• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
Firstly, residue isn't a racially charged term, it's not something we use on a regular basis to demean any group. So, using that word doesn't seem like a word people should avoid using. However, even though me as a POC I don't think the word is bad in any way, I don't believe to policing or trying to debunk how other feel about specific words or terms if they're used against you, so I think it's fine if people feel that way.

Look up the synonyms for residue and note how many of those synonyms were words that were/are used to disparage people of color. There's a reason people took offense to what he said, and it's not that we're all just irrational complainers. He went from talking about white liberals leaving, to "residue" being more diverse. It was a direct contrast between white and non-white, and as such that term 'residue' being used to describe the other side of that contrast is completely inappropriate.

More importantly, more than just the word, conceptually he's off-base. The level of support Bernie has among people of color is not just from supporters from 2016. Many of them are new and are not "left overs". That his support from people of color is on a similar LEVEL to 2016 does not mean that that support is 100% FROM 2016 (i.e he lost some of those supporters and gained some new ones). You don't just call these people residue. On top of the fact that he could have just referred to the voters as voters (like he did with 'white liberal'), his statement also discounts the very real concerns that drove these people to Bernie's campaign and effectively handwaves their support as meaningless and insignificant. It's not a good look.


The thing that's weirder to me though, is that, secondly, he didn't refer to POC as residue. He was referring to the total amount of support he has now, versus the total amount of support he had last cycle as residue. Not POC as residue. The conversation though, it doesn't seem to be that he referred to all current Bernie fans as residue of last year, it seems like this is missed. Maybe there's a good reason that "all Bernie fans now are the residue of all Bernie fans last year" becomes "POC Bernie fans are residue", because of something he's said previously, but I don't see it right now.

Uhh, let me help you out here (brackets are mine):

White liberals have been particularly likely to leave him (for Warren) so the residue of what's left [remaining group of non-white liberals/leftists/conservatives, etc.] is more diverse.

He just flat out called these people residue, as evidenced by his contrast with white liberals. There was no need for him to do that.
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
Stating white people leaving a demo makes the remainder of people "residue" is inherently racially charged, disparaging, and white elitist. Doesn't need to be precedent. There didn't need to be precedent for Tucker Carlson saying immigrants are "dirty" to be racist.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
Stating white people leaving a demo makes the remainder of people "residue" is inherently racially charged, disparaging, and white elitist. Doesn't need to be precedent. There didn't need to be precedent for Tucker Carlson saying immigrants are "dirty" to be racist.

Thank you. You summed it up better than I could.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Look up the synonyms for residue and note how many of those synonyms were words that were/are used to disparage people of color. There's a reason people took offense to what he said, and it's not that we're all just irrational complainers. He went from talking about white liberals leaving, to "residue" being more diverse. It was a direct contrast between white and non-white, and as such that term 'residue' being used to describe the other side of that contrast is completely inappropriate.

More importantly, more than just the word, conceptually he's off-base. The level of support Bernie has among people of color is not just from supporters from 2016. Many of them are new and are not "left overs". That his support from people of color is on a similar LEVEL to 2016 does not mean that that support is 100% FROM 2016 (i.e he lost some of those supporters and gained some new ones). You don't just call these people residue. On top of the fact that he could have just referred to the voters as voters (like he did with 'white liberal'), his statement also discounts the very real concerns that drove these people to Bernie's campaign and effectively handwaves their support as meaningless and insignificant. It's not a good look.




Uhh, let me help you out here (brackets are mine):



He just flat out called these people residue, as evidenced by his contrast with white liberals. There was no need for him to do that.

I kinda said I didn't say I wanted to argue the definitions of words, because I feel like you're well within your right to feel however you want to feel about a term or phrase said about you. Why I personally feel differently is, the idea that one of the definitions of a word has synonyms which are racially charged, when a person specifically isn't using that definition of the word, means that it wouldn't even occur to me that they would be using it in that way.

Thanks for explaining this to me. I think I understand what you're saying now. I can now see it in that way.

I don't think conceptually he's wrong. However, I think there are better ways to phrase that point. I don't think it's similar to Tucker Carlson calling POC dirty for many reasons, but I see your point.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
More importantly, more than just the word, conceptually he's off-base. The level of support Bernie has among people of color is not just from supporters from 2016. Many of them are new and are not "left overs". That his support from people of color is on a similar LEVEL to 2016 does not mean that that support is 100% FROM 2016 (i.e he lost some of those supporters and gained some new ones). You don't just call these people residue. On top of the fact that he could have just referred to the voters as voters (like he did with 'white liberal'), his statement also discounts the very real concerns that drove these people to Bernie's campaign and effectively handwaves their support as meaningless and insignificant. It's not a good look.
He is not off base in the statistical analysis. Anecdotes about how you know one or two converts don't change that Bernie's support is a collapse from 2016, where the "this is normal and it'll snap back" explanation doesn't hold water when the only other near-100% name rec candidate, Biden, jumped in w/ significantly higher support. Sanders' support from all demographics is significantly lower this time out. His current support level w/ POC is about 40% lower for black Americans than it was in 2016 (25%->15%), and overall support hovering around 15% has been consistent for a pretty good chunk of time now. He's lost 2/3rds of his support from 2016, and there is no obvious path to getting it back. Using information to figure out the current state of the election is not "discounting concern" for people who are backing a candidate that appears to be headed for a loss.

Not sure Bernie should get credit for having more diverse support than last time given that he has far less support than last time. A lot of voters have left him.
White liberals have been particularly likely to leave him (for Warren) so the residue of what's left [remaining group of non-white liberals/leftists/conservatives, etc.] is more diverse.
The phrase "residue of what's left" includes Bernie's remaining white supporters. I'm not being pedantic here, in the context of what he wrote, he's talking about Bernie losing support among all racial groups, but having lost more proportionally more white voters than nonwhite ones.

I do understand the argument about not touching anything remotely close to certain language in the discussion with a ten foot pole. "Residue" is standing in for "remaining residual support" and "Residual" would have been the better alternative. (I literally did not know that was the noun form and used outside of a synonym for royalties until looking it up just now.) But claiming that he was explicitly referring only to non-white people is completely unfair.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
He is not off base in the statistical analysis.

I haven't seen any data suggesting 0% or close to 0% of Bernie's supporters are new, and Bernie's campaign have already said that a significant portion of Bernie's supporters are new, so until Nate can actually actually show evidence to the contrary (and no, Bernie having a similar level of support to 2016 is not it) I will maintain my argument.

But claiming that he was explicitly referring only to non-white people is completely unfair.

It's not about explicit intent, it's about the impact of his words, which he seems to struggle with understanding.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,141
At the heart of it all, Silver is just a white nerd that had his ego inflated big time during the Obama years. Never saved face for his mistakes in 2016. Obviously has become a cog in the machine of trying to shift public opinion by making things appear one way.
 

KingKong

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,492
The phrase "residue of what's left" includes Bernie's remaining white supporters. I'm not being pedantic here, in the context of what he wrote, he's talking about Bernie losing support among all racial groups, but having lost more proportionally more white voters than nonwhite ones.

I do understand the argument about not touching anything remotely close to certain language in the discussion with a ten foot pole. "Residue" is standing in for "remaining residual support" and "Residual" would have been the better alternative. (I literally did not know that was the noun form and used outside of a synonym for royalties until looking it up just now.) But claiming that he was explicitly referring only to non-white people is completely unfair.

that strange, you were so concerned that Omars comments could be considered by some as antisemitic
 

Holden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
110
At the heart of it all, Silver is just a white nerd that had his ego inflated big time during the Obama years. Never saved face for his mistakes in 2016. Obviously has become a cog in the machine of trying to shift public opinion by making things appear one way.

The guy predicted 30% chance trump wins. If anything he was the closest to reality lol.
People have this weird perspective that anything over 50% is 100% confirmed and anything under 50% is 0%
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,141
The guy predicted 30% chance trump wins. If anything he was the closest to reality lol.
People have this weird perspective that anything over 50% is 100% confirmed and anything under 50% is 0%

Sure didn't try to sound the alarm enough or tell she should go campaign in the rust belt.

Bernie did for Hillary though even when she wouldn't.
 

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,254
The guy predicted 30% chance trump wins. If anything he was the closest to reality lol.
People have this weird perspective that anything over 50% is 100% confirmed and anything under 50% is 0%

he underestimated trump in the primaries and because of that in the general he kept going "guys there's actually a chance for him to win" and we all mocked him.

Sure didn't try to sound the alarm enough or tell she should go campaign in the rust belt.

Bernie did for Hillary though even when she wouldn't.

nate silver did not actually work for the clinton campaign
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
this doesn't seem to explain sanders fans blowing up at polls that show elizabeth warren ahead of him, nor sanders fans blowing up at the lamestream media being all "sanders changing up his new hampshire team is a sign that maybe things aren't going great for him there"
Probably because there's a lot of diversity in that residue that makes up his support, so some complaints and people are petty, and others are well founded.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Its become a chorus in the media to basically tell Sanders to drop out before even the first vote is cast despite being in consistently in the top 3...i mean, considering how there are about 10+ people still in the race, very strange. That's called biased media narratives. It was the same in 2016
 

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,254
Its become a chorus in the media to basically tell Sanders to drop out before even the first vote is cast despite being in consistently in the top 3...i mean, considering how there are about 10+ people still in the race, very strange. That's called biased media narratives. It was the same in 2016

It appears it was one CNN host, on a single segment of a channel that runs 24/7 news. Have there been more? Are we doing that hyperbole thing again.

Probably because there's a lot of diversity in that residue that makes up his support, so some complaints and people are petty, and others are well founded.

Kinda seems like people are being biased tbh.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
It appears it was one CNN host, on a single segment of a channel that runs 24/7 news. Have there been more? Are we doing that hyperbole thing again.

I've heard it on MSNBC multiple times last week, i've heard it on twitter from certain reporters and media people as well. Let's not act like there is no such thing as media narratives against Sanders. That's what this whole thread is about, it seems like people just shut out what they dont want to see despite countless evidence.

Warren took Sanders spot, too bad for him

Its easy to think that if you have a media determined to shut out Sanders positive news and emphasize negative coverage, this is what they have been doing for years, incase your just turning in. The NeverBernie movement is real.

Its especially more telling when it concerns covering for Biden or other establishment Dems, or propping up Elizabeth Warren.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
936
User Banned (3 days): antagonizing other users
Amazing what PoliERA posters will defend if it means getting to shit on Sanders just that little bit more.

In regards to the Iowa poll, there's no denying it's a horrible result for Sanders, considering how he almost won the state last time and how good it should be for him. Pundits beating the dead 'maybe he should drop out' horse is pretty ludicrous though, when one of the overlooked parts of that poll is Harris' abysmal performance, and just generally how she's managed to slip behind Buttigieg in the RCP national average. If there are to be calls for any of the top contenders to drop out, it should probably be for her, and even then it'd be pretty stupid when there are a small army of candidates doing even worse than her.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Ok, now you're just saying random things lol

O'Malley was 3/3. Sanders is 3 out of like an entire field behind him, where a frontrunner is deteriorating sharply. This isnt the same thing you want it to be, stop playing
No, I'm not. I'm saying that "he's top 3" doesn't mean anything as an argument. You lose if you aren't #1.

The problem is that yes, Biden is deteriorating but Sanders isn't benefiting. And that's been an issue this entire campaign- nothing's been pushing hs numbers upward at all. They're static, which is a problem with other people losing support.. To win he needs his 2016 base + 11% of Hillary supporters to flip. In Iowa he's at 1% Hillary and 33% Sanders 2016 support. That's dire. It's not just that he's behind, it's that he's behind and nothing seems to be helping him, and he can't win without converting at least some voters even if he gets all his 2016 ones back.
 

Sadsic

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
New Jersey
Who is the media supposed to be biased towards right now lol

CNN and fox are legitimizing Trump's attacks on Biden and his son and Wall Street is calling a Warren presidency the apocalypse basically lol

Every candidate has its own media bullshit to deal with, Sanders isn't special in this way
 

Midnight Jon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,161
Ohio
Why does that even matter?
certainly matters to a narrative that a community is actively hostile to XYZ group if a poster in XYZ group never even tries engaging in good faith (or in this case, at all) in that community

Fork and sphagnum notably don't really have the same problems in there as most of the rest of you, and it's not something intrinsic to them as people beyond the fact that they don't come in with a pre-arranged grievance and then come running to ETC to bitch in a ton of unrelated threads
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Going back to the narrative around media interpretation and portrayal of polls for second to illustrate bias. Unlike Sanders who has favorable polls and not so favorable polls but still says consistent,Biden's polls have tanked since he announced, but its almost barely covered like that.

"Biden still on top, biden the clear frontrunner against contenders" is what you'll usually see. But when are there going to be people saying he should drop out for the good of the party? Its always either deflection or straight up defense of his problems. Its almost as if its intentionally trying to craft a certain viewpoint at any cost. Or rather that's exactly what it is these corporate teams attempt to do. Its absolutely bias.

And they will only prop up people who they think they can will appeal to the status quo as much as possible. I'd argue the reason Biden hasnt dropped out already is because of the constant deflection of his issues and refusal to even address his historical backround until barely into the last debate. And all questions are still framed from the moderators in favor of the Biden position.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,223
Bernie should drop out
EE4NN7SUUAALhzD
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
No, I'm not. I'm saying that "he's top 3" doesn't mean anything as an argument. You lose if you aren't #1.
So why would he drop out before the 7 people polling way behind him in a primary where things can change very quickly? A few months ago Warren seemed to have completely stalled and had no momentum. Now she's the shoe-in for the nomination for many, and people have decided actually no, Biden isn't the most electable despite still leading in the polls. Opinions are as fickle as the polls. Both change all the time.
Kinda seems like people are being biased tbh.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but everyone has their biases. If you think anyone is unbiased, even those who profess the good word of pure DATA, then you're a bit naive
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Its become a chorus in the media to basically tell Sanders to drop out before even the first vote is cast despite being in consistently in the top 3...i mean, considering how there are about 10+ people still in the race, very strange. That's called biased media narratives. It was the same in 2016

It's not like 2016, by then he was well into the primary voting process and his campaign died a simple death around March where anyone else would have quit because the campaign died. Naturally he ended up losing because he didn't have a path to defeat Hillary. This is a worry many people didn't want to repeat in '20 and might give an edge to Biden while the left vote splits between himself and Warren.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Ichy, i am well aware of where your coming from when it comes to this whole ideological battle. So i dont really see the need to argue back and forth about that with you under the guise of whether or not there is media bias geared toward the establishment and the status quo. We know the facts. The thing i am pointing out right now is that to deny that is to deny the reality of the situation, so people should really stop doing it
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Ichy, i am well aware of where your coming from when it comes to this whole ideological battle. So i dont really see the need to argue back and forth about that with you under the guise of whether or not there is media bias geared toward the establishment and the status quo. We know the facts. The thing i am pointing out right now is that to deny that is to deny the reality of the situation, so people should really stop doing it

There are examples for your argument, I was simply pointing out '16 wasn't one of them.
 

GiantBreadbug

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,992
I think probably the single biggest indicator of the truth of this thread title is that I genuinely could not tell which Shitty Media Thing was the cause of the bump before clicking and reading

But yeah very appropriate that Nate shitted himself back into the news cycle after that recent Citation Needed episode put a magnifying glass onto Pundit Brain, in full display in the "residue" comment
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I do understand the argument about not touching anything remotely close to certain language in the discussion with a ten foot pole. "Residue" is standing in for "remaining residual support" and "Residual" would have been the better alternative. (I literally did not know that was the noun form and used outside of a synonym for royalties until looking it up just now.)
Heh.

I guess his views is rather flexible, depending on the person being discussed and whether he likes them or not.
that strange, you were so concerned that Omars comments could be considered by some as antisemitic
So did you two bother to read the post before hot-taking?
It's not about explicit intent, it's about the impact of his words, which he seems to struggle with understanding.
If it's not about explicit intent, then don't write something in brackets claiming that was his intention.
 

Oddish1

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,818

So if I understand this clip correctly a panelist on CNN was asked if Bernie should drop out, and she said no it was probably too early but that there are signs Bernie should shake up his campaign to stay viable.

Maybe I'm just an establishment shill but that seems like a completely reasonable and fair take.
 

Kitsunelaine

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,382
So if I understand this clip correctly a panelist on CNN was asked if Bernie should drop out, and she said no it was probably too early but that there are signs Bernie should shake up his campaign to stay viable.

Maybe I'm just an establishment shill but that seems like a completely reasonable and fair take.
Bro this isn't the thread for reasonable and fair takes
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
So if I understand this clip correctly a panelist on CNN was asked if Bernie should drop out, and she said no it was probably too early but that there are signs Bernie should shake up his campaign to stay viable.

Maybe I'm just an establishment shill but that seems like a completely reasonable and fair take.
The panelist was fine, but the question from the anchor was ridiculous. As the panelist said, it is way too early for that kind of question.
 

Jimrpg

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,280
Yeah i was surprised when he received that 14% in that poll a few weeks back.

If the media are manipulating the polls thats a disgrace. I wouldn't be surprised at all if these numbers aren't real. What people see is confirmation bias - that bernie = socialism = america doesn't want it and act upon it.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
The panelist was fine, but the question from the anchor was ridiculous. As the panelist said, it is way too early for that kind of question.

his question isn't entirely ridiculous either. It was a question of "They are competing for the same wing. Would it not beneficial for that wing to consolidate under Warren?" That's a fair take too with only Iowa as context.