The accusations of racism against Sanders and his supporters is never going away. We created this.

[MadDAsHell]

When a few decades ago we decided that calling someone a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. was useful as a political tool to silence our opponents, whether it was the truth or not, we created this.

This circus world where those words have become absolutely meaningless, is of our own making. Today's young people don't even know what racism or sexism is, because in their lifetime they've heard that EVERYTHING is racist, sexist, etc.

The chickens are home to roost; unfortunately I saw this coming years ago and we have no one to blame but ourselves that our party eats our own.

Let's just hope it doesn't cost us 2016.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. "Amongst" Sanders supporters; or AGAINST Sanders supporters? n/t

[MadDAsHell]

2. I'm talking about what I'm hearing "against". I'll clarify my posting.

[malthaussen]

3. Syntactically, works either way.

"Amongst" refers to the supporters, "Against" to the accusers. The latter is clearer, IMO. But the accusation is that racism exists "amongst" the supporters of Mr Sanders.
And now the OP has changed, which will make future readers wonder what we're on about.

-- Mal

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Makes sense to me.

Good way to shut down debate.

And keep bad and weak arguments from being scrutinized and challenged.

RW used it in the 50s and 60's ( pinkos, commie symps, fellow travelers, etc. ) to cow the left.

Result: Vietnam war.

[MadDAsHell]

5. Good analogy. Nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. What???? ...

I have to ask ... so I'm not interpreting what I think you are implying through your inference ... Are you saying that the people calling out the racism/sexism/heterosexism that they see, are doing it for political point scoring?

Thank you in advance.

[MadDAsHell]

7. If I said "the people," that would be very general...I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that we're all aware of how politics works today. It's a gotcha game. And I believe it's naive to assume that there aren't individuals that will say anything, even about a member of their own political party, if it advances an issue/cause/candidate that they believe in.

And I'm further saying that yes, I do believe that today we, the Democratic Party, are more responsible for that state of affairs than the Republicans. Over the years many in the Democratic Party, fearing the radicalism of the other side, confused on how to debate it, or just simply frustrated with the stupidity of the other side, have simply chosen not to engage in any dialogue at all.

But realizing that this will make them look like they're afraid to debate, they simply throw accusations at the other person to attempt to portray them as someone "not worthy" of having a discussion with: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Not to say that the right wing isn't awfully good at this too. The left were all "uneducated hippies" in the 60's whose opposition to the war was unfounded and naive, right?