Categories
open thread

Super Tuesday open thread

Joe Biden: Does anyone really think this weirdo dingus can beat Trump

By David Futrelle

Big day. Big big day. Lots of shit going on. Discuss.

Also: VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

I mean, if you’re in the US. If you’re not in the US, I guess don’t vote, unless maybe you’re a citizen abroad but I don’t know how the mechanics of that work exactly.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

339 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Perry

That’s part of the reason why I don’t know what to do or how to fix this

‘Yo, that sucks, fam. I’m sorry you went thru that. I promise it’s a very tiny minority, and we don’t like those people either. I hope you’ll still consider voting for Sanders. [insert least shitty pitch you can muster here]’

If by “fix this” you mean ‘begin to build bridges to people burned by toxic stans’, then there’s your fix. Nobody expects you to “root them out”. Nor does anyone imagine you could. Harassy fuckfaces are notoriously persistent. I guarantee the best thing you can do is to meet people where they are, take harassment seriously, and not be a shit

Assuming ‘the movement’ matters to you in a way that’s not strictly performative (which I am still willing to assume, my magnanimity knowing no bounds), what do you think you gain by pivoting from someone’s claim of harassment to:

even more alarming for me, is the outpouring of material human suffering that will continue if Biden gets the nominee

Could you imagine a campaign staffer or outreach organizer saying some shit like this? Why do you think that is? Well, cos dismissing people’s concerns both doesn’t actually make them go away and is the worst way to convince people you’re on their side. Not that complicated, I’d think. Which brings me to:

Politics aren’t defined by rhetoric, it’s defined by life and death policy consequences

Bullshit. I mean, you know that’s bullshit. You’ve expended many paragraphs of your time in this very thread lionizing the role of the demagogue. Ya know, the politician defined by rhetoric? Fuckin, you’re right here framing the discussion in terms of dramatic sounding words like “death” and “consequences” and “suffering”. Rhetoric matters. So, what do you want your rhetoric to say?

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

Assuming ‘the movement’ matters to you in a way that’s not strictly performative (which I am still willing to assume, my magnanimity knowing no bounds)

You’re nicer than I am, Axecalibur.

Allandrel
Allandrel
4 years ago

@Naglfar

The single axis of oppression in some cases seems to serve another purpose: it allows people to pivot discussions back to their own people. When they reduce everything to class and avoid talking about the impact of race, gender, disability, etc., it’s a way to go back to talking about abled cishet white dudes rather than having to listen to minority voices.

Exactly. The Lesser Oppressions that must be ignored in favor of combating the One True Oppression always seem to be those that don’t affect the radical in question.

And like you said, some of us are in real danger. I’m a white hetero cis man, but I’m also disabled with end-stage renal failure. Without Social Security AND Medicare AND Medicaid, I will die. But plenty of radicals would rather than I die than that they have to compromise.

(And that’s not even getting into the likes of the several types of anarchists where I would die if they DID get their utopia, since they are so privileged that the idea of people who cannot live without substantial infrastructure doesn’t occur to them.)

I REALLY don’t want to sound like I’m engaging in bothersiderism here, because there really is no comparison, ESPECIALLY in terms of number or power. Radicals aren’t trying to kill people like me, we’re just acceptable casualties to their sense of righteousness. But conservatives ARE actively trying to bring about our deaths – hell, Paul Ryan repeatedly declared that his lifelong dream since college was to completely eliminate the programs keeping me alive, and the Republican Party responded by giving him the most powerful position that they could.

An Impish Pepper
An Impish Pepper
4 years ago

Yeah I’m not much of a fan of evangelizing leftism to the WHTM commentariat as if there isn’t a wide spectrum of political beliefs here. A lot of people here do in fact lean pretty far left. There was one in this very thread identifying as a “hard communist.”

It also does no good to get defensive about people who are ostensibly on the same “side” doing awful stuff. I’ve seen some terrible things happen on online predominantly leftist spaces. No ideology is free of sin.

Part of it I think is most definitely the nature of mass social media. Of course the big platforms are engineered to make stuff like “stan culture” worse, but even without that, large communities online still have the same problems. I think it really matters that we take accountability seriously in whatever way we can. It really sucks that the Overton window is where it is, but if this stuff can’t be sorted out on a smaller scale, what hope do we have to sort them out on a larger scale, and usher in the kind of world we all want?

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

Politics can sometimes bring out the worst in people. One of the biggest reasons why the Left keeps on losing is lack of intersectionality. One the one hand you got the socialist misogynists, dismissing women’s issue as Idpol, on the other hand you got White feminists dissing POC over aesthetic feminism, then you get ableism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.

I’ve seen my fair share of this shit across the media in the last few days. I was reading some assholes over at Wonkette dismissing the Nazi flag incident as a hoax, started by the Sanders campaign to victimize himself.

But likewise I see plenty of Sanders’ stans calling Biden’s Black voters “low info”.

As someone once said it, getting the Left to agree on something is like herding cats. Makes me wonder if it’s possible.

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 years ago

@Diego Duarte

I was reading some assholes over at Wonkette dismissing the Nazi flag incident as a hoax, started by the Sanders campaign to victimize himself.

That’s not a good look. I thought it was only the right wing who claimed these kinds of things were “false flags.” Especially since it turns out the man who had the flag was an actual conservative with a history of these kinds of things.

As someone once said it, getting the Left to agree on something is like herding cats. Makes me wonder if it’s possible.

I would certainly hope it is possible. The fate of the world depends on it.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

@Naglfar

Yeah, they have also taken to accusing anyone and everyone that disagrees with them of being a Russian troll. There is a particular lady out there trying to imply Sanders is a Russian asset. I already ran out of patience with her.

Things are so great at the Sanders’ camp either, where they will accuse you of being a fascist or minimize the misogyny, whenever it’s brought up. Claiming it’s “Aesthetic Feminism” because liberals only care about representation instead of actual policy.

As far as I’m concerned, Warren had plenty of fucking great policy achievements.

These people are going to lose the election against Trump.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I mean, the right uses the anti-Semitic “George Soros funded” smear against political candidates that aren’t even Jewish. Is it really so hard to believe a Nazi would wave a swastika at a rally for the most famous Jewish politician in the country?

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

@WWTH

Is it really so hard to believe a Nazi would wave a swastika at a rally for the most famous Jewish politician in the country?

It’s really a self-serving lie. Of course it’s not hard to believe, but the way these people think to concede that there is toxicity in your camp is to lose the moral high ground. So, just like the toxic Bernie supporters, by claiming it’s all a hoax, or minimizing the toxicity coming from your side, you delegitimize the opponent and keep your moral standing intact.

This way they are able to do and claim as they want because their side, and only theirs, is the moral one, whereas the others are trolls or bad faith actors.

It’s straight up Right wing tactics of dehumanization.

Perry
Perry
4 years ago

I think a lot of the conflicts on “the left”, in the US at least, come from the wild amount of variance in what is considered the left. There’s the traditional left, who are anti-capitalists by definition. But even they have a lot of conflicts between all the different varieties of communists and anarchists, then of course the differing opinions on social and identity politics. Then you have liberals, who are capitalists, but describe both social democrats and neoliberals. Throw in the fact that the neoliberal Democratic party has literally been the only mainstream representation of “the left” for the past 70 years and we’re fucked.

@WWTH

I don’t have one master list. It’s been a drip, drip, drip of people talking about receiving threats over the years. Anyone who follows the social media of any progressive woman who isn’t on the Bernie train will be familiar. I’m honestly shocked that people are acting like this is brand new information or need a list to be convinced.

I’m truly disgusted that on a feminist site, we’re doing this. It’s feminism 101 that just because people belong to a group you identify with, doesn’t mean harassment allegations are false.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexual-harassment-sexism/?comments=1#comments

The article above has more to do with the internal politics of the campaign, but I looked it up again because when I read it awhile back it was really resonant.

Never said no one was threatened, nor that harrassment allegations are false. All I’m maintaining is that it isn’t a problem with Bernie’s campaign more so than any other campaign, yet all of the discourse centers around making that case without actually making it. Again, we’re kind of stuck in this Motte & Bailey loop where you assert that “harrassment is something that needs to be uniquely addressed by the Sanders campaign”, and when I ask how you’ve determined that, you fall back to “harrassment exists and is a problem”. Two massively divergent things.

But if there are absolutely no political considerations in this discussion, and the only thing that matters is neutrally listening to people, I do wonder how much I would be listened to if I talked about how much myself and my friends are constantly threatened and harrassed by democratic party operatives and supporters of all the candidates, including Warren’s? Anyone who follows the social media of Briahna Joy Gray and Nina Turner is familiar with this. How about we address the problems of “GamerGate tactics” in the democratic establishment? How much time is dedicated to talking about the culture of harrassment Hillary Clinton presided over (linked in article above), the same woman who invented the Bernie bro narrative?

@Axecalibur

Bullshit. I mean, you know that’s bullshit. You’ve expended many paragraphs of your time in this very thread lionizing the role of the demagogue. Ya know, the politician defined by rhetoric? Fuckin, you’re right here framing the discussion in terms of dramatic sounding words like “death” and “consequences” and “suffering”. Rhetoric matters. So, what do you want your rhetoric to say?

Of course rhetoric matters, it just doesn’t define politics. It’s the superficial tool you use to either persuade and energize people to carry out your policy goals, or dispirit them enough so that they won’t be oppose you. I’m not particularly interested in my own rhetoric at the moment, because I’m not trying to persuade or dispirit anyone here. I get the sense that most people here are politically engaged enough to have formed their own convictions, and in any case I’m not out to canvass anyone right now. I just like to talk politics, and I don’t get a chance to talk to liberals online a lot, so I’m literally just adding my voice to the conversation.

Assuming ‘the movement’ matters to you in a way that’s not strictly performative (which I am still willing to assume, my magnanimity knowing no bounds), what do you think you gain by pivoting from someone’s claim of harassment to:

“even more alarming for me, is the outpouring of material human suffering that will continue if Biden gets the nominee”

Context? First of all, I wasn’t responding to anyone who shared the harrassment experience, just people talking second hand about harrassment. I can express sympathy still, but it’s harder to do that when the victim isn’t a part of the conversation, and since this is still a conversation explicitly centered around the political implications of that harrassment, so I’m gonna talk about those as well.

Literally saw a bunch of Warren supporters making fun of Bernie supporters freaking out because they have to ration their insulin today, another one going “whoops” after Super Tuesday to someone who can’t afford their cancer treatments. Yet I’m sure you’re not gonna drop everything to condemn the callousness and harrassment endemic to the Warren campaign and leave it at that, nor should you.

The ultimate performance for me would be if I had just vaguely gestured towards the unique failings of my campaign and apologized to the unnamed and absent victims of harrassment, without engaged in the broader political and electoral implications (this is a thread about Super Tuesday) in order to fit the narrow mold of a liberal feminist.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

Perry, thank you for demonstrating that you’re not here in good faith. You can leave now.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Hippodameia,

Yeah, that was clear after he caped for the Chapo dudes. But now it’s even more clear. Mask off as the kids say.

Anyway. Trump might have Coronavirus now

https://twitter.com/ColbyItkowitz/status/1236446922250096646?s=20

comment image

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 years ago

@WWTH
Well, Trump has also told his fans at rallies that they can go to work with coronavirus and given a lot of other horrible advice. While it’s possibly a stretch to say he has it, I can’t imagine his hygiene is very good or that he takes good precautions.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

I’ll really be heartbroken if he’s been exposed.

Perry
Perry
4 years ago

Okay, thanks for defining “good faith” to mean “doesn’t disagree anything I say or ask for more information”. Y’all can ban me if y’all want, and that’s fine I guess, but until then I’ll check out the posts and comment just just everyone else.

The Chapo thing is actually a perfect example of that though. If I recall correctly, Axecalibur brought them up in a disparaging way that wasn’t familiar to me as a member of that community (at least on reddit, we’re legit a bunch of trans comrades who spend like half our time shitting on Nazis). So when I probed for more details as to how our experiences with Chapo were so different — turns out they had consumed none of the content they were judging. I concede that I’m a blunt person, but I’m not dishonest, so to be accused of being bad faith in the context of that level of discourse is pretty wild.

(Also, not really a “him”, I strongly prefer they/them.)

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
4 years ago

Any day now, a leak from White House will reveal that they’re comprehensively testing staff for coronavirus.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Hippodameia

You’re nicer than I am, Axecalibur

Shhh, don’t spread rumors that I’m nice. People will get the wrong idea. Libel!!!

@Perry

Axecalibur brought them up in a disparaging way that wasn’t familiar to me as a member of that community (at least on reddit, we’re legit a bunch of trans comrades who spend like half our time shitting on Nazis). So when I probed for more details as to how our experiences with Chapo were so different — turns out they had consumed none of the content they were judging

Uhm… what? 1st of all, I don’t need to have actually heard their show (with my only human ears at that) to know they’re bad. No thanks. 2nd of all, you didn’t “probe for details”. You (and I went back to reread your comment, due diligence and all) asked how many episodes I’d listened to, explained to me the difference between identity politics and leftist intersectionality for some reason, complained about nazbols and liberals, defined class conflict as the “foundational conflict of humanity”, and then dismissed some leftists on the sub as bad. In that order. So, real rap, where was the probe? You just said I was wrong and moved on. Which is cool, I do that all the time, but let’s not act like I’m being notably unsocratic here

Okay, thanks for defining “good faith” to mean “doesn’t disagree anything I say or ask for more information

Again, where was the asking? Due diligence! Reread your comment directly preceding your being accused of bad faith. Lotta hypotheticals ending in question marks, buncha accusations of “Motte and Bailey”, but not many actual questions tho

to be accused of being bad faith in the context of that level of discourse is pretty wild

Remember what I said about being all defensive? Just a suggestion. Cos, like… >_>

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Okay, thanks for defining “good faith” to mean “doesn’t disagree anything I say or ask for more information”.

You’ve been given more information and rejected it.

The ultimate performance for me would be if I had just vaguely gestured towards the unique failings of my campaign and apologized to the unnamed and absent victims of harrassment, without engaged in the broader political and electoral implications (this is a thread about Super Tuesday) in order to fit the narrow mold of a liberal feminist.

I don’t know why getting names of harassment targets would help you. I could give you names. I can think of several people, all women, many women of color who’ve been subject to harassment, but why should I give out their names? Would it make you believe me more? Certainly not. You don’t believe me. Why would you believe them? I don’t know or trust you, so naming them for all I know, means pointing more harassers and/or sealions at them. If you cared to do an internet search, you could find the answers you supposedly seek, but you clearly either don’t know or care.

And why would I name them now, given that you’ve admitted that you’d only be performing concern or disagreement with that harassment.

So no, I’m not giving you names. I’m just going to point out that racism and misogyny is what turns a lot of voters away from the class equalizing policies you (supposedly) want to see enacted. So, ignoring and dismissing other bigotries does not remotely help the cause of class equality. There are legions of people out there voting for Republicans specifically because they’ll get through judges that will be hostile to reproductive rights. These same judges also reliably vote for corporations over workers. Fuck you for not caring about misogyny, but fuck you double for endangering your own cause because you’re just that committed to not caring about misogyny.

And it’s pretty rich that you would be so outraged over my GG comparison, but then come out and declare that any condemnation of misogynistic harassment would be purely performative. Self awareness, you lack it.

Perry
Perry
4 years ago

@Axecalibur

2nd of all, you didn’t “probe for details”. You (and I went back to reread your comment, due diligence and all) asked how many episodes I’d listened to, explained to me the difference between identity politics and leftist intersectionality for some reason, complained about nazbols and liberals, defined class conflict as the “foundational conflict of humanity”, and then dismissed some leftists on the sub as bad. In that order. So, real rap, where was the probe? You just said I was wrong and moved on. Which is cool, I do that all the time, but let’s not act like I’m being notably unsocratic here

Okay, so I did reread some things. Asking you how many episodes you listened to after was absolutely a probe for more information. I wasn’t being literal insofar as I wanted an exact number, I was just curious about what your experiences were with the content and if you had heard them say/do fucked up things. I then went on to explain my experiences with the Chapo community to give context for where I was coming from, and go over some of the criticisms I’d heard of us. In no way did tell you that you were wrong, or attempt to move on, and you can quote me if I missed it. I explicitly asked you a question because I wanted to know more about your experience, but you were the one who shut that part of the conversation down in your next comment.

Again, where was the asking? Due diligence! Reread your comment directly preceding your being accused of bad faith. Lotta hypotheticals ending in question marks, buncha accusations of “Motte and Bailey”, but not many actual questions tho

Okay, so I read that comment as well. I make a lot of statements, and also ask several questions, many more question than my singular assertion of the Motte & Bailey fallacy. Also, it seems like the bad faith accusations stretched beyond that one comment given that my liking of Chapo was held up as evidence.

So some of the questions I asked — the Chapo one, asking what mechanisms there where for determining whether harrassment is aunique epidemic in a particular community as well as the parameters of harrassment being discussed (rat emojis not the same as “I’m gonna rape/kill you), asking why you thought the term PMC was made up, asking, asking if accounts of poor treatment by Warren, Buttigieg, etc. supporters would be listened to the same as accounts of poor treatment by Sanders supporters.

Some of those questions you dismissed as hypotheticals ending in question marks but I’m not sure what they means. They’re questions the same as any other, and in most of the cases they’re stuff that happens.

Remember what I said about being all defensive? Just a suggestion. Cos, like… >_>

I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. I got accused of acting when bad faith when I’ve been as straightforward as I know how. I’m assuming if I ask for clarification on what bad faith means to you I’ll always be getting too defensive?

You’ve been given more information and rejected it.

Not really. I asked how you were determining that harrassment was a remarkably present in Bernie’s campaigns above the others, and all you said was that you saw it on social media and implied I was a bad feminist for wanting to know how you came to your conclusion. Even though I literally never denied the existence of harrassment, I wanted to know why there was a need to focus on harrassment in one campaign specifically. There’s no context, which is what I was asking about. In that vein, I also asked if harrassment by other supporters would be addressed in the same way/could be brought into the discourse and I didn’t get a response.

And it’s pretty rich that you would be so outraged over my GG comparison, but then come out and declare that any condemnation of misogynistic harassment would be purely performative. Self awareness, you lack it.

That’s not what I said.

The ultimate performance for me would be if I had just vaguely gestured towards the unique failings of my campaign and apologized to the unnamed and absent victims of harrassment, without engaged in the broader political and electoral implications (this is a thread about Super Tuesday) in order to fit the narrow mold of a liberal feminist.

So no, I’m not giving you names. I’m just going to point out that racism and misogyny is what turns a lot of voters away from the class equalizing policies you (supposedly) want to see enacted. So, ignoring and dismissing other bigotries does not remotely help the cause of class equality. There are legions of people out there voting for Republicans specifically because they’ll get through judges that will be hostile to reproductive rights. These same judges also reliably vote for corporations over workers. Fuck you for not caring about misogyny, but fuck you double for endangering your own cause because you’re just that committed to not caring about misogyny.

So, you talked about women you know being harrassed by Sanders supporters. I talked about women (and also just people) I know being harrassed by Warren supporters and centrist democrats. Based on this, I need to accept the latter as unique or I don’t care about racism or misogyny and I’m complicit in Republican judgeships.

Looking back on my first post on this whole topic, I didn’t deny misogyny, but rather questioned the idea that it was the primary reason for Warren’s drop in popularity. I stand by this assertion, by I also can see why it was received poorly on a liberal-leaning feminist space when people were upset about the suspension of her candidacy. I’m sorry for being overly analytical to the point of insensitivity on that front, but also I think some of the accusations about my character and intentions haven’t been based in any logic that I could parse, so I don’t really know where to go from here.

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 years ago

@Lumipuna

Any day now, a leak from White House will reveal that they’re comprehensively testing staff for coronavirus.

I can’t imagine Trump’s health is the best given his age and lifestyle, so he is at a fairly high risk of it. Somewhat curious what the QAnon take of coronavirus is, but also not sure I want to know.

Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
4 years ago

If I had to estimate a prominent politician’s general health and 5-year survival prospects, I wouldn’t base it so much on their age or apparent lifestyle, but rather on how physically vigorous and mentally sharp they appear. Medical reports may be possibly considered, but I don’t really think the public is entitled to that kind of information.

I wouldn’t actually mind if Trump is given special protection from coronavirus, if only because him falling acutely, severely ill would likely breed conspiracy theories and destabilize the country. Hopefully, he can be voted out instead. I dearly hope there’s some special protection for the other elderly men running for office this year.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

Demanding the banhammer when everyone’s seen through your bullshit and you can’t get any traction is a classic troll tactic: getting banned makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something. But then, you keep claiming that you don’t talk to liberals much online, so you might not realize how utterly predictable you are.

Okay, thanks for defining “good faith” to mean “doesn’t disagree anything I say or ask for more information”.

No, it means not lying though your teeth:

I’m not particularly interested in my own rhetoric at the moment, because I’m not trying to persuade or dispirit anyone here.

I get the sense that most people here are politically engaged enough to have formed their own convictions, and in any case I’m not out to canvass anyone right now.

Of course you’re not.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I see the sealion is still sealioning.

Anyway, now the Bernie bros are whining about Elizabeth Warren going on SNL last night because apparently appearing in public without endorsing a candidate makes her a monster.

It’s beyond parody at this point.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

As I recall, four years ago they decided she robbed Sanders of Massachusetts by not endorsing him.

Maybe they should think about why it is that so many people don’t feel like endorsing him.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

@WWTH

Oh haven’t you heard? You are all apparently sociopaths: