storm blow over, why stir up the Civil libertarian/Liberal/Democrat dust again ... this close to the election?

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. +1

[BainsBane]

5. civil liberties and civil rights are commonly understood as different general areas

Though I saw the one poster conflate the two. Perhaps more have.

[MADem]

10. "Common understanding" is an uncommon trait here at DU.

Some people are genuinely obtuse, and some people are willfully so. The latter are more interested in "WINNING!!!!" and getting lots of recs for their noxious, flame-bait posts than actually having a discussion about issues of genuine concern to POC. When they're not dismissing those concerns out of hand, they're mocking them.

I've seen it!


Don't care for it much, though, and I know I'm not alone on that score...!

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Will this ...

"Common understanding" is an uncommon trait here at DU.

Is not exactly true ... see any discussion of the definition of the term "racism" ... they are completely comfortable with the "Common (though, antiquated) understanding."

[MADem]

16. Some folks want their "common" definitions to control the rest of us.

I'm not feeling that!

[marym625]

6. Sorry, but we don't have to reach into the past

To show what Bernie has done. He was the first person in national office to come out against the attacks by police I'm Ferguson on the black community and the militarization of police. He has been steadfast in that as well

I believe strongly that all candidates have to address the racist policies and actions. But let's keep to facts

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. That gets to what I, also, noticed ...

having gone back and read the Ferguson threads, those most supportive of Bernie consistently posted about the police state being out of control ... and oh, yeah, those poor Black folks. So it appears not so much about what was/is happening to Black folks (i.e., Civil Rights); but rather, what could happen to ME! (i.e., civil liberties).

This is consistent with the recurring weed arguments, here ... I see many here supportive of legalization because they want to smoke dope, undisturbed; so rather than say that (rather uncompelling argument), they frame the argument for its disparate impact on Black folks. IOWs, they take a civil libertarian position and frame it as a civil rights issue.

I could point to several other examples; but, I think you get the point ... it's not about the marginalized; but rather, about their personal freedoms. And, it's rather transparent, over time and postings.

[marym625]

9. OK

Whatever. I thought you wanted honest conversation. I have never said anything even close to what you just wrote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I was not speaking directly about you; but, rather the common vein of argument ...

of (many) du progressives.

And what is more honest ... to discuss what I have observed, or a "whatever" response that accuses the person you disagree with of being dishonest after building the straw-man, "not me"?

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Not you marym

I think the 'pot heads' are a very clear example of folks not having one f*ck to give -

They are all about themselves (the American Condition)

Yet instead of being honest and stating - I just want to get high - they use the 'poor black people incarceration rates'.

Then look at how they will handle a police shooting - young black kid (Tamir is a great example) is a big thug who had it coming . . .

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. That is partially what I was saying ...

The weed part was dead on what I was saying; however the Rice matter was a bit off. However they cast Rice (and his family, now), the "concern" I see is not for how Rice was gunned down; but rather, that the police (state ) is out of control.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. No we are saying the same thing on Rice

However, they will STILL try to make excuses when it's a young black man.

Some of the most strident 'Civ Libs' anti-NSA folks here - had some pretty cold hearts towards, Michael, Trayvon, Jordan, etc. etc.

[Number23]

24. You've never seen any of the 600 times that pro-pot posters here have done the "but it

disenfranchises black people!!1" wail? And then go totally deaf and mute when other discrepancies in prison sentencing, policing etc. are brought up that also disenfranchise black people?

And you snarl at 1SBM about "wanting honest conversation?" For real?

[kenfrequed]

26. Well now

I think part of the frame of legalization includes the fact that there is a disparate treatment between white and black people that break silly laws of possesion and use of this. I think legalization actually is the Alexandrian solution to laws that have been used by out of control police departments and DA's offices against young black men.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with Bernie Sanders.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. It has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders; but, is an observation of ...

those participating in the backs and forths.

as with a lot things of late, the partisans are speaking different languages/using different definitions ... just as we did in the social justice/economic justice back and forths.

I suspect those saying "What has Bernie done recently" define civil rights from a marginalized group frame (e.g., PoC, women, LGBT, the Disabled); whereas, those saying, "Bernie's GREAT on civil rights", (when not referring to 50+ year old stuff) reflect a relatively new DU bent towards civil rights being stuff like opposing the Patriot Act, the NSA, standing for unfettered "Freedom of Speak" and the 4th amendment.

And there probably is a reason for that ... it reflects the ideological divide on DU, where all rights/justice are equal; but, some are more equal than others.

[kenfrequed]

28. I don't agree with your contextual frame

Economic justice is all about marginalized groups.

You seem intent on creating a division where none exists.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. How is my recognizing division creating the division? ...

No matter how much money I have, racism (both institutionalized and that expressed by individuals) still exists.

[kenfrequed]

30. Uhm...huh?

No one is denying racism.

Are you even reading my posts?

The party conflict is that you seem to be dividing race and socioeconomic class when they are completely entwined. Between your reaction and your "cut and paste" responses I am have to wonder if you are being sincere.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Are you reading what I am writing ...

race and socioeconomic class are NOT completely entwined. If that were the case, there would be no poor white people, as whites as a class possess wealth; and, there would be no affluent PoC, as PoC possess less wealth.

[kenfrequed]

33. Well now

Tell me the relative poverty rates between black people and white people and in the next breath say that classism and racism are not entwined. Do it with a straight face.


Never mind. I already understand your game.

You are not here for actual discussion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Pre-emptive dismissal, with a side of ...

"not here for actual discussion" ... do you realize how condescendingly F'd up, that is?

Could it be that the relative poverty rate is the RESULT of racism and the classism only comes up when a poor white person finds themselves poor?

[Starry Messenger]

7. A couple of posters have pitted

"Progressives" against {various constituent groups} which is bizarre to me. It shows the bubble that some white progressives are in--esp. since Latinos and Blacks both poll approval in much higher rates on progressive issues than, say, Occupy.

I think on some level these posters know they are going to have to attract a multi-racial coalition to succeed, but are resenting that it isn't automatic. Which is highly ironic, since these are the same folks who complain about being taken for granted.

There was a poster here years ago who nailed these people--the obsession with deep state and conspiracy theory is actually reactionary, because it hearkens to wanting to wind back to a point where white Joe Lunchbox was on top of the world, and the white middle-class was holding the steering wheel.

They think that if they can destroy the ancillary things they perceive as their obstacles, we'll get that world back, and they will regain their privilege.

Bain Bain's post yesterday reminded me of that. The new pivot to "socialism" is just a smokescreen for being resentful they've lost their position as the golden child of capitalism.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. This ...

The new pivot to "socialism" is just a smokescreen for being resentful they've lost their position as the golden child of capitalism.

Which is clear once the argument is pealed back ... it's not really the 99 versus the 1%, the battle is more like the upper 10 versus the top 1%. How else can one explain the rush to "go over the fiscal cliff" or the unconcern over a government shut down, both of which would present immediate survival issues for the vast majority of the bottom 50%, because of not increasing the taxes on the 1%, which would not affect the lower 50% ... but would close the gap between the 10% and the 1%?

[Starry Messenger]

13. Exactly!

[Behind the Aegis]

19. You pointed that fact out in another thread.

That thread (also a topic here by Freshwest) seems to be a hallmark (watermark?) of the position held by some who call themselves progressives. The comment about capitalism being OK with same-sex marriage...seriously... ! I haven't even been married a year because it wasn't legal in my state, yet I am somehow to believe capitalism is OK with same-sex marriage?!

I will say, though, some self-professed progressives have pitted themselves against various groups, with no prompting from others. A statement from that article is exactly how I am seeing some arguments here:

as people get more wealthy they tend to become less committed to the redistribution of wealth but there are lots of ways in which they become “more liberal”—with respect to gay rights, antiracism, with respect to all the so-called “social issues,” as long as these social issues are defined in such a way that they have nothing to do with decreasing the increased inequalities brought about by capitalism, which is to say, taking away rich liberals’ money.

I am sorry, but my equal rights are not piffle! The fact the author puts quotes around 'social issues' demonstrates a nasty attitude toward equality of certain groups, as if they are mere sideshow distractions. There are some who really need to understand our lives, those of GLBT, AA, other ethnic groups, women, are not "frivolous" and have value.

I know you already understand this as you are an ally to the GLBT community, but there are many people here who would benefit from this brief video:

napkinz

[Starry Messenger]

25. Great video!!

I'll share that around on social media. "Stay in your lane!" We need that as a gif!

I don't get that whole--capitalism is ok with marriage equality thing, at all. If you read ultra-right homophobic articles, they blame the rising of gay rights for the decline of capitalism and think that hetero-patriarchal families are the key to regaining the American Dream. And like you said, they sure fight like death to oppose any advances--and you can be fired for being gay or trans in several states. That's not capitalism being ok with gay rights.

"The fact the author puts quotes around 'social issues' demonstrates a nasty attitude toward equality of certain groups, as if they are mere sideshow distractions. There are some who really need to understand our lives, those of GLBT, AA, other ethnic groups, women, are not "frivolous" and have value."

Only someone who was born on third base and is too blinded to consider that other viewpoints might have more validity would say that civil rights are some kind of easy to obtain desert topping. I could write volumes on this kind of white-cis-straight bias in left circles. It crops up in even more insidious ways--at least the author of that crap article showed us his entire ass. It's just sad that some DUers are cheering it on.

[Number23]

36. I was just about to say, Bain has been nailing these people on that same vein for a while

because it hearkens to wanting to wind back to a point where white Joe Lunchbox was on top of the world, and the white middle-class was holding the steering wheel.

But in truth, this is something that just about every black poster on DU has been saying for a long time. That the folks who are endlessly complaining also seem to be the ones who are endlessly pining about the Good Old Days and we see exactly what those people are doing. It pisses them off that we see them, but we do.

[Starry Messenger]

38. +1

Yes, the Black posters have been saying that for years. I was born in 1970, so I'm not from the New Deal era, but it wasn't that long before I was born that it was still illegal for Blacks and whites to marry, so its not like these "elders" don't know wtf Jim Crow was and how recently it was finally taken on in the legal system. And it's not like the effects just magically washed away--and people want *that* back or didn't care when it was going on?

It's kind of shocking (maybe just to me) that it only took a few days for some folks to start claiming that they didn't need anyone else but "the progressives," who are evidently some non-voting invisible leftist unicorns that have been waiting for the progressive messiah candidate.

Like, thanks! we don't need you anymore--you've been voting like a sheep all of these years and we've got it all figured out!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. There is a difference between civil liberties and civil rights though both are important

I suspect some black guy who is trying to get a cab a 2:00 A.M. is more concerned about actually getting a cab than he is of the N.S.A. tapping his phone.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Agreed.

However, the example I would use is a black guy not getting gunned down over a routine traffic stop, as that example is about institutionalized racism, as opposed to societal/individual racism. I am gay (I know shocker, I never talk about it) and while I certainly don't want anyone tapping my phones, right now, I am worried if I will get to have a legally recognized one year marriage anniversary! If the SCOTUS doesn't do the right thing, I could be fucked, and not in the good way!

So yeah, civil liberties and civil rights are both quite important, and to be perfectly honest, I see those two things more intimately intertwined than I do economic liberties and civil rights. Afterall, when it comes to civil liberties, it is often the minority who is at the bad end of that stick (wire tappings of AA political leaders, GLBT attending anything remotely GLBT, women seeking reproductive choices).

[heaven05]

23. will your rights

are important, you still have them....no matter the circumstances. SCOTUS is taking AWAY my civil and human rights in this country from POC. And those rights were gained at the end of a rope, or being castrated and burned alive or shot down while unarmed. I suspect after all my rights are gone you will still have some. Am I right or wrong?

[Behind the Aegis]

44. You do realize gay people can be fired for being gay, right?

You also realize there are 26 states where GLBT people can be denied housing, correct? There are certainly rights I have as a male and being white which are not affected, but being gay, I certainly do have some areas in which my civil rights aren't a sure thing.

[heaven05]

46. you said what I was looking for

nuff said.

[JustAnotherGen]

45. I have to disagree

We are the clearly visible low hanging fruit for the knuckle dragging mouth breathers.

Who is next?

[heaven05]

22. BAM!!!!!

nail on the head........

[DeadLetterOffice]

31. As a middle aged, rural, white female...

... I don't think it would be my place to tell a young, urban, black male (for example) what he should or should not find relevant, disturbing, or uplifting about any particular candidate. I mean, how the hell would I know? I would be justifiably pissed of that same person tried to tell me what I should relevant/disturbing/etc. Doesn't mean a person can't criticize candidates, just that telling other people what they should think is really stupid. The white people who keep posting about what people of color ought to think/feel/etc. or how they should react make me cringe in embarrassment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Please say that again ...

apparently, my pointing that out and providing an observed possible reason (e.g., civil rights to PoC tends to be viewed by PoC frame the frame of being of a/the socially marginalized group; whereas, those not of a/the socially marginalized group tend to view civil rights as a matter of personal liberties), is my creating division; but, them being dismissive of that view, is ... well ... what?

[DeadLetterOffice]

40. Should we be kind...

... and say that they are being dismissive by accident? Or they are simply misguided? Or perhaps they are young and under-exposed as yet to different points of view?
Or we could be less kind, and say that some people are being dismissive of you because your narrative does not match with theirs and therefore yours must be wrong. Amazing the age folks can manage to reach and still have that behavior pattern...

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I have my thoughts; but, I will just. ...

Agree that it is under exposure and an unwillingness to accept what is clearly foreign to some.

But I am always amazed that "liberals"/"progressives are so quick to charge "divisiveness" whenever a PoC speaks to a matter of race ... as if, we live in this racial wonderland, where more money is the answer to everything.

That is NOT my life's experience ... even in this "liberal" space.

[Number23]

37. "The white people who keep posting about what people of color ought to think/feel/etc"

make me cringe in embarrassment."

You are always welcome in this forum. At least by me.

[DeadLetterOffice]

39. Well thank you!

But seriously, I don't get it. I don't feel like I can even extrapolate my own experiences to other people who are my demographic equivalent - I don't know what another person has been through that might shape their politics - so how the hell can I do it to people who aren't? Boggles the mind.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Careful ...

Post the "cringe in embarrassment " line in another forum /group and some liberal will introduce you to the REAL problem ... "white guilt"!

Yes. You are welcome here anytime.

[DeadLetterOffice]

43. *snerk* n/t

[heaven05]

47. +1000

[BainsBane]

48. As much as I try not to let this site determine my view of Sanders

I'm finding it increasingly difficult. I see a lot of reactionary views posing as liberalism/leftism, and I do not like any of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Agreed. ...

It has been said that HRC's greatest threat to her candidacy is herself ... Sadly, it appears that the greatest threat to the Bernie candidacy is his "supporters" ... at least those on DU.

While I, initially, surmised Bernie's DU support was rooted in "not-HRC", I now see it is perfectly consistent with the civil libertarian support we saw with Greenwald, Assange, Snowden, even Putin.

And after reviewing a bunch of posts of the most ardent of DU Bernie supporters, it is becoming clear ... they are attracted to Bernie, not for his civil rights chops (that they are now breaking neck to defend); but rather, his civil libertarian leanings.

And I can see why his positions of focus would be attractive, and his lack of (?) focus on civil rights is untroubling.

**** this is not to say Bernie is unconcerned or apathetic on civil rights ... he just appears (like many of his supporters) to see civil rights and civil liberties as one in the same.