"Bernie Bros"

[Virge_]

Brother & sister don't carry the same sexist connotation as wise and beautiful woman or prick, but you already knew that.

If not, you'd be fine with Hillary sisters provided that Bernie pricks becomes a thing, right?

See, there you go trying to change the argument again. You're pretty good at trying to manipulate, but it's sadly obvious. For the record, in the context of "Bernie Bro's, the word "brother" has no place in the discussion at all.

"bros" and "brother" are not the same thing. Attempting to argue they are just so you can invent some comparison to "sister" is a little ridiculous. I said "bros" and you countered with "sister".

I get it, you're probably an old dude so this is hard for you to grasp, but "bros" isn't synonymous with "brother". That appears to be the root of your current confusion - hopefully I cleared it up for you so you can stop trying to make correlations where one doesn't exist.

 

[Virge_]

My argument is that he sounds like the same petulant virgin teenager that screams "SJW!" as an excuse for all the myriad reasons that his life sucks.


I wasn't tasking him or myself to present any other argument--merely asking if he considers himself representative of this group of pathetic internet pre-males.

It's easy though: anyone that spits out "SJW" as an excuse for anything? Automatic pre-male.

Fair point, appreciate the explanation.

I still think you're both being juvenile so I reserve any opinion one way or the other, but you're both welcome to join the adult table at some point if you'd like.

 

[Exophase]

See, there you go trying to change the argument again. You're pretty good at trying to manipulate, but it's sadly obvious. For the record, in the context of "Bernie Bro's, the word "brother" has no place in the discussion at all.

"bros" and "brother" are not the same thing. Attempting to argue they are just so you can invent some comparison to "sister" is a little ridiculous. I said "bros" and you countered with "sister".

I get it, you're probably an old dude so this is hard for you to grasp, but "bros" isn't synonymous with "brother". That appears to be the root of your current confusion - hopefully I cleared it up for you so you can stop trying to make correlations where one doesn't exist.

Yeah, I mean..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro

 

[Virge_]

By decree of Virge, all gender specific words are now banned. Instead of he or she, we shall all use the word "que".

Is "bros" gender-specific? I don't believe I said so, although I would suggest it's primarily used to refer to men, just not unilaterally.

"Bros" to me describes a set of criteria defined by actions, dress, and opinion. I've never met a female "bro" but I'm sure it's possible and I'd prefer not to discriminate without complete information.

 

[Virge_]

Yeah, I mean..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro

So you agree with me? Since the description you just linked doesn't say "brother" anywhere. The term "bro" is not parallel to brother. A closer analogy would be "dudes", just less negatively stereotyped.

 

[zinfamous]

Fair point, appreciate the explanation.

I still think you're both being juvenile so I reserve any opinion one way or the other, but you're both welcome to join the adult table at some point if you'd like.

That table you're sitting at--are you sure it's the one you think it is?

:hmm:

 

[Exophase]

So you agree with me? Since the description you just linked doesn't say "brother" anywhere. The term "bro" is not parallel to brother. A closer analogy would be "dudes", just less negatively stereotyped.

Yes I agree with you. Sometimes a post that superficially looks like it's supporting someone is actually also really supporting someone and not sarcastic

 

[Virge_]

That table you're sitting at--are you sure it's the one you think it is?

:hmm:

Certain? No.

The reality is that you're both on opposite ends of the spectrum, my suggestion was that you're unable to find a compromise. You, specifically, are attempting to impose your apparent dislike with SJW's by claiming that anytime someone invokes the SJW phenomena they are, in your words, "virgin teenager pre-male" (p.s. I think you meant to use "pre-pube"). You've clearly shown that you're completely against the possibility, some would even argue reality, that SJW-related issues are real.

Generally speaking my experience suggests that you simply live a lifestyle where you're not exposed to it in any way and are thus ignorant of what's going on and have a biased and uneducated opinion on the matter - a suspicion backed up by how vehement you are in regard to your opinion.

I don't agree with either of you, but I certainly hold the opinion that you can be a sexually satisfied, fully functional adult male and still have a different opinion of SJW's than you do - the fact that you are so zealously on one side that it's near borderline religious fervor suggests that your opinion should be taken with less weight than an otherwise more wizened one.

 

[Virge_]

Yes I agree with you. Sometimes a post that superficially looks like it's supporting someone is actually also really supporting someone and not sarcastic

Hopefully my question didn't come off as abrasive, it was genuine curiosity.

 

[interchange]

Is "bros" gender-specific? I don't believe I said so, although I would suggest it's primarily used to refer to men, just not unilaterally.

"Bros" to me describes a set of criteria defined by actions, dress, and opinion. I've never met a female "bro" but I'm sure it's possible and I'd prefer not to discriminate without complete information.

Fair point. I will amend:

By decree of Virge, all gender suggestive words are now banned. Instead of he or she, we shall all use the word "que".

 

[Exophase]

I've seen a lot of people say that anyone who uses the term "SJW" is the worst kind of sexist, or some kind of total loser or creep. But it really isn't that different from other political or ideological pejoratives like "wingnut" or "moonbat" or "Bible thumper" or "militant atheist." Patton Oswalt has called people SJWs (quite a while ago, maybe wouldn't now) and is he really that bad? Then again, some people call themselves SJWs and think the term should be embraced positively...

Hopefully my question didn't come off as abrasive, it was genuine curiosity.

No it didn't, and I get what you mean, when I posted it I actually did think it was kind of ambiguous >_>

 

[Virge_]

Fair point. I will amend:

By decree of Virge, all gender suggestive words are now banned. Instead of he or she, we shall all use the word "que".

But I never wanted to ban the word. Why would you make that suggestion? The entire discussion came about when Jshdhdhdhahahhhhhhahahhhh suggested that "bros" was similar to "sister".

Serious question, what did I miss?

 

[Virge_]

I've seen a lot of people say that anyone who uses the term "SJW" is the worst kind of sexist, or some kind of total loser or creep. But it really isn't that different from other political or ideological pejoratives like "wingnut" or "moonbat" or "Bible thumper" or "militant atheist." Patton Oswalt has called people SJWs (quite a while ago, maybe wouldn't now) and is he really that bad? Then again, some people call themselves SJWs and think the term should be embraced positively...



No it didn't, and I get what you mean, when I posted it I actually did think it was kind of ambiguous >_>

Huh. Odd. I've never seen it used that way. I've only ever seen SJW used by people claiming to be one. I don't interact personally with a lot of college aged people, though, so always possible I'm way off base.

I prefer South Park's take, personally - easy to understand that "SJW" is just a term for someone who thinks they deserve some nonsense "safe space".

Once again, just my opinion. More than curious - what is your understanding?

 

[zinfamous]

Certain? No.

The reality is that you're both on opposite ends of the spectrum, my suggestion was that you're unable to find a compromise. You, specifically, are attempting to impose your apparent dislike with SJW's by claiming that anytime someone invokes the SJW phenomena they are, in your words, "virgin teenager pre-male" (p.s. I think you meant to use "pre-pube"). You've clearly shown that you're completely against the possibility, some would even argue reality, that SJW-related issues are real.

Generally speaking my experience suggests that you simply live a lifestyle where you're not exposed to it in any way and are thus ignorant of what's going on and have a biased and uneducated opinion on the matter - a suspicion backed up by how vehement you are in regard to your opinion.

I don't agree with either of you, but I certainly hold the opinion that you can be a sexually satisfied, fully functional adult male and still have a different opinion of SJW's than you do - the fact that you are so zealously on one side that it's near borderline religious fervor suggests that your opinion should be taken with less weight than an otherwise more wizened one.

where did I suggest i disliked SJW's? I think you misread me.

No, my suggestion is that those who coined the term, and use it excessively as an excuse for their shitty lives, are coward virgin males that are upset they can't get a glorious 3 weeks off for maternity leave.

I'm educated enough on the matter to know that the "SJW" boogeyman is no threat to anyone's sovereignty. It's only thin-skinned and limp-brained teenagers that feel threatened here where it really hurts: their precious video game safe space.

 

[Virge_]

where did I suggest i disliked SJW's? I think you misread me.

No, my suggestion is that those who coined the term, and use it excessively as an excuse for their shitty lives, are coward virgin males that are upset they can't get a glorious 3 weeks off for maternity leave.

I'm educated enough on the matter to know that the "SJW" boogeyman is no threat to anyone's sovereignty. It's only thin-skinned and limp-brained teenagers that feel threatened here where it really hurts: their precious video game safe space.

Alright. Thanks, I think I did misunderstand your stance. You have to admit you came out swinging with a passion, though.

Where I come from the term "SJW" is actually used by people who use it to describe themselves. I don't have a lot of actual experience with someone just blatantly blaming everything that's wrong with their life on "SJWs". Does mysticjbyrd do so with regularity? I've seen only a handful of posts by him and not many referenced SJW's as much as you claim, is all.

It's just hard to determine if it's personal or not, that's what I'm trying to convey.

 

[zinfamous]

Alright. Thanks, I think I did misunderstand your stance. You have to admit you came out swinging with a passion, though.

Where I come from the term "SJW" is actually used by people who use it to describe themselves. I don't have a lot of actual experience with someone just blatantly blaming everything that's wrong with their life on "SJWs". Does mysticjbyrd do so with regularity? I've seen only a handful of posts by him and not many referenced SJW's as much as you claim, is all.

It's just hard to determine if it's personal or not, that's what I'm trying to convey.

I just make that assumption with everyone here that accuses you or me or anyone of being an "SJW" if you make the offense of not agreeing with them...about anything.

Which is very common around here.

I would recommend you check out the hilarious gamersgate thread, but I don't know you well enough to make that recommendation. For all I know, you could be a nice guy and then I'd feel bad.

 

[Exophase]

Huh. Odd. I've never seen it used that way. I've only ever seen SJW used by people claiming to be one. I don't interact personally with a lot of college aged people, though, so always possible I'm way off base.

I prefer South Park's take, personally - easy to understand that "SJW" is just a term for someone who thinks they deserve some nonsense "safe space".

Once again, just my opinion. More than curious - what is your understanding?

SJW gets used a lot and by a lot of people for a lot of different reasons so I don't think you can really say there's any particular meaning. I mean, usually it's at least a reaction to how people approach issues like equality/discrimination/marginalization/oppression/prejudice/etc but even that isn't really a given.. some people have turned it around and call far-right people SJWs over moral authoritarianism, even though this isn't really what social justice is supposed to refer to.

There's a good reason why South Park went with "PC" instead of "SJW" or anything else calling on social justice (although they did mention it a few times) Well I mean outside of the fact that it fit their jokes better.

If you want to know what I personally think? There's a lot of stuff going on with respect to social justice activism that I find pretty disturbing, especially on media, social media and in academia. Lots of manipulative appeals to emotion, bad statistics, double standards and a collectivist viewpoint that values people way more based on which group they belong to than their individual traits. They make good points sometimes but even then they tend to be incomplete, not really showing the other side for balance. And they're often really hostile and overly confrontational, treating vitriol as an actual virtue.

I would recommend you check out the hilarious gamersgate thread, but I don't know you well enough to make that recommendation. For all I know, you could be a nice guy and then I'd feel bad.

Yeah, he should read it. I have a feeling his takeaway won't be exactly like your's.

 

[interchange]

But I never wanted to ban the word. Why would you make that suggestion? The entire discussion came about when Jshdhdhdhahahhhhhhahahhhh suggested that "bros" was similar to "sister".

Serious question, what did I miss?

I don't think you are missing anything. I don't take offense to your stance, I only disagree with it. I was merely taking it to the extreme to illustrate why I disagree with it.

Words are words. Their connotations about sex and gender are set by their speaker, not ascribed by their listener. There exists no language so precise as to have only 1 unambiguous meaning behind what is spoken. Nonetheless, there are words and contexts which imply more strongly meanings about sex and gender than others, but none absolutely.

I think it is a mistake to decide upon the clarity of meaning about words unless you are the one who has spoken them.

 

[Virge_]

I don't think you are missing anything. I don't take offense to your stance, I only disagree with it. I was merely taking it to the extreme to illustrate why I disagree with it.

It was the illustration by exaggeration that whooshed over my head, then. It seemed pretty extreme for the point I was trying to make - but I recognize why you did it. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Exophase]

Joan Walsh used the term "Berniebots" which mostly morphed into Bernie Bros. This original term didn't imply gender, but I don't think it's a coincidence that its successor term did, given that she was specifically complaining about men:

"I think they just have to get that message out more aggressively. I don’t blame Sen. Sanders personally, at all. But it is disturbing to see such a misogynist strain in the male left. It’s not a new thing, but it’s tough to experience."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros#.atx4Vw0nz

 

[Virge_]

Joan Walsh used the term "Berniebots" which mostly morphed into Bernie Bros. This original term didn't imply gender, but I don't think it's a coincidence that its successor term did, given that she was specifically complaining about men:

"I think they just have to get that message out more aggressively. I don’t blame Sen. Sanders personally, at all. But it is disturbing to see such a misogynist strain in the male left. It’s not a new thing, but it’s tough to experience."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros#.atx4Vw0nz

How curious. Basically it's just a smear because a vocal number of a group with a less than positive overall reputation endorses a candidate?

I understand it, I just now see it to be propaganda entirely and without much merit to stand on.

Admittedly, I don't see MUCH difference between this kind of insult and the heaping done to Hillary by the anti-banker crowd. Something to ponder, I guess.

Thanks.

 

[Meghan54]

I'm completely fine with "Bernie Bro's" as long as "Clinton Cunts" becomes a thing.

Well, hell, if you're going there, how about.....

Cruz's Cum Swallowers?

--or--

Rubio's Rump Riders?

 

[Virge_]

Well, hell, if you're going there, how about.....

Cruz's Cum Swallowers?

--or--

Rubio's Rump Riders?

Sure, why not - I don't discriminate. My argument is that neither should exist to begin with, so feel free to add more things we shouldn't use because it's only intention is to insult.

It wasn't an attempt to bash Clinton, it was an effort to illustrate how silly "Bernie Bro's" is.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The amount of venom and hate spewed at Paul Krugman for pointing out the naive fantasy that is Bernie Sanders economic proposals was pretty interesting to read and frankly disturbing as well. I'm not even a Paul Krugman fan by any stretch of the imagination but still the way Bernie's supporters just viciously went after Krugman sent "Red Guard" cringe type chills down my spine. In the end this is all about who can claim to be the biggest "Victim" card politically and walk away with the ability to act with impunity in attacking the other person from that political "high ground" known as "Victimhood" once it is claimed.

 

[fskimospy]

The amount of venom and hate spewed at Paul Krugman for pointing out the naive fantasy that is Bernie Sanders economic proposals was pretty interesting to and frankly disturbing to read and I'm not even a Paul Krugman fan by any stretch of the imagination. Still the way Bernie's supporters just viciously went after Krugman sent "Red Guard" cringe type chills down my spine. In the end this is all about who can claim to be the biggest "Victim" politically and walk away with the ability to act with impunity in attacking the other person from that position of power once it is claimed.

People don't like things that challenge their world view. Whether you like Krugman or not he's an undeniably brilliant person with a knack for distilling things down to their essential elements. What's funny/sad about this is that I bet most Sanders supporters were very fond of him until recently.

I imagine the reason why Sanders supporters are attacking him is the same reason why conservatives have attacked him for years: he's been uncannily likely to be correct. Nobody wants to think their political opinions are wrong, so it's easier to convince yourself that he's some sort of conspiracy shill as opposed to acknowledging he's got a point.