The 2017 Wypipo Awards

[XRubicon]

https://www.theroot.com/the-2017-wypipo-awards-1821347209

Not offensive as long as you are not Hillary Clinton or a white woman, other than that...

[Nonhlanhla]

1. LOL

at "Taylor Swift’s becoming the “alt-right” Beyoncé," and agree with the ridiculousness of Blake Shelton being named Sexiest Man Alive.

Disagree with the tired old meme that Hillary Clinton "rigged the primaries."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. LMFAO!!

[petronius]

4. Well, it looks like I'm going to have a run-away winner in my

2018 'Auto-trash by Keyword' Competition. (Sorry, "corn flake chicken," but you have been dethroned...)

[sharedvalues]

5. The Root article bashes Hillary egregiously

The article, by Michael Harriot, gives its “awards”
to a white supremacist... and Hillary Clinton. This is the same kind of trash the Republicans and Russians pushed about Hillary.

Wow. This article is divisive and destructive. “Not offensive unless you care about Hillary, Democrats or the country” is a fair description.

If we want to fix the country we can’t be taking articles like this seriously. Thanks for posting OP.

[grantcart]

7. He nominated Hillary. He also nominated himself

[sharedvalues]

9. Bashing Hillary like Harriot does is divisive - bad for race relations and bad for democracy.

[grantcart]

11. You might not agree with his particular criticism of Sec Clinton, which he is simply stating that

she seems to have a double standard (something that we are probably all guilty of) but to conflate that this statement is somehow going to exacerbate "race relations" is beyond absurd.

So following your logic is his nominating himself (which really indicates that the whole thing is rather tongue in check, including the statements of all the nominees as opposed to the true objects, those that won the awards) going to have a desultory effect on "black on black" violence?

[sharedvalues]

12. What? He's bashing Hillary. Awards her same award as a WHITE SUPREMACIST.

White-Tears Award
Chris Cantwell: For being the biggest, baddest Nazi at the White Supremacist Purge in Charlottesville, Va., then bawling when he discovered police had issued a warrant for his arrest.
...
Hillary Clinton: For rigging the primaries, then crying about how the 2016 presidential election was rigged. For contributing the phrase that is forever enshrined in the Salty Wypipo Hall of Fame: “But she won the popular vote.”

This is divisive crap Harriot is pushing about Hillary. And so he doesn't belong on a site that cares about Democrats, tolerance, diversity, or the country.

Edit to add: I think some of what he says in the article is fine - white people can take a lot of criticism for their conduct. But the Hillary stuff, and the white woman stuff later in the article, was the same stuff pushed by the Russians for a reason - because it divides and weakens America. Hillary and the DNC did the right thing with the primaries: favor Democrats. And more of us should be talking about how she won the popular vote in a landslide. Whether Harriot realizes it or not, he's helping the GOP and the Russians, by echoing the same talking points they use to divide Democrats and divide America. This crap shouldn't be anywhere near DU or any other site that contains patriotic Americans who stand for diversity, inclusion, and the American dream.

[grantcart]

13. No he didn't. Wrong on the facts, the adjectives and worst of all the racist extrapolation.

1) In his comedic set up he has several nominees and then the award winner. Yes he included Hillary as a comedic reference to her inconsistency on the openness of the process (big deal). He also nominated himself:

Michael Harriot: For his involvement with the Ku Klux Klan and repeatedly being called “the real racist.”

If you didn't get that the "nominees" were tongue in check and the actual awards identified the real targets of his biting satire then he included a reference to himself that should have clued you in.

2) I supported Hillary 100%. Does that mean that it isn't possible to criticise her campaign? Of course there is,

Can you guess who is "bashing" Secretary Clinton here?

(Clinton's) use of a private email server while serving at the State Department "dumb"

if there's one place where (she was) caught by surprise, it was Wisconsin

You can blame the data, blame the message, blame anything you want -- but (she) was the candidate, . . .it was (her) campaign. Those were (her) decisions."

Can you name the person who is "bashing" Sec Clinton? answer down below

3) So he didn't actually elevate her to Wypipo award, he wasn't "bashing" her but criticizing one aspect of her campaign, which if you read her book she does herself, but what is really wrong about your post is that you are racializing something that isn't about race:

Bashing Hillary like Harriot does is divisive - bad for race relations and bad for democracy.

So now if a black person criticizes the way a white politician runs his/her campaign (and pretty soft criticism as well) then it becomes a pan racial division between the races . So what you are saying is that for the races to have better relations is for black commentators to hold their thoughts and stay in line.

What makes this particularly egregious is that his comment on her is not only not related to race so how in the world does it harm "race relations". Now to be clear while I don't find his criticism of her to be particularly harsh I also don't find it to be accurate. Sec Clinton used the assets to her advantage in the nomination process but she didn't "rig" it. More to the point Sec Clinton never "cried" about the GE being rigged.

There are much more telling criticisms of the Clinton campaign in my opinion but what does any of that have to do with "race relations". He isn't making an observation based on her race or his race or on a policy that is based on race.

You made it a race issue solely on the basis that he is black.


4) But that isn't even the worst part of your comment. That would be

bad for democracy.

Wow

This is the tendency to super elevate everything that a person disagrees in to some hyper metaphysical crises.

Here is a DU poll where 91% of the people equate the Republican Party with the Nazi Party. That type of adolescent hyperbolic expression isn't just stupid and counter productive it trivializes the holocaust.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10580885

There is nothing in the author's piece that is bad for race relations or for democracy", that is what you are doing.

Democracy is based on the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. There was nothing bombastic, racist or antidemocratic in the authors statements. Ascribing special duties that Black writers should bear that others don't have to is "bad for racial division" and "bad for democracy".

All you had to do is say "Regardless of what else the author had to say I disagree with his characterization of Sec Clintons actions in the primary and her reaction to the general" which I would agree to but didn't find it egregious enough to note. Yours, however, is.


Check below to identify the person who "bashed Clinton" more than Michael Harriot did.


















































those are all quotes from Sec Clinton's book with the pronouns changed to hide the fact that she is criticizing herself.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-hillary-clinton-book-20170909-story.html

[EffieBlack]

18. Hear, hear!!!

[betsuni]

20. Excellent!

[melman]

22. If someone posted those very same things he said right here on DU

what do you suppose the fate of such a post would be? Rhetorical question of course.

[sharedvalues]

31. Exactly.

And given the way the GOP is trying to damage the country on the backs of white racist voters, the DU rules reflect what is good for the country.

[betsuni]

32. Oh, melman.

[emulatorloo]

34. Aw, so oppressed by the evil DU

[XRubicon]

23. Any thoughts on this part?

I guess if it's only a joke then it's ok?

And the winner is: White women.

After closing out 2016 strong by combining 53 percent of their powers to elect the first citrus fruit to serve as president, white women brought in 2017 strong with the Women’s March, the largest single-day protest in history. They started a pussy-hat trend and co-opted the #MeToo movement, which was started by a black woman.

Their candidate lost the presidential election, and they blamed it on the Russians. Their candidate lost the Atlanta mayoral race, and they blamed it on a miscount. Their candidate lost in Alabama, and they took credit for the other candidate’s win. They turned Yeezy into the Manchurian Kanye. A white woman got away with killing Terence Crutcher. A white woman got her ass kicked by Serena—again ... but still has more endorsements than Serena.

White women scammed us out of GoFundMe donations for bullying (Keaton Jones’ mom). An unemployed white woman disrespected the flag while calling black people lazy and NFL players unpatriotic (Tomi Lahren). A white woman tried to convince us that Pepsi cured police brutality (Kendall Jenner). A white woman ...

But they won the popular vote, though.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. I noticed in his writing

which is essentially hyperbolic and bombastic satire, that he purposely cuts across party/political persuasion to point out examples of certain "offending" (not meaning "offensive" ) behaviors within the same group. People who wear the mantle of being enlightened yet completely unaware of their contradictory responses and reactions to certain situations.

The use of the term "white women" as an encompassing term suggests that he wants to force that "group" to acknowledge these behaviors among their own in the same manner as many (not all) within that "group" insist that blacks must acknowledge certain behaviors within their group. E.g., those who point at the Ben Carsons, Omarosas, Kanye Wests, Killer Mikes, etc., who betray all common sense, yet are irrevocably attached to the black community.

I.e., the point being that whites are allowed to be "individuals" and not responsible for the behavior of others where POC are not given that privilege. So in the essays, he becomes an "equal opportunity criticizer" of white/black/women/men/Democrat/Republican, and even includes himself to criticize, to set the example.

In other words, through the examples given so harshly, one can see that no group is really a "monolith" although they often publicly insist that they are.

[joshcryer]

26. Ironically the quip used by the author is off base.

Simply because the Mikulski Commission and Fairness Commissions respectively gave minorities (see: the South) more representation in the nomination process.

One truly "wypipo" thing about the primaries was how the South was so "frontloaded" in the primaries and how they were never going to vote Democratic anyway in the elections, so they shouldn't get priority!

[sharedvalues]

30. Wrong. And whataboutism to boot. Harriot is the subject here.

Your reply is a discussion of how other people in other articles criticize Hillary. Well, those people deserve criticism too. But that doesn’t absolve Harriot. In fact, it’s merely whataboutism to bring up others. We’d criticize those others too.

Harriot’s article indeed is bad for American democracy. Why? Because one party is an autocratic coalition of billionaires and identity politics that INTENTIONALLY inflames racism in America. And the other party is a coalition of minorities and whites that at a party level is trying to improve tolerance in America and build a diverse society where we all can succeed.

Harriet equates the two parties. Not coincidentally, so did Russian propaganda in 2016. And also not coincidentally, so does the GOP propaganda machine.

The worst thing we can do politically for minorities today is pretend the parties are equal, because that’s the road to the Republicans destroying democracy on the backs of white racist voters. And Harriot is, unintentionally or not, using the GOP playbook.



p.s. I’d be happy to discuss your other articles in a different thread.

[sharedvalues]

33. It's a race issue because echoing GOP talking points helps racists

The GOP does stuff like this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210582420

You have to read that NRA thread (NRA is a core GOP org) if you haven’t already. It’s insane and I feel great shame that groups like this ca exist in America.

Meanwhile the GOP tries to push talking points to split up the Democratic Party, especially on race issues — so that the GOP can continue to use race and hate to cut taxes on the rich.

The biggest organized source of hate in America today is the GOP, and Harriot treating both parties the same is hurting us.

[grantcart]

39. Wrong on the facts (again), off point and wrong on the logic

Wrong on the facts

1) Harriot's statement (which again I don't agree with) isn't a Republican talking point its a Sanders talking point. Statements regarding a "rigged" primary system refer to the use of Super Delegates (which I agree with). It is not a Republican talking point. Your link has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

Off Point

2) The issue here is not, again for the umpteenth time, related to agreement with or against Harriot's statement it is YOUR statement that what he said was "bad for race relations" and "bad for democracy". Any other points is an effort for you to switch to another topic. His statements (which I don't agree with) are not bad for race relations or democracy.

You know what is bad for race relations and democracy? Establishing an additional burden for black commentators that when they say something it carries the imprint of a pan racial meaning and they should shut up if they want better race relations. Its from the 1950s, its offensive.

3) Wrong on the logic

What he is saying has nothing to do with Republican talking points (see #1), but assuming that he did in fact agree with a particular point (which he didn't) that would not be "bad for race relations, bad for democracy"

There are reasonable criticisms that can be made against the Clinton campaign, Secretary Clinton has made many of them herself. If you are against Super Delegates and feel that it "rigs the system" as many at DU do feel (again I don't) that doesn't amount to "bashing". It is a very long article and it includes two minor references to Hillary which he meant as a sardonic counter point, it wasn't bashing.

Summary

1) He didn't use Republican talking points
2) He didn't "bash" Clinton. People are free to make reasonable criticisms of the campaign
3) What he said has absolutely nothing to do with race relations
4) What he said is not "bad for democracy"
5) Anything you say that is not in response to the "bad for race relations, bad for democracy" nonsensical response to the OP is OFF POINT to this sub thread.

Can't make it clearer than that.

[sharedvalues]

41. Bashing Clinton is a GOP talking point

And helping divide democrats helps the GOP, and thus increases racism in America. Since the GOP is the party of institutional propaganda and a party strategy is to amplify racism to get votes for billionaires.

[dsc]

35. No because she didn't rig anything

The first two states were tailor made for him. Both nearly all white, one a caucus, the other next door to him. The debates all featured his issues to the literal exclusion of hers. He lost because African Americans, in particular women, refused to vote for Sanders and voted heavily for her. That isn't rigging, it is democracy.

[grantcart]

40. Wild guess DSC you didn't actually read my response

which included this:

What makes this particularly egregious is that his comment on her is not only not related to race so how in the world does it harm "race relations". Now to be clear while I don't find his criticism of her to be particularly harsh I also don't find it to be accurate. Sec Clinton used the assets to her advantage in the nomination process but she didn't "rig" it. More to the point Sec Clinton never "cried" about the GE being rigged.

Re: 'rigging'

I believe that the reference to 'rigging' is not to the sequence of primaries but that on day one she had hundreds of Superdelegates already lined up to support her. I don't consider that rigging because he had an equal chance of getting these delegates but failed.

He has been in the Senate for decades but gets only one Senator to endorse him (and it was kind of weak endorsement). Sanders is unable to get elected officials (like the Governor and the other Senator) to endorse him? That is exactly what the SDs are for, to prevent another McGovern.

So while I don't agree with Harriot's set up that it was rigged, I especially don't agree that Clinton claimed that the result was rigged (although she made legitimate claims against the Comey disclosure).

It appears that you don't disagree with my statements on what Harriot said but this subthread isn't about the substance of what he said.

This sub thread is about
1) is Harriot bashing Clinton. No because it is a very long article and he has two sentences on her with criticism on her campaign that is lighter in substance than her own criticisms.

2) this sub thread is about the question "when a black commentator makes a comment about Sec. Clinton does it raise to the level of being "bad for race relations". If you agree with that then we are adding yet another double standard. We don't have bad race relations in this country because commentators who happen to be black make comments about Sec Clinton's campaign.

3) "bad for democracy" well that is just laughable.

Again the issue you refer to is in agreement with my response, the real issue (whether you agree or disagree with the 'rigging' point) is do you agree that his making it is "bad for race relations and bad for democracy".

[EffieBlack]

8. Large swaths of DU bashed Hillary egregiously, too

So ...

[sharedvalues]

10. Yup, and we should all stop and unite against the systemic force pushing racism in America: the GOP

[RhodeIslandOne]

21. Hey, why not?

I spent a few posts yesterday calling this idiot out for who he is. He is not a friend to Democrats or their ideals. But a few people are so caught up in how clever they think he is and harbor such ill will towards many here, it is as close as they can get to shitting in the punch bowl at an ACLU fundraiser in the Hamptons and pissing off "limousine libs", so let them have at it.

[ProudLib72]

6. What is it with kale being a wypipo food?

That's the second reference I've seen today. I agree that kale is

[Sailor65x1]

15. I'm still trying to figure out

Who actually LIKES kale. Owens-Corning fiberglass tastes the same and pound-for-pound, it's cheaper at Lowe's. I interact with a lot of people, and I haven't found a single one in any skin wavelength that likes kale.

[ProudLib72]

17. I think it must have become trendy in the last few years

My BIL likes it (but he's Hispanic). My sister likes it (she actually made a kale salad that tasted decent because of the candied pecans). Other than that, though, I don't know any white people who like it. I watched a video where three black guys try wypipo food. They had kale, mayonnaise, hogs head cheese (!), and non-sweetened iced tea. It's pretty funny that these are stereotypes.

[EffieBlack]

19. I like Kale

[BumRushDaShow]

24. There are a lot of recipes for "kale chips"

as a "healthy" alternative snack to potato chips (crisped in the oven) and I think this is where some of this is coming from.

[DonCoquixote]

28. it depends on how it is served

For example, there is what used to be a staple of Irish cuisine called Colcannon, which is mashed potatoes mixed with kale. Granted, that is not some trendy thing that Bobby Flay would display, but it adds greens to starch.

https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/colcannon/

[NCTraveler]

16. Then they came for the wypipo....

And there was no one left to fight for them.

[LeftInTX]

37. Did they come for the kale?

[DonCoquixote]

27. this is the part that peope mad at the term always ignore

Not everyone is eligible for these honors. Only the small subset of white people called “wypipo”—those who trade in privilege, hate and what our panelists call “white-people shit”—receive nominations. Now, without further ado, here are the nominees and winners of the 2017 Wypipo Awards:

boldface mine.

[sharedvalues]

29. Yup he says that, then he includes Hillary

That would be fine if he actually was consistent.
But he is not. If he really wanted to criticize those who traffic in hate he’d criticize the GOP at much more length than he does. Instead his first political target is Hillary.

Come on, man. We need Charles Barkley to tear this guy a new one.

[LeftInTX]

36. LOL

Can they please nominate Sarah Mclaughlin?

Just because.......

[AnnieBW]

38. ROFL!

I'm a middle-aged white woman, and laughed my ass off at this! Excellent job, Root!