Has anyone actually seen the referenced posts that got Willie T booted?

[Bubzer]

Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down.

I'm more inclined to think Willie T was booted because he was a loud-n-proud Bernie supporter.

[winter is coming]

1. Here's a link to the post EarlG referenced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1520728

[merrily]

2. As I understand it, he posted an excerpt from CounterPunch.

His own post did not get him banned. However, quoting someone else saying the same thing his earlier post said did get him banned.

[Ivan Kaputski]

15. The same thing happened to L0oniX who only posted a link and snip.

[merrily]

18. Yes, I know. And, IMO, there is an argument to be made that Manny did not urge anyone

to vote for Bernie in the general, even if Hillary were the nominee. IIRC, his post ended with "Vote Bernie in 2016!" without specifying primary or general, though he did say he was going to vote Bernie 2016, no matter what. Supposedly, at that time, saying that was okay, as long as he did not urge others to do the same.

It is what it is

[In_The_Wind]

3. Seriously, I don't think Willie's PPR had anything to do with being a Bernie supporter.

[revbones]

4. One person kept comparing it to racism and stirred it up.

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Editted because she just targetted a post of mine that mentioned her and it got hidden.

[kath]

10. Someone came in to do some major shit-stirring with her "Amnesia" thread, about how "many of us"

are looking forward to Bernie dropping out of the race because he's such a racist, resurrecting all the racially divisive shit flung here over the past 9 months or so, giving rise to the desired and predictable frenzy.

WillyT jumped in an hour-and-a-half or so later with his OP.

[melman]

23. And as we can see

that is the kind of posting that is preferred by the admins. They have made that clear at this point.

[riderinthestorm]

40. More clicks equals more ad revenue $$$ for the admins. Conflict suits them nt

[Autumn]

5. edited to remove wrong link

[rhett o rick]

6. It's a tactic. Get the whole group to continue over and over calling someone a racist,

and then rationalize banning them. Our best bet is to put them on ignore. They can't bully you when on ignore.

[Bubzer]

7. Yeah... I saw them trying to get after you. Hope you added a few to your ignore list.

The baiting was really really bad.

[kath]

12. For some reason, when I saw your post on the other thread a little while ago,

the Salem witch trials popped into my head...

[JDPriestly]

14. Look. By definition, Hillary supporters are likely to be prone to grou-think.

That is what holds the Hillary support group together. They like to feel that they are part of something stable and grounded.

We who are Bernie supporters like his stands on the issues.

I support Bernie in great part because of his stands on cleaning up our financial system, cleaning out the fraud and dishonesty of all kinds from our financial system.

I support Bernie because he opposes the give-away-to-the-multinational-corporations that NAFTA and other trade agreements put in place.

I support Bernie because of his strong and long-standing stance in favor of civil rights and his welcome and strong stance in favor of Black Lives Matter.

I support Bernie because he supports women's rights.

I support Bernie because of his strong stance on the environment.

I support Benrie for his stands on many other issues but most of all because he is a moral human being who asks the question, "What is the right thing to do here?" He is human and is not and will not always be right, but at least that is his core question.

Above all, I support Bernie because of his stand on campaign finance.

On all of these issues, Hillary fails big time.

So when Hillary supporters read my posts and want to bar me from DU because they feel offended by something I say, I hope they will remember that my posts are aimed to offend or not offend them as individuals but to stand up for what I believe is right -- and I think
Bernie is doing the same. He avoids negative campaigning because it distracts from the message about moral and economic right and wrong.

[rhett o rick]

16. You said that very well. They follow blindly hoping for some protection or comfort

from their tough authoritarian leaders. And they resent those that are free from the domination of authoritarian leadership.

[Live and Learn]

26. + 100o nt

[Fairgo]

28. Well put

That is the fundamental difference.

[Rebkeh]

8. Yeah, first thing I saw

It was messed up, even if there is support for the argument (which is offensive), he should have left it alone while in DU.. There's no winning that battle.

Not that I'm defending the swarm, I don't think they much like me either. I've had many on my block list for weeks. I was banned from the H group weeks ago, didn't realize I was responding within the group. Thought I was in GDP.

[cloudythescribbler]

9. As a Bernie Supporter from Day 1, I find this "stockholm syndrome" nonsense abhorrent

What is truly shocking is not that this particular individual posted it on DU, but that apparently Counterpunch and other "reputable" sources and sites and individuals (I would be very interested to see linx to a sweep of those who have) seem to have propagated this patently condescending and racist nonsense.

I remember very well as an early Obama supporter (in the hopes that neoliberal Hillary could be at least challenged or -- what seemed at the time a bit wishful -- could be stopped by someone who at least SOUNDED like they were a progressive-leaning pol, if quite wisely a cagey one) when for quite a few months Hillary Cilnton was leading him in polls of African American voters by double digits. The reason then as now was hardly a mystery -- the Clinton presidency was for the broad public good economic times (tho I myself lived in a homeless shelter from Jan 96 on, but that's another story). The popularity of the Clinton presidency especially after years of W was not even wondered about then. Then, Oprah Winfrey especially and actively (and Chris Rock) very visibly and earlyish (Aug/Sept 07 if I recall correctly) came out strongly for Barack Obama and the tide rapidly started to turn. OK, now Obama is out of the running, and Hillary has been closely associated with his popular Administration -- this on top of the prosperous years under Bill Clinton. To act as if the support for her is a mystery is baffling and reflects on the observer(s) more than anything else

I say this fully agreeing with the critique of Michelle Alexander and others of the Clinton legacy.

For me, I still strongly support the need to mobilize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, whether victorious or not in the nomination/election struggle. This is about a broad movement, what Bernie Sanders refers to as a "political revolution". Well that "revolution" is not likely to come out of one candidacy, but as someone who urgently supported the idea of Bernie Sanders running -- AS A DEMOCRAT IN THE PRIMARIES, to really get the message heard and acted upon in ways that Ralph Nader, and other third party progressive candidates since I started voting in 76 have failed to do -- from well before he announced, it seems clear that the potential, assuming arguendo that Hillary Clinton is the nominee, for positive impact is YUUUUGE. The question in that hypothetical situation is what Bernie Sanders will do with all his support, both at the Convention and, after the election.

There was no serious sustained progressive opposition either during the Clinton presidency -- nothing to match the impact of the teabaggers + CPAC + ALEC on the rightwing, even with numbers of sympathizers not really greater than progressives have -- or now. It is true that there has been Occupy and then the Black Lives Matter movement, but these need to be built up (hopefully in a larger progressive maitrix, incorporating the wider issues Michelle Alexander raises among others) to the level of effective political mobilization on the RW. Obviously the forms of that mobilization need not be copycat of the right, but the power should at least aim to match and ultimately exceed that. The forces at every level militating against that are of course massive, including underground repression of authentic progressives that isn't effectively addressed, or even attempted to be; but the Bernie Sanders candidacy gives a starting point. Starting the day after the November '16 election, hopefully Bernie's campaign organization and list of supporters/donors etc will be mobilized as a kernel of a progressive force inside the Democratic Party as well as outside it.

So the logic of strongly supporting and sympathizing with Bernie over Hillary is obvious, while rejecting any Stockholm BS is equally obvious

[RoccoR5955]

17. Oh there was opposition to the Clinton administration

There were things going on, that just were not heard of in the mainstream media. We still organized those who we could to have little demonstrations here and there, to point out that the only ones who were really making it were the rich. There were not as many people connected with social media back then. It was there, but not in the ubiquitous form that it is today, so there were few of us.
I never did see Obama as a progressive, I only saw him as a middle of the road right winger. Face it, when Oprah and Chris Rock came out for him, they are the upper crust of ANY class, or color. They are the 1%. Of course they would, and did support another up and coming one percenter.

First there was Clinton who "reformed" welfare programs for the poor, while boosting handouts of welfare to the rich corporations, who then proceeded to take those handouts and move their jobs overseas. I cannot see how this helped the middle class at all. Oh, some of us stood up for it, all hundred of us in Union Square. Did the media cover it? No, because it was too small, and only if it bleeds, does it lead in the news business.

And then there was Bush, and the wars. Countless demonstrations BEFORE he went to war in Iraq, with one with tens of thousands in DC. Was that covered on MSM? No way, they wanted access to footage of people bleeding in Iraq, so that they could lead with it.

Then there was Obama, who put more corporate types in many of his cabinet positions, because he had gotten wind of what the RepubliCLOWNs were planning. They didn't want to pass ANY of his legislation, even if they were RepubliCON ideas. The party of racists wanted to make Obama a one term president. So with a swipe of his pen, and a handout to the health insurance companies, "Obamacare" was passed, in a hope to placate the masses, while handing out more cash to his campaign donors.
Then we had Occupy, which was getting larger every day. It was so big that MSM had to cover it. After all in some Occupy encampments there was bloodshed, so they could lead with it. Needless to say, with advice coordinated by the Obama administration, simultaneously encampments across the country were attacked by local police, and broken up.

Did folks come to the aid of Occupyers? No. Why? Could it be that they ALL had a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, being trapped and brainwashed in a capitalist system that does not benefit themselves, but only benefits the rich, led by the rich?
I'm sorry to tell you, but we are ALL prisoners of this capitalist rat race of a prison. Well except those of us on the top, who orchestrate things. Some of us have been aware of this, and will only play the game, because it is the only one in town, but we are well aware of it. Many are brainwashed to like it by the advertisers, and news, and other media that surround us each day. Few wake up to see that we actually do live in a kingdom of bullshit, and have become victims of Stockholm Syndrome, for sure.

So to point out one faction of the population who has exhibited this more markedly than others, I believe is not racist by nature, it is more like pointing out specific demographics in a war against the machine that we all should be against. It should not separate us, it should draw us together, to revolt against the machine. To state that it is racist is a bit narrow minded, until one looks at the bigger picture, where nearly the entire world has become captured by this scourge of Capitalism, and many of them have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome.

Think about it.

[cloudythescribbler]

24. yes, there has been progressive opposition to both Pres's Clinton & Obama, but very limited

The key thing is how lacking in sustained large-scale progressive organization, including but certainly not limited to the progressives within the Democratic Party, our society is -- and how equal or lesser numbers of rightwing yahoos manage (admittedly with the tailwind of a favorable media, big bux, underground repression of authentic progressives, etc) to mobilize much more effectively, and with more sustained frameworks. The hard RW has more or less completely taken over the GOP, w/even John Kasich hardly being anything remotely close to an Eisenhower Republican let alone more progressive. A huge part of this failure has included a failure of progressives to stand up and organize effectively and solicit mass numbers -- something Bernie's candidacy has done. Indeed, Jesse Jackson succeeded in getting 6.9 million votes in the 1988 primary season, and Bernie Sanders already has gotten 6.1 million, with lots of contests to go. But the question is whether this effort, like the Rainbow Coalition nationally did during the presidency of Bush pere, will fade quickly or provide the basis of a more sustained broad-based effort towards the kind of "political revolution" that Bernie Sanders calls for.

It is true that the MSM doesn't provide anything close to a level playing field for authentic progressive politics -- as in blanket network carrying of the speeches of all the major candidates from Clinton to Trump to Kasich to Rubio etc on primary nite the 15th, while Sanders was only on C-Span. But 100 people in Union Sq isn't anything like the scale of progressive organizing that is needed, even if we imagined a level playing field.

And both Occupy (which fizzled out pretty quickly despite much celebration as the beginning of something major by progressive intellectuals and others) and the Black Lives Matter movement, which clearly points to a much more likely longer term power-oriented organizing frame than Occupy did, but is still very limited as a counterpoint to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party and the neanderthal GOP both. Mobilizing against the full range of concerns, in addition to 'lynchings in uniform' and other issues concerning police misconduct, raised by Michelle Alexander in the must-read "The New Jim Crow" will require a whole civil rights movement scale of political upheaval. Then there is the climate crisis and the economic focal points of Bernie Sanders. His campaign could provide, with insistence regardless of how verboten or 'discouraged' such an effort is, starting the day after the election, an important focal point, both within and outside the Democratic Party, for a more sustained progressive counterpoint to the neoliberal/neanderthal choice otherwise available. Such a development should be able to ally with both the BLM and climate catastrophe movements to provide a much more serious beginning -- admittedly just a beginning -- of what the RW has long enjoyed in the US.

I do follow progressive media (The Progressive, Z magazine, sometimes subscribing to In These Times, WBAI including "Democracy Now" and other things) so I get a sense of the really paltry level of sustained progressive politics out there in the US. It is nothing when measured up against the historical tasks (like staving off runaway global warming before a point of no return is reached) that need to be accomplished. Bernie Sanders' candidacy can contribute significantly to developing what is needed, as one fulcrum, a seed, and a starting point. Why didn't the masses come out to support "Occupy"? Well the 'masses' don't generally spontaneously do stuff like that -- little, including the Civil Rights movement, just came about spontaneously. There needs to be organization, networks that are able to effectively mobilize, and (I know how this is disdained, but still ...) some kind of platform or demands, whether electoral and/or syndicalist and/or whatever. It is true that specifying what you are seeking and then striving for it can reek to some as "reformism" but most successful revolutions have rested upon such specific efforts and demands, whether in unions, and/or political parties or what. And around those specific goals there has to be mass mobilization, in effective forms. Occupy had no framework of reaching out like that and didn't found anything like a systematic canvass, a network of permanent locals or cells, or any number of ways of recruiting the "masses" one by one. The RW has mobilized its base far more effectively in the US, again, with lots in the system in its favor (but that's always been true of modern capitalism).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a few of the other points. Of course Oprah Winfrey and Chris Rock are in the "1%" -- they are stars, with the benefits that accrue to stars in our society. I suppose that in retrospect it is easy to label Obama an "up and coming 1%er" although it's also true that Bernie Sanders has had some "star" support, like Spike Lee, just much more minimally and belatedly, and he has few of the enormous personal advantages as a candidate that Obama had. I suppose that there are models, worth considering, that only 'fakirs' can arise beyond certain parameters in the political conditions that exist comprehensively in our society, but whatever those conditions are, they need to be opposed by activist-minded folk who dare collectively to do what is truly effective and needed, including effective solidarity, even when that is very much against the grain of power. Obama seemed like a cagey figure who MIGHT mediate between the progressive and neoliberal wings of the Democratic Party though there were some, like the now-deceased Manning Marable, who warned specifically about Obama in a speech I heard in the Spring of '07; in any event he turned out to be another neoliberal, not that much more progressive than Bill, and Hillary, at all. But as I have been saying repeatedly, even in defeat Bernie Sanders could get a whole lot started. And surely there will be plenty of black and latino progressive opposition -- majority opposition within those communities -- to whatever we get in November. Remember that, eg, when Bill Clinton went to war against Serbia, as well as the larger scale travesty of W in Iraq, polls consistently showed both blacks and latinos much more likely to oppose these ludicrous adventures than whites as a whole. (Even if you slice and dice the mass demographics more finely, this remains the case) I don't see a 'Stockholm syndrome' systematically at work here at all, but mostly, across all groups, including youth, of Tocqueville's "individualism", of a focus on the micro combined with political passivity or in some cases openness to demagogues like Trump. Organizing effectively is the only antidote to that. Otherwise their is helplessness, scabbing of various kinds, and of course plenty of well-founded cynicism.

If there is a progressive mobilization in the US capable of winning a majority of Americans, whether within the Democratic Party and/or outside of it (many say ONLY the latter is worth pursuing) then as communities, blacks and latinos will be in the lead. That's where the numbers of most probable authentic progressive opposition to the direction of corporate capitalism are. Of course there are many categories, including younger generations, that can be centers of mobilization. Frankly, if I had to place bets, I would see that the odds of the corporate capitalists being triumphant at least for a very long time globally, as very high. Capitalism in whatever form might survive while civilization does not

[RoccoR5955]

25. Thanks for the well thought response.

I need a bit more time to digest it (slow Friday at work inspired my other post).
I'll give you some short thoughts until I can get home and look at this some more in my mind.

I can tell you that there needs to be a LIBERAL movement here in the US. Whoever is willing to lead, should lead. It should be a leadership of the people, who should cooperatively decide on their leader (or they could take turns as in a cooperative business model)

Occupy may have disbanded, but it did evolve into the Rolling Jubilee, and has absolved some 32 million of debt that people could not pay for one reason or another. This I believe started out when Sandy hit NYC. This has been a quite successful effort.

I am sorry, but I do not think that Capitalism can help the Human Race survive. It's just my gut feeling that sharing is a better model than greed. And I also believe that with all of the mass consumption going on, there will be few resources left. I also do not think that this consumerism will help the environment, which should be our main concern.

As far as media outlets, I also read Z, Dollars and Sense, In These Times, and The Nation. There is a lot of worthwhile media out there from Richard Wolff, Noam Chomsky, the Zinn Education Project, Democracy Now!, and others like Bob Kinkaid, Mike Malloy, Brad Friedman, Ring of Fire, and The Young Turks. They all bring up stuff that you will not hear in the mainstream and I am happy to have them, and proud of their accomplishments.
There is also the Left Forum in NYC which has become a huge conference of forward thinkers from around the world. I believe that they have archives from previous years' workshops, talks and such. I look forward to it every year, since it was called "Socialist Scholars Conference." I have seen the "superstars" of the Movement there over the years. It certainly is worthwhile to set aside one weekend a year for this.

Uh oh, the boss is coming by to check up. Gotta go... Later.

[cloudythescribbler]

39. Yes, I also have gone to many both Socialist Scholars' Conferences & Left Fora ...

I suppose that it might be good to try and meet there -- my email is [email protected] that I check daily usually.

I also am a socialist as I have been for more than 40 years now -- and not in the sense that i consider FDR or Sweden, for all their positives, to be "socialist". The notion of capitalism surviving but not civilization is a dystopic notion, and it is something to urgently struggle to avoid. If that is impossible, even for a long time, then there is the longer haul, which may be longer than any specific progressive organization or effort can last, but somehow even in a far-off struggle in time, what we might say and do could be of at least some value.

I would rather not see the movement (especially labelled) as "liberal". Instead, real progressives should reach out to the masses of liberals, largely within the Democratic Party, whose leaders have largely abandoned them. It is not that there are no such leaders left, although it is indicative that the ONLY challenge to neoliberal Hillary Clinton's coronation is from an avowed socialist, albeit obviously the sort of socialist that can broadly appeal to many nonsocialists. But notions like Robert Reich, who says much of value, of striving to "save" capitalism, are not the same as progressive politics as I understand it. At the core of progressive politics there must still be a vision beyond capitalism, whether it is socialism, anarcho-communism or something opposed to corporate capitalism that might not be named. But if that is the core, a politics that addresses reform concerns, as Bernie Sanders does, is the way that great numbers of people can see concretely needs, like staving off climate catastrophe (focusing on the specific measures needed, and if these in turn require -- or not -- the complete transcendence of corporate capitalism, then so be it), free public higher education, dismantling the new Jim Crow, trillions of dollars (surely at least $1 trillion) annually in federal taxes specifically aimed at the top 1% -- which considering that their RELATIVE slice of a larger pie has increased by quite a few trillions annually is really quite reasonable -- and other needed measures can focus organization that is more than just a presidential campaign. As I said, The Bernie Sanders campaign can be a major catalyst even without necessarily capturing the nomination, both for the progressives within the Democratic Party and for progressive grassroots politics not hitched to the Democratic Party at all.

At any rate please contact me by email and we might try to meet this May 20-22, at least on the Saturday.

[blackspade]

35. +1

[eridani]

38. Agreed. It's name recognition. Clinton has been running for president for 10 years.

Most PoC voters are exactly like non-PoC voters. Not policy junkies IOW. Most people do not vote on issues, and progressives need to re-read Lakoff a whole bunch.

[xloadiex]

11. That whole thread was alert stalked last night

Besides the original post he was alerted on every comment he made in that thread. I was called for one of the juries. He was repeatedly baited. I was hoping he would have just walked away from it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Was there an amnesty program recently?

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Only for those on Timeouts, not the people who are banned.

Of course most of the banned people are Bernie supporters.

Surprise, surprise.

The most divisive people on this board are Clinton supporters and they've all been let back in from their Timeouts.


I can't wait until Bernie is the president.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[bbgrunt]

21. Yep, the Krakken were released.

[Fairgo]

29. What is the plural of Krakken?

Krakki?

[yuiyoshida]

30. Yes, by Krakki

[bbgrunt]

20. wow, that was an all-night hate/rage fest.

I find it interesting that many in that group have no problem proudly proclaiming that Bernie just doesn't relate to AA people but then when some try to discuss theories about why that might be, they are hounded to purgatory even though some prominent AA people have offered essentially the same kind of analysis.

[mahina]

22. Willy T is banned?

That's a kick in the gut.

He was a great DUer.

Feeling very blue. And not in the good way.

I'll read what happened, no judgement but just missing a great DU buddy.

[Live and Learn]

27. Yep DU has me seriously depressed today and I am not one that usually feels that way.

I am guessing that means it is time to move on.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. I've started putting people on "ignore"

for the first time in almost 12 years. I just couldn't handle them anymore.

[mahina]

33. Oh believe me, I use that button...liberally.

Why argue with ignoranuses?



My ignore list, it is long.

[restorefreedom]

32. willy t is gone?

damn this place. i hope he is over at jpr...i have a feeling that i will be over there full time soon.

and they say there is no bernie purge,,,,bullSHIT

[Blue_In_AK]

34. He is,

and welcomed warmly. Many of our best are there.

[restorefreedom]

37. :) nt

[blackspade]

36. It was a tone deaf OP to post, but I don't think that it was any worse than some other posts....

...around here.

He was definitely baited but I think his neck has been on the Camp Weathervane chopping block for a while.
That thread was an excuse. Cooler heads didn't prevail.