"Sanders supporters have weaponized Facebook"

[southernhybrid]

In the continuing argument regarding Sanders v. the rest of the Democratic candidates, I thought this might be relevant. This is exactly what my neighbor was confronted with when she visited a Sanders site on Facebook. And please don't give me some shit about Bezos. Bezos bought The Washington Post to save it from bankruptcy, but he doesn't write for WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/24/facebook-is-inflaming-divides-tearing-democratic-party/

A Democrat in Michigan scrolled through a surge of nasty Facebook memes about Sen. Elizabeth Warren last week before fixing on one that captured his growing dislike of the candidate. It depicted her smiling face as a mask. Behind it was Hillary Clinton.
Matt Walters, 64, a retired factory worker and supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), shared the image onward to eight Facebook groups and tens of thousands of potential eyeballs with a few taps on his smartphone — using a popular new mass-posting technique that allows ordinary Americans to operate with rapid-fire speed reminiscent of Russian bots and trolls in 2016.

The pro-Sanders forums focus on a range of themes, including the senator’s independence from corporate interests and his opposition to President Trump. At the same time, many of the images that fill the groups and pages are strikingly negative about rival Democrats, depicting former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg as a wine-swilling CIA plant with Republican leanings and Biden as a feckless politician who preys on women.

No other Democrat’s supporters are engaged in behavior on a similar scale, which is more characteristic of the online movement galvanized by Trump. The president’s campaign aides have credited Facebook with his victory in 2016, when he poured money into advertising on the platform while also using organic posts on social media to speak directly to his followers, who responded with a torrent of posts backing him and lacerating his opponents.

The above are just a few quotes from the article, but you get the idea. I'm not saying that Sanders himself is the problem, but it appears as if many of his supporters are real similar to Trump supporters but the way they attack those who have different views. This is no way to unite a party or to win an election.

IF a mod thinks this should be merged with another thread about Sanders, I have no problem with that. I'm just trying to provide information to help people understand some of the reasons why the Sanders campaign has become so controversial. It makes it very difficult for decent people to support a candidate who has this type of base. It makes one wonder if Sanders actually wants to represent the entire country, or if like Trump, he will only cater to his base. I at least have hopes that if Sanders were to become president, he'd have to move toward the middle absolutely nothing will get done, especially when you consider that he does not represent the majority of Americans. I"m not sure that anyone can defeat Trump at this point, but creating such divisiveness in one's own party is destructive and makes it even harder to win.

 

[ZiprHead]

Having been a member of a pro Bernie group who experienced their vitriol by simply saying "Vote blue no matter who", I can attest that the above is absolutely true.

 

[Derec]

So these evil Bernie Bros are .... sending memes on Facebook? The horrors!

This is, by the way, the Warren-Hillary meme that was mentioned.


And after Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016, and this latest kerfuffle over the supposed "women can't win" conversation, can you really blame Sanders supporters?

 

[laughing dog]

So these evil Bernie Bros are .... sending memes on Facebook? The horrors!

This is, by the way, the Warren-Hillary meme that was mentioned.
View attachment 25834

And after Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016, and this latest kerfuffle over the supposed "women can't win" conversation, can you really blame Sanders supporters?

One can always hold people responsible for their behavior. For some reason I don't think I was the only child taught that "poor behavior by others does not justify your poor behavior".

Now, I think anything emanating from Facebook or Twitter is very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, so this is pretty much a nothing burger. But it is consistent with the image that a significant portion of Bernie's base are assholes.

 

[Derec]

One can always hold people responsible for their behavior. For some reason I don't think I was the only child taught that "poor behavior by others does not justify your poor behavior".

And what part of meming is "poor behavior" exactly?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So these evil Bernie Bros are .... sending memes on Facebook? The horrors!

This is, by the way, the Warren-Hillary meme that was mentioned.
View attachment 25834

And after Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016, and this latest kerfuffle over the supposed "women can't win" conversation, can you really blame Sanders supporters?

No, I can't. And I see a striking double standard. You can say whatever you want about Bernie and his supporters, but the moment they say anything negative back, then its out of bounds.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's not that particular meme that's such a big problem, it's the way that Bernie supporters are treating those who aren't Bernie supporters.

I rarely visit Facebook, but I know lots of people who do, including some who get all of their news from FB. I know people who believe every stupid thing on FB, so FB isn't totally irrelevant, when it comes to how it influences elections.

I haven't noticed the supporters of any of the other candidates acting like poorly behaved children. Please provide evidence that the supporters of other candidate are going out of their way to directly attack the supporters of other candidates.

I have criticized Bernie because I think he's unqualified to be president, based on the fact that he has accomplished close to nothing over his long political career. His ideas have been consistently unrealistic, and he never explains how he will be able to get any of them passed, considering that the majority of US citizens are either moderate or conservative. I'm not against his ideas in principle. I'm against his claims that he can accomplish them, when he certainly must know better. I'm a realist, and I understand that I have no more right to have my way than any other citizen does.

Many years ago, I liked the fact that we had at least one far left member of Congress because I welcome all points of view, but the way he and his supporters have been acting, has made me rethink my feelings about him. But, I digress.

I didn't write the piece that I linked, but apparently I'm not the only one who has heard about the type of attacks on those who don't support the candidate.

Look at the first reply in this thread. Vote blue no matter who should not be something debatable. If you realize how destructive Trump's presidency has been, you will vote for the nominee, even if you have to hold you nose to do it. That's the problem with too many of the Bernie supporters. I know some former ones who voted for Clinton in 2016, but I also know several who voted third party in 2016. We can't afford to do that this time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Having been a member of a pro Bernie group who experienced their vitriol by simply saying "Vote blue no matter who", I can attest that the above is absolutely true.

So, I'm gonna level with you here, "vote blue no matter who" is Russian propaganda.

It is a message supporting the myth of "electability", a bludgeon that says "sit down and know your place".

The Democratic party has a problem with being pushed ever further right, or perhaps held there where it was, conservatively, even as humans in general move left on our own.

The problem is it says "you don't have the numbers to push the party left". It disenfranchises those further to the left than Biden.

It is a power play. Rather than "we will move left and compromise with you" it implies, in the absence of a name or other messaging of hope and progressive support, that "you should compromise your values first, towards where I stand, towards Biden".

It is a message that was sown when Biden was leading.

Now, the message is gone, those who said it primarily at the beginning silent as progressives have taken the lead of the field.

If it hadn't been divisive, those who lead with the sound bite would have offered "I like _____ but I will vote blue no matter who". They would have led with a NAME. They didn't. It was propaganda, and shame on you for buying it. It is a demand that others compromise first, not a concession of compromise in exchange for one in kind.

Of course, most people aren't going to think about it to such a conscious extent, they will just read the message and feel these things instead of thinking them clearly. This is why you get vitriol in saying it.

Change what you say from the divisive propaganda message and you will get less judgement and vitriol.

 

[laughing dog]

One can always hold people responsible for their behavior. For some reason I don't think I was the only child taught that "poor behavior by others does not justify your poor behavior".

And what part of meming is "poor behavior" exactly?

The part when one makes disgusting or extremely false mischaracterizations.

 

[Toni]

Having been a member of a pro Bernie group who experienced their vitriol by simply saying "Vote blue no matter who", I can attest that the above is absolutely true.

So, I'm gonna level with you here, "vote blue no matter who" is Russian propaganda.

It is a message supporting the myth of "electability", a bludgeon that says "sit down and know your place".

The Democratic party has a problem with being pushed ever further right, or perhaps held there where it was, conservatively, even as humans in general move left on our own.

The problem is it says "you don't have the numbers to push the party left". It disenfranchises those further to the left than Biden.

It is a power play. Rather than "we will move left and compromise with you" it implies, in the absence of a name or other messaging of hope and progressive support, that "you should compromise your values first, towards where I stand, towards Biden".

It is a message that was sown when Biden was leading.

Now, the message is gone, those who said it primarily at the beginning silent as progressives have taken the lead of the field.

If it hadn't been divisive, those who lead with the sound bite would have offered "I like _____ but I will vote blue no matter who". They would have led with a NAME. They didn't. It was propaganda, and shame on you for buying it. It is a demand that others compromise first, not a concession of compromise in exchange for one in kind.

Of course, most people aren't going to think about it to such a conscious extent, they will just read the message and feel these things instead of thinking them clearly. This is why you get vitriol in saying it.

Change what you say from the divisive propaganda message and you will get less judgement and vitriol.

I don't agree. The blank in in your hypothetical I support ____________ but I will vote blue no matter who. leaves open the writer to attacks from whoever.

The Vote Blue No Matter Who has been going on for some months now. I'm hardly the most up to the second, but I've seen/read/shared this sentiment for months.

Do you know who it benefits? Bernie. I'll hold my nose and vote for someone that I think is merely Trump slightly less unhinged and in a different set of clothing if I have to but I am less and less happy about doing it every single day. Not only will Bernie get nothing done, but he will set the stage for another Republican in 2024 better than anybody else could.

I've come to distrust any candidate who inspires such rabid loyalty as Bernie does.Also, if he's so great, why isn't Trump attacking him? Not even Trump surrogates are.

 

[Copernicus]

Having been a member of a pro Bernie group who experienced their vitriol by simply saying "Vote blue no matter who", I can attest that the above is absolutely true.

So, I'm gonna level with you here, "vote blue no matter who" is Russian propaganda.

It is a message supporting the myth of "electability", a bludgeon that says "sit down and know your place"...

No, that is not Russian propaganda. It is the opposite, because that slogan suggests that Democrats cooperate to support the nominee, no matter who she is. What the Russian troll campaign is all about is creating divisions and confusion in the US electorate. So they are actually pushing all of these nasty memes to targeted groups of Democrats, trying to stoke up anger and animosity between factions of Democratic voters. The residual anger will play out the same way it did in 2016--where Democrats wasted a lot of time and energy taking potshots at each other rather than the real enemy, who ended up winning the presidency.

And that brings me to a point I want to make about sohy's OP, which I agree with on many points. Like her, I am not a Sanders supporter, and I do think that he has a record of divisiveness and inability to compromise in order to make progress. I don't like the fact that he jumps in and out of the Democratic Party whenever he finds it convenient. I much prefer a progressive like Warren, who sticks with the Party and knows how to build a consensus. However, I tend to avoid these efforts to bash Sanders and spread poisonous memes about him on social media. The reason is that such behavior is counterproductive. It just helps the Russian bot farms to spread the poison that is put out there to help get Trump reelected or to damage the effectiveness of a Democratic president. Whether I like it or not, Sanders could end up being the winner of the nomination. And I am going to take the "vote blue" slogan seriously. Whatever my problems with Bernie Sanders, I will thoroughly support his candidacy, if he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, I see no upside to scolding Sanders supporters for their bad behavior. I just won't lift a finger to help Sanders win the nomination.

 

[TSwizzle]

What is with this obsession with Facebook, Russian “bots” and the fuckwits that post silly memes ? “Weaponized” Facebook lol. Why are so many Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories? Mental.

 

[Jarhyn]

Having been a member of a pro Bernie group who experienced their vitriol by simply saying "Vote blue no matter who", I can attest that the above is absolutely true.

So, I'm gonna level with you here, "vote blue no matter who" is Russian propaganda.

It is a message supporting the myth of "electability", a bludgeon that says "sit down and know your place"...

No, that is not Russian propaganda. It is the opposite, because that slogan suggests that Democrats cooperate to support the nominee, no matter who she is. What the Russian troll campaign is all about is creating divisions and confusion in the US electorate. So they are actually pushing all of these nasty memes to targeted groups of Democrats, trying to stoke up anger and animosity between factions of Democratic voters. The residual anger will play out the same way it did in 2016--where Democrats wasted a lot of time and energy taking potshots at each other rather than the real enemy, who ended up winning the presidency.

And that brings me to a point I want to make about sohy's OP, which I agree with on many points. Like her, I am not a Sanders supporter, and I do think that he has a record of divisiveness and inability to compromise in order to make progress. I don't like the fact that he jumps in and out of the Democratic Party whenever he finds it convenient. I much prefer a progressive like Warren, who sticks with the Party and knows how to build a consensus. However, I tend to avoid these efforts to bash Sanders and spread poisonous memes about him on social media. The reason is that such behavior is counterproductive. It just helps the Russian bot farms to spread the poison that is put out there to help get Trump reelected or to damage the effectiveness of a Democratic president. Whether I like it or not, Sanders could end up being the winner of the nomination. And I am going to take the "vote blue" slogan seriously. Whatever my problems with Bernie Sanders, I will thoroughly support his candidacy, if he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, I see no upside to scolding Sanders supporters for their bad behavior. I just won't lift a finger to help Sanders win the nomination.

Personally I dislike the potshots. But the fact is, "blue no matter who" in it's presentation is divisive. It makes the assumption that "you" won't get what "you" want rather than making the concession as an "I" statement, which can be made with an offer.of a preferred candidate.

The fact that it only was being said loudly in a chorus when Biden was popular, during the phase where he was being hoisted on the pole of "electability", says everything that needs to be said about the effort to push that noise. The fact that vanishing few who said it are continuing to say it today now that Sanders is leading the polls in Iowa makes your claim ring pretty hollow.

The statement, as a demand statement, is divisive.

As for Bernie, well, a lot of people have been waiting a long time for a candidate who both has principles, and whose principles don't roundly suck. Will he need to make compromises? Absolutely. And I hope he does. He's not going to be in a position not to. But I also look forward to all the times he, unlike any other president in history, will stand firm and shoots down attempts to quietly pass awful legislation when congress thinks nobody is watching.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is with this obsession with Facebook, Russian “bots” and the fuckwits that post silly memes ? “Weaponized” Facebook lol. Why are so many Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories? Mental.

Russian "bots" can weaponize Facebook because apparently Americans can't think for themselves, or so some would have to believe. It's really not that. It's really a convenient excuse for the Dems to point fingers at without actually considering what they can change about themselves to attract more support.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

The NYTimes had a better article than the one that I originally posted. It included more specific claims, like death threats directed at supporters of Warren or Harris, when she was still in the race. It's a very long article.

The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s fans has helped establish him as one of the 2020 front-runners a week before the Iowa caucuses. No other Democrat attracts supporters more dedicated to forcefully defending their candidate and lashing his foes, more willing to repeatedly donate their time and money to sustain his bid. Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, leading the primary field.

Yet as Mr. Sanders moves to position himself as a standard-bearer for a party he has criticized from the left for decades, the power of his internet army has also alarmed Democrats who are familiar with its underside, experienced in ways large and small.

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.

The above is just one small mention of how some Sanders supporters have been attacking and threatening non Sanders supporters. Sorry, but this is very much like the type of awful things that Trump supporters do.

And, I really don't get the idea that "vote blue no matter who" is something to be considered negative. The phrase is simply a call for all those who realize how destructive Trump has been for the US, to unite and support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. We have no other choices but to support the candidate unless we enjoy watching our country continue to be threatened by Trump. I don't like Sanders, but over the course of my life, I have voted for candidates who I didn't like many times, because the alternative was much worse.

I will admit that it will be very difficult for me to vote for Sanders, should. he become the nominee and I seriously doubt he has a chance of winning in my state, so even if I left the presidential line blank, it wouldn't harm Sanders. Still, I do intend to vote for the nominee regardless of who that is, because I doubt that even Sanders would be less harmful than Trump. That is what "vote blue no matter who" means. It has nothing to do with Russia or anything negative. It's just a call for liberals and moderates to unite behind the Democratic nominee. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[PyramidHead]

Matt Bruenig cuts through the pearl-clutching:

 

[ZiprHead]

But the fact is, "blue no matter who" in it's presentation is divisive. It makes the assumption that "you" won't get what "you" want rather than making the concession as an "I" statement, which can be made with an offer.of a preferred candidate.

Sorry, I disagree. It's the process itself that is divisive and it always has been. There are always people who don't get what they want. The VBNMW phrase is a simple way of saying this time it's too important to let your disappointment get in the way of getting rid of a corrupt president.

Frankly, it's the divisiveness of the Democratic party that has held it back for many years. That's the thing Republicans do so well, come together behind their candidate. Some Democrats are saying we should do so as well and you're calling it divisive.

 

[rousseau]

But the fact is, "blue no matter who" in it's presentation is divisive. It makes the assumption that "you" won't get what "you" want rather than making the concession as an "I" statement, which can be made with an offer.of a preferred candidate.

Sorry, I disagree. It's the process itself that is divisive and it always has been. There are always people who don't get what they want. The VBNMW phrase is a simple way of saying this time it's too important to let your disappointment get in the way of getting rid of a corrupt president.

Frankly, it's the divisiveness of the Democratic party that has held it back for many years. That's the thing Republicans do so well, come together behind their candidate. Some Democrats are saying we should do so as well and you're calling it divisive.

Yep.

The NDP / Liberal divide in Canada is the perfect example of this. NDP voters refuse to vote liberal, thinking that if the NDP gets in somehow they'll be able to solve all of our problems, and won't be in the exact conundrum as the liberals on most issues. This is borne to bear in B.C., where the NDP acts a lot like our federal liberals.

It's blind dogmatism, and does nothing but serve our Conservative government. When you're staring down the barrel of a gun, you vote for the guy behind him with a rock in his hand.

 

[PyramidHead]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

The NYTimes had a better article than the one that I originally posted. It included more specific claims, like death threats directed at supporters of Warren or Harris, when she was still in the race. It's a very long article.

The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s fans has helped establish him as one of the 2020 front-runners a week before the Iowa caucuses. No other Democrat attracts supporters more dedicated to forcefully defending their candidate and lashing his foes, more willing to repeatedly donate their time and money to sustain his bid. Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, leading the primary field.

Yet as Mr. Sanders moves to position himself as a standard-bearer for a party he has criticized from the left for decades, the power of his internet army has also alarmed Democrats who are familiar with its underside, experienced in ways large and small.

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.

The above is just one small mention of how some Sanders supporters have been attacking and threatening non Sanders supporters. Sorry, but this is very much like the type of awful things that Trump supporters do.

And, I really don't get the idea that "vote blue no matter who" is something to be considered negative. The phrase is simply a call for all those who realize how destructive Trump has been for the US, to unite and support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. We have no other choices but to support the candidate unless we enjoy watching our country continue to be threatened by Trump. I don't like Sanders, but over the course of my life, I have voted for candidates who I didn't like many times, because the alternative was much worse.

I will admit that it will be very difficult for me to vote for Sanders, should. he become the nominee and I seriously doubt he has a chance of winning in my state, so even if I left the presidential line blank, it wouldn't harm Sanders. Still, I do intend to vote for the nominee regardless of who that is, because I doubt that even Sanders would be less harmful than Trump. That is what "vote blue no matter who" means. It has nothing to do with Russia or anything negative. It's just a call for liberals and moderates to unite behind the Democratic nominee. Nothing more and nothing less.

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

The NYTimes had a better article than the one that I originally posted. It included more specific claims, like death threats directed at supporters of Warren or Harris, when she was still in the race. It's a very long article.

The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s fans has helped establish him as one of the 2020 front-runners a week before the Iowa caucuses. No other Democrat attracts supporters more dedicated to forcefully defending their candidate and lashing his foes, more willing to repeatedly donate their time and money to sustain his bid. Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, leading the primary field.

Yet as Mr. Sanders moves to position himself as a standard-bearer for a party he has criticized from the left for decades, the power of his internet army has also alarmed Democrats who are familiar with its underside, experienced in ways large and small.

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.

The above is just one small mention of how some Sanders supporters have been attacking and threatening non Sanders supporters. Sorry, but this is very much like the type of awful things that Trump supporters do.

And, I really don't get the idea that "vote blue no matter who" is something to be considered negative. The phrase is simply a call for all those who realize how destructive Trump has been for the US, to unite and support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. We have no other choices but to support the candidate unless we enjoy watching our country continue to be threatened by Trump. I don't like Sanders, but over the course of my life, I have voted for candidates who I didn't like many times, because the alternative was much worse.

I will admit that it will be very difficult for me to vote for Sanders, should. he become the nominee and I seriously doubt he has a chance of winning in my state, so even if I left the presidential line blank, it wouldn't harm Sanders. Still, I do intend to vote for the nominee regardless of who that is, because I doubt that even Sanders would be less harmful than Trump. That is what "vote blue no matter who" means. It has nothing to do with Russia or anything negative. It's just a call for liberals and moderates to unite behind the Democratic nominee. Nothing more and nothing less.

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

Nice sentiment. Does it extend to the choice of President if Bernie is not the nominee? And if it does, are you willing to help educate the apparent majority of Bernie supporters who plan to act like fucking narcissistic babies and not vote blue?