General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I posted some things two years ago about Kamala Harris that were I shouldn't have. [View all]BainsBane
(53,035 posts)criticized Warren for her attacks on Obama. Apparently your contrived notion of not attacking Democrats meaning remaining silent while others attack Democrats. And that is what has you upset. That citizens dared to criticize Warren's absurd statements that a man who grew up to a single mother on welfare and who worked as a community organizer in Chicago is out of touch with the American people. I don't know what makes Warren think she is so much more in touch with the American people. I'm going to hazard a guess she hasn't lived in low-income urban communities like Obama has. I think it's safe to say she has no idea of what it's like to be black in America. How could she? I think what we are seeing in her comments is quite narrow conception of who constitutes the people.
We see that argument that not attacking Democrats means remaining silent while others attack Democrats, or even that we are expected to support their claims that the party is hopeless corrupt and doesn't represent true "working people." We're supposed to ignore exit polls,. acquiesce to demonstrably false claims about the demographics of the 2016 election because promoting that narrative is more important than facts. I'm not going to do it. What I do when I have criticisms is I made them on the substance of the argument. I don't hurl insults, and I certainly don' rely on those insults as the beginning, end, and whole of an argument.
That said, this thread is not about "Democratic unity" or not attacking Democrats. It is about a very specific set of behaviors and comments by the OP. You asked why the apology wasn't enough, and you were told. You were told it wasn't a single errant comment from two years ago. You were told it was an ongoing practice that continues until as recently as two days ago. Rather than confronting that, you sought to distract by insisting we apologize for a comment another poster made that you couldn't even bother to respond to at the time.
You said someone called Schumer a sexist, something not precisely true, according to your link. What that member does say is that some men are threatened by strong women, and he implies that Schumer is one of them. I don't agree with that analysis--not because I claim to know Schumer's attitudes toward women, but because I don't see that episode as about that at all. I already gave my assessment of it in a separate thread, but I never even opened the thread you linked to. I'm certainly not going to now descend on that poster in a fit of outrage because you couldn't bother to respond to him at the time.
It seems to me that someone with the courage of his conviction responds directly to arguments he finds troubling. You did not. Instead, you now invoke it in what appears to be an effort to justify or distract from the OP. If you want to defend the idea that it's okay to say women and people of color are not representatives of diversity if they don't back Sanders, then say so. If you want to say that people without the "progressive" stamp of approval should not be allowed to run for political office, then say so.
But don't manufacture faux outrage about comments you didn't even care enough about to respond to at the time. If you want to support the OP's notion that the only acceptable public officials are those allied with Sanders, then damn well say so.
And no, I don't think the comments are comparable for a few reasons. 1) one comment in a subthead is not the same as an ongoing pattern. 2) arguments that seek to exclude marginalized groups from power are worse than than those that criticize what the writer sees as dominant cultural biases by white men. 3) Truthfully, the comments don't bother me that much. I don't think them applicable to that particular discussion and they may well be unfair to Schumer, but I know for a fact that many men are threatened by accomplished and powerful women. If that weren't the case, Clinton would be president right now.
I'm also not buying your claims that you are aggrieved by attacks on Democrats. We see attacks on the party as whole on this site every day, and I have not seen you voice any concern. To now pretend you are so broken up about it doesn't pass the smell test.