Democratic Primary: Crisis of infinite candidates

Dave

Staff member
Yeah, they TRIED just ignoring him. When that didn't work, they then started working to hamstring him. I can't possibly fathom how you've never seen this before. I think you probably have and chose to discard it as anything worth looking into.





And a video explaining it.

 
This comment is literally the definition of a genetic fallacy.

Go look for yourself.
Use critical thinking while doing so.
I mean, there are actual pictures, for crying out loud. Actual facts. And not just a few. Dozens. Sometimes the conspiracy theorists are actually right, you know.

—Patrick
No, I offered my argument once the internet returned. It applies to several of the sources Dave linked (I admit to not reading them all.)
 
Centrism is the death of progress. It's the lie that white moderates choose to believe because they benefit from the status quo. Evidence: this thread
 
Yeah, they TRIED just ignoring him. When that didn't work, they then started working to hamstring him. I can't possibly fathom how you've never seen this before. I think you probably have and chose to discard it as anything worth looking into.





And a video explaining it.

You can't believe I don't read truthdig? Really?
 
No, I offered my argument once the internet returned. It applies to several of the sources Dave linked (I admit to not reading them all.)
I did add the part about omission once I’d read through your entire post.
Centrism is the death of progress. It's the lie that white moderates choose to believe because they benefit from the status quo. Evidence: this thread
This is my wife’s complaint, actually. The Biden camp’s campaign slogan has essentially been “A return to Normal.”
Her argument has been, “‘Normal’ sucks! We don’t need more of the last twenty years, we need people who actually want to improve stuff!”

—Patrick
 
You have nothing then? Just poetry?
Add for what? To change your mind? If I spend days campaigning on here and finally convince you, what would that accomplish? I'm more just publicly mourning, because I don't have a solution to that problem. You are correct, the majority of people are centrists, because the majority of people are comfortable. They have no reason to rock the boat, even if they think ideally it would be nice for things to change.
 
I see those people that are left of center as wanting progress but not as fast as those on the far left, who want change now now now NOW!

For the record, on some things I think there is urgency, but not on all things the far left advocates, which is why I am left of center and not farther.
Post automatically merged:

Add for what? To change your mind? If I spend days campaigning on here and finally convince you, what would that accomplish? I'm more just publicly mourning, because I don't have a solution to that problem. You are correct, the majority of people are centrists, because the majority of people are comfortable. They have no reason to rock the boat, even if they think ideally it would be nice for things to change.
You claimed evidence, so I figured you had more to say. Mourning is what it is.
 
EDIT: You seem to think this is merely about instances of negative criticism, and ignores the instances when Sanders was omitted entirely from discussion.

—Patrick
How does it compare to pieces that exclude Biden? Bernie supporters don't care about that, so they generally don't know, I suspect.
 

Dave

Staff member
You can't believe I don't read truthdig? Really?
Not specifically that site, but come on. Now you're just being pedantic. It's not exactly a huge secret that this was going on. I simply googled "Bernie blackout" & grabbed a FEW links.
 
Not specifically that site, but come on. Now you're just being pedantic. It's not exactly a huge secret that this was going on. I simply googled "Bernie blackout" & grabbed a FEW links.
Most of which I never heard of. So why are you surprised? I am not immersed in the Bernie echo chamber (obviously) so these obscure sources are not passed around.
 
I see those people that are left of center as wanting progress but not as fast as those on the far left, who want change now now now NOW!

For the record, on some things I think there is urgency, but not on all things the far left advocates, which is why I am left of center and not farther.
This is why I called centrism the death of progress. Not because centrists don't want it, but because they tell themselves that progress is coming, so things are ok. Tomorrow never comes, and things aren't ok. This is why I called it a lie, a way to feel good without actually ever changing anything.

And just to be clear, I don't see malicious intent in this. I know they mean well, and are reasonable people. But to quote Yoda (a valid source) "there is no try." Either things change or they don't, and the promise of change is how the status quo is maintained
 
This is why I called centrism the death of progress. Not because centrists don't want it, but because they tell themselves that progress is coming, so things are ok. Tomorrow never comes, and things aren't ok. This is why I called it a lie, a way to feel good without actually ever changing anything.

And just to be clear, I don't see malicious intent in this. I know they mean well, and are reasonable people. But to quote Yoda (a valid source) "there is no try." Either things change or they don't, and the promise of change is how the status quo is maintained
Obviously I disagree.
 
Reminder: people on the far right want "change" too, as fast and as much as possible, in the other direction. They, too, feel like there's a tide to stem and historic momentum and whatnot.
Change for change, because a minority wants it but is convinced the silent majority agrees with them, is not always good.
 
Reminder: people on the far right want "change" too, as fast and as much as possible, in the other direction. They, too, feel like there's a tide to stem and historic momentum and whatnot.
Change for change, because a minority wants it but is convinced the silent majority agrees with them, is not always good.
So, not to Hitler this thread (again) but if a minority of people are being exterminated and want to change that, and another minority wants to exterminate even more, do these cancel each other out? "Both sides" and all that.
 
How does it compare to pieces that exclude Biden? Bernie supporters don't care about that, so they generally don't know, I suspect.
I'm not talking about how pieces which exclude Biden might compare to pieces which exclude Bernie, I'm talking about the unbelievably topheavy proportion of pieces which excluded Bernie v. the pieces which do not exclude Bernie. It would seem you and I have been talking about two different things.

--Patrick
 
I'm not talking about how pieces which exclude Biden might compare to pieces which exclude Bernie, I'm talking about the unbelievably topheavy proportion of pieces which exclude Bernie v. the pieces which do not exclude Bernie. It would seem you and I have been talking about two different things.

--Patrick
Bias requires comparing to those who are not experiencing bias. By definition.
 
Bias requires comparing to those who are not experiencing bias. By definition.
...
It would appear you and I are still talking about two different things.
You cannot state that there must be no bias due to an inability to compare media:Bernie v. media:Biden when the reason we can't compare them is due to the media actually deliberately declining to cover Bernie.

Look, I don't feel like we're making any headway here. You stand unwavering in your beliefs (which I happen to disagree with), and I am just as rock-solid in my own interpretation of the (in)actions of the media. We can continue the discussion if you like, but I doubt it's going to end satisfactorily for either of us.

--Patrick
 
...
It would appear you and I are still talking about two different things.
You cannot state that there must be no bias due to an inability to compare media:Bernie v. media:Biden when the reason we can't compare them is due to the media actually deliberately declining cover Bernie.

Look, I don't feel like we're making any headway here. You stand unwavering in your beliefs (which I happen to disagree with), and I am just as rock-solid in my own interpretation of the (in)actions of the media. We can continue the discussion if you like, but I doubt it's going to end satisfactorily for either of us.

--Patrick
Sorry, I don't understand this post. Slow down maybe? Bernie not being discussed sometimes it's not bias, though. Because other candidates are not discussed sometimes too. Is it equal? Perhaps not. I can be convinced with a proper argument that is more than: "that looks unfair to me!"
 
This is why I called centrism the death of progress. Not because centrists don't want it, but because they tell themselves that progress is coming, so things are ok. Tomorrow never comes, and things aren't ok. This is why I called it a lie, a way to feel good without actually ever changing anything.

And just to be clear, I don't see malicious intent in this. I know they mean well, and are reasonable people. But to quote Yoda (a valid source) "there is no try." Either things change or they don't, and the promise of change is how the status quo is maintained
An odd thought occurred to me that upping the promise of progress doesn't change the formula here, just the promise made. Possibly it is a bigger lie in the end.
 
Also, I'm somewhat centrist. I do want change, quickly in some regards, slowly and more measured in others. Don't claim change needs to happen now, immediately, and aggressively, and think you just want more of the same as I do. I don't want a revolution.
 
other candidates are not discussed sometimes too. Is it equal? Perhaps not. I can be convinced with a proper argument that is more than: "that looks unfair to me!"
You have made it clear that we cannot convince you, that we will probably never be able to convince you. As @Dave pointed out above, you can research all you want by exploring with the search term "Bernie blindness."
There will be plenty of results. Some are admittedly sensational, others are backed by actual empirical observation and genuine journalism. You are a scientist, I assume you know methods that will help winnow the wheat from the chaff. There are far too many to be casually explained away by "oh, those were just mistakes" or even Hanlon's Razor.

I have now given you all the tools you need to find and review the same data set (or at least a functionally identical one) from which I drew my conclusion. What you do with this info is now up to you. If you arrive at a different conclusion than I did, then I encourage you to show your work and share with us (me) how we were duped. But you can't just dismiss it all by saying "I don't think Internet sources can really be trusted." If you want to prove that candidate coverage was truly fair and balanced, then by all means, please do so. Just don't forget to cite your sources, as we have.
I don't want a revolution.
I don't want a revolution, either. You can't reason with a mob. They're messy and imprecise. I'd rather dissect than amputate.
But if things don't start changing, it's what we're going to get.

--Patrick
 
You have made it clear that we cannot convince you, that we will probably never be able to convince you. As @Dave pointed out above, you can research all you want by exploring with the search term "Bernie blindness."
There will be plenty of results. Some are admittedly sensational, others are backed by actual empirical observation and genuine journalism. You are a scientist, I assume you know methods that will help winnow the wheat from the chaff. There are far too many to be casually explained away by "oh, those were just mistakes" or even Hanlon's Razor.

I have now given you all the tools you need to find and review the same data set (or at least a functionally identical one) from which I drew my conclusion. What you do with this info is now up to you. If you arrive at a different conclusion than I did, then I encourage you to show your work and share with us (me) how we were duped. But you can't just dismiss it all by saying "I don't think Internet sources can really be trusted." If you want to prove that candidate coverage was truly fair and balanced, then by all means, please do so. Just don't forget to cite your sources, as we have.

--Patrick
You provided nothing. You literally said look it up yourself. Is it any wonder I am not convinced? Your persuasive abilities are lacking in this regard. I can be convinced with a good quality argument. Yours had not been a good quality argument. You give up because it is too hard.

*shrug*

Fwiw, I see Bernie coverage everywhere. His message is out there. I find it very hard to believe the media is the reason he underperformed
 
I don't want a revolution.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't have any strong feelings about a Belgian revolution. Or any strong feelings about Belgium at all. Didn't your king run away? Did you ever find him?

Edit: While researching I have discovered this joke isn't nearly as current as I thought it was, that happened six years ago. I don't know anything more current about Belgium.
 
Last edited:
You give up because it is too hard.
I gave up because even though I and @Dave have already provided a dozen or more sources at a minimum, you continue to handwave us (and them) away and say, "That's not good enough. I want more sources. Ones I like."

The reason there is Bernie coverage NOW is because they were literally forced to stop ignoring him by his successes. Much like Coronavirus, there comes a point where the word-of-mouth buzz gets to be loud enough that even the absolute dumbest of stumps will be able to tell there's something you're not telling them.

As for the media being a reason he underperformed, I do not believe it is the sole reason he is underperforming. But I 100% believe it resulted in a loss of early momentum.

--Patrick
 
I gave up because even though I and @Dave have already provided a dozen or more sources at a minimum, you continue to handwave us (and them) away and say, "That's not good enough. I want more sources. Ones I like."

The reason there is Bernie coverage NOW is because they were literally forced to stop ignoring him by his successes. Much like Coronavirus, there comes a point where the word-of-mouth buzz gets to be loud enough that even the absolute dumbest of stumps will be able to tell there's something you're not telling them.

As for the media being a reason he underperformed, I do not believe it is the sole reason he is underperforming. But I 100% believe it contributed.

--Patrick
Here is my summary of the conversation:

- Claim: Media is biased against Bernie
- Me: I stated the bar necessary to conclude this is true
- Me: I also pointed out the provided evidence does not meet this bar
- You: Doubled (then tripled) down on the links provided.
- Me: Citing some sources is not the basis of a good quality argument.
- You: There is no convincing you.
 
You provided nothing. You literally said look it up yourself. Is it any wonder I am not convinced? Your persuasive abilities are lacking in this regard. I can be convinced with a good quality argument. Yours had not been a good quality argument. You give up because it is too hard.

*shrug*

Fwiw, I see Bernie coverage everywhere. His message is out there. I find it very hard to believe the media is the reason he underperformed
I agree. Even Tucker Carlson has been covering Bernie, and he's even managed to say a nice thing or two here and there.

I think a lot of people are all talk and no action. There's a lot of "we need to change the world" talk among people around my age, but when it comes down about it, they'll bitch about a 10 minute drive to Chickfil-a.

Bernie isnt an unknown figure. People know what he's about. The truth is Bernie isnt popular with demographics that actually go out and vote, and all the voter suppression in the world isnt going to give you turnout numbers like the one he's got. I'm not enthralled about the idea of a Biden candidacy, but I'm not going to act surprised it happened either.
 
Here is my summary of the conversation:
You stated the bar required for you to be convinced, you mean.

Here is my summary:
- Claim: Media is biased against Bernie
- You: I am not convinced
- Me: Here are the sources that convinced me
- You: I don't want to look at them
- Me: There is no convincing you

I very much feel like I am being sealioned right now.

--Patrick
 
You stated the bar required for you to be convinced, you mean.

Here is my summary:
- Claim: Media is biased against Bernie
- You: I am not convinced
- Me: Here are the sources that convinced me
- You: I don't want to look at them
- Me: There is no convincing you

I very much feel like I am being sealioned right now.

--Patrick
I stated the bar to meet the definition of bias. If you are convinced by lesser than that, it is on you.
 
If you are convinced by lesser than that, it is on you.
I am completely convinced that Bernie was treated unfairly, at least. Because he's Jewish, because he's a DINO, because he's old and had a heart attack, whatever it is that made people decide to exclude him and not take him seriously.
I see change coming. I would prefer it NOT be the sort of change that @Bubble181 alluded to, where we cross over and become a Fascist state where discrimination and caste are finally codified into law, and where the creation and enforcement of rules is solely based on the whims of the Rightmost.
Whichever change comes, no matter who gets elected, I expect future historians will shake their heads and point with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to the last 4 years as the crucial time period where we could've done something about it, but they can't figure out why we didn't.
The right loves bernie since they can use him to push the "bernie got screwed" narrative.
Yes. The reason we're not going to get progressive change is completely because Bernie screwed it up, and certainly not because of the Rightward pressure of the oligarchy.

--Patrick
 
I think this video needs to be brought up again. Cody does a good job talking how the media treated Bernie.


It goes into detail and provides a source list if further research is required.
 

Dave

Staff member
Biden is using COVID-19 to try and cancel the upcoming debate with Bernie. Sure, it's because of the virus, not because you're gonna get your ass handed to you.
 
Top