Stained Class Rose #SinglePayer #BernieOrBust@DEMS_R_GOP
The difference between Republicans and Democrats:

One kicks in the front door, kills you and steals everything.

The other befriends you, gets you to put them in your will, buys a life insurance policy on you and then secretly poisons you.

Aqib Talib: Jared Goff will be successful 'as long as he stays where he is' https://t.co/GycCsrfV7D

— Rams Wire (@TheRamsWire) March 11, 2020

Paul Botts@Botts1Paul
I don’t trust any of the results after Iowa. The system is too corrupt to work for the working class people. Both parties that run the elections are corrupt from the local level to the national level. We do not have free and fair elections.

ICYMI: Don't give RBs 2nd contracts, they just won't justify them. Move on, get cheaper, get better overall:https://t.co/KEQypYCTrJ

— Sam Monson (@PFF_Sam) March 10, 2020

Dave Dameshek is joined in Studio 66 by cornerback Aqib Talib! Shek and Aqib kibitz about playing with Peyton Manning (2:35), Jared Goff’s ability (4:31), his free agency status (10:27), the future of the Miami Dolphins (17:24), Dak Prescott’s contract (21:49) and where Tom Brady will play in 2020 (26:33)?

Rams release JoJo Natson https://t.co/ZU2TPp2IyP pic.twitter.com/mroh3NGo8e

— TurfShowTimes (@TurfShowTimes) March 10, 2020

from Bad Moon Rising: Racism, Anti-Semitism + the Toxic Bernie Bro Trope

http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/online-issue/bad-moon-rising?fbclid=IwAR1xGYBnXDEGWzWhxgbAThYq4_NAJAMvRPvNBrwYaoF8QwcnelYKzTHc_EQ

…

The point here is to examine the universality of the concept of “toxicity” and its elective affinity with “the Paranoid Style in American Politics”. In the last decade it has been used by all sides in the context of political debate. Someone may be referred to as a “toxic person”, sometimes an innocuous point about a really mean human being, but more often a pathologization. Two years ago, my former union struck against York University but found themselves hemmed in by a narrative that the Left was “toxic”, the ongoing discourse from the right wing of the union. So you literally had people who surreptitiously met with management, recorded in-camera meetings and openly encouraged scabbing, accusing union activists of “toxicity”, much like the employer.

Yet “toxicity” is not a floating signifier. In the era of Covid-19 and anxious preppers, virus metaphors having become part of the everyday parlance of information technology with its disposability of human beings through the logic of the social industry. “Toxicity,” on one hand, could be shorn of meaning. On the other hand, it can be seen as going beyond de-humanization in order to render a human being as a walking contagion – in other words, as a Jew. And more to the point, a Jew who has not gone through the bourgeois-style assimilation of diction lessons to lose the “sing-songy” voice that middle class Jews in the fifties and sixties tried so desperately to lose. A Jew like Larry David, who like Dave Chappelle (in his pre Transphobia years, at least), people perhaps cringed at for the wrong reason. Or a Jew like Bernie Sanders. Or the many Jews who were for Jeremy Corbyn and specifically targeted – by other Jews no less – as “anti-Semites”. This reaches its apotheosis when German curators ban Jewish speakers for being in favor of the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement. In many ways, the very existence of Left-wing Anti-Zionist Jews (Deutscherites, if you will) allow Zionists, Jewish or otherwise, to participate in the grand game of anti-Semitism by shifting around its meaning. Zionism is predicated, after all, on a sort of “Judeo-Pessimism” not dissimilar to the implicit Afro-Pessimism that was a factor in the older black vote for Joe Biden.

After all, as Terry Southern implies in his script for Dr. Strangelove, anti-communism predicated upon toxicity is a refraction of anti-Semitism. And the way it has been used against Jewish presidential candidate Sanders and the “Bernie Bros” is openly anti-Semitic, the most classic example being the CNN chyron asking whether Bernie Sanders or the fucking Coronavirus could be stopped. That this anti-Semitism isn’t obvious speaks to a broader issue both external to and internal to American Jewish communities in general, and the fissures developing between American liberalism and the Left. On the same night that a Nazi waved the Nazi flag at a Sanders rally in Arizona, the well-known fraud Elizabeth Warren was on the aforementioned network venting to Russiagate’s answer to Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, about “Bernie Bros”, making lurid allegations. Indeed, she sounded just like a Massachusetts-liberal version of the fascist military figures in Z and Dr. Strangelove. Not to mention that the animus of the online “Bernie Bros” never approached the gross level of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism often directed towards the Sanders campaign itself.

A Sidetrack on “Standing”, Hilary Rosen + the telos of White Moderate Liberalism

A few days after this sordid episode, Democratic Party operative and Biden supporter Hillary Rosen was on CNN alongside Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner. As most readers know, Rosen proceeded to have the unmitigated chutzpah to tell Ms. Turner that she was wrong about King’s indictment of “white moderates” in his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” What is more, Rosen told Ms. Turner she didn’t have the standing to “criticize Joe Biden using Martin Luther King”. In the self-serving myopia of former BP lobbyist Rosen, the white moderate was not to be feared so much as “brought around” from his “silence”. Thus Martin Luther King is magically transformed into a preacher of respectability politics. In reality, of course, King was pointing out that, in the grand scheme of things, the KKK may have been an immediate risk but white liberals who just wanted things to be “normal” were a greater barrier to emancipation. In what was referred to as an apology on Twitter, Rosen called Turner an “angry black woman”, later to delete the Tweet and tweet out another apology, pathetically drawing attention to herself by claiming Turner wouldn’t take her phone call.

Rosen evidently thinks she has “standing” to question a Black woman’s right to invoke Martin Luther King against Joseph Biden. What is this “standing” that Rosen is speaking of anyway? Is it the a “standing” that only Black folks unaligned with the Russia/Trump/Commie/Fidelista/Bernie Bro candidate have? How is this related, for example, to Joy Reed’s anti-Semitic use of a “body language” expert to prove that Bernie is objectively disgusting? Or MSNBC contributor and Root editor Jason Johnson who had the audacity to call Black supporters of Sanders the equivalent of k**e lovers from the “island of misfit Black girls”? Of course this echoes the recently departed Chris Matthews who compared Sanders’ victory in Nevada to the Nazi occupation of France which happened during the eclipse of the French Popular Front, in when the French state had been governed by Leon Blum, a Jewish social democrat.

Rosen, who is often billed as a “Democratic operative” is a perfect example of American liberalism’s degeneration. A founder of “Rock the Vote,” a proud insider who humblebrags about it this status in her official bio, she is a backroom dealer of capitalist realism. She has achievements to her credit, as an early advocate of funding AIDS research, a power broker behind the opposition to George W. Bush’s attempted constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Yet simultaneous to that, she helped destroy the music industry and give birth to “the age of Spotification”. She was head of the Recording Industry Association (RIAA) during the dying days of musicians being able to draw an income from their craft and presided over a massive shift in power from labour to capital. It is no accident that under her helm, music, well, started to suck. As Dave Marsh points out in Rock and Rap Confidential, “under Rosen’s watch, the RIAA launched its vicious war against music fans, making the words “file sharer” synonymous with “criminal.” Rosen shepherded the draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act through Congress.”

So what it is that gives Rosen the standing to basically call Nina Turner “uppity” is her experience “doing politics” the way liberals believe one does politics. Rosen sits in her lofty perch as someone who succeeded followed up her destruction of the music industry with lobbying for British Petroleum, Facebook, Viacom, and TransCanada Corporation, among other shady global criminal masterminds. The liberal establishment, indeed even the “left” or Warrenish wing of liberalism, is deathly afraid of any form of politics from below. In turn, they can make a living off other people’s suffering. But they see this just as another part of the “human condition” and thus they can “do right” by becoming a “progressive insider” – the kind who ends up in the tank for Biden after openly participating in an anti-Black, anti-Semitic and anti-communist campaign against the Sanders movement. Rosen, a queer Jewish woman and “lean-in” feminist, is allying with forces that, even on her own terms, don’t serve the “causes” of her Sorkinesque liberalism.

This is due to her standing as a power broker. She attained this by subsuming some of the artisanal privilege musicians had into a new cultural accumulation regime, and then later sold her oratorical skills to the world’s worst polluter. This kind of standing allows her to walk among these thugs, knowing that in the wilderness of mirrors that constitutes “Washington, DC” as a totality, it’s thug life – but seriously. And the only way to really improve the lot of one’s community, the liberal thug tells themselves, is to be among the thugs and build transactional power, and insofar as that works for everything from progressive social issues and anti-censorship, AIDS funding, and the like, Rosen aligned themselves, to the NRA, Christian Fundamentalism, every intelligence service in the world, oil, fast food, etc. The wilderness of mirrors, or the “deep state” if you will, as I point out in Salvage, can be understood in the sense of Marx’s statement on the state as the the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. But this, as Marx points out, is akin precisely the the Hobbesian war of all against all, that together constitutes capital’s vanguard as a whole. And thus, there will be intrigues within this vanguard, different interests at play, but one has to be a part of it in order to have “standing”. They don’t see it as selling their souls. They are nowhere near as honest as the likes of Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney, relishing power for its own sake.

They think they are saving the world. And they think anything our side puts forward will inevitably end up in “totalitarianism”. Even if they share “policy goals”, obviously their political horizons differ even from the right-wing of social democracy in a profound sense. They don’t represent capital. Rather, even more so than the cynics around Trump, they personify capital.

So it’s perfectly OK for them to rile up popular anti-Black or anti-Semitic – or homophobic, Islamophobic, generally racist, even regionalist – sentiment to make their point. As it’s just throwing harmless people red meat. They’re not like TRUMP, who is far too flagrant. They just aren’t above instrumentalizing sentiment, while perhaps financially supporting a group like, say, the ADL or the Human Rights Campaign to assuage their guilt.

Joe Biden, after all, is exceptionally vulnerable on issues popular to the Democratic base far beyond Sanders’ supporters. Biden is not pro-choice, he is weasely about it and has been on record far more often criticzing Roe vs. Wade then staunchly supporting it. Whether he would enact such changes is less important than the fact that he doesn’t believe abortion is a choice. He, like many liberals, wants to limit abortion. There is no doubt of the legitimacy of Biden’s Black support, but as Elie Mystal points out in The Nation, it is largely due to transactional relationships with power brokers and a certain “celebrity” charisma. It cannot be denied that there is symbolic valiance to a white man who was willing to play second fiddle to a Black man.

Rosen is the personification of capital in 2020. One doesn’t have to say “they’ll help elect Trump” as who knows, maybe that piece of shit Biden can beat the guy. Though I reckon he can’t. But in instrumentalizing the language of toxicity rooted in anti-Semitism, all the while attacking people of colour in and around the Sanders movement, including “The Squad”, they are contributing to a dangerous situation, a situation that threatens far more than the Sanders movement. They exist in a dyad with the Bannons and Stones of this world, each one accusing the other of collusion with this or that power, each riling up the popular racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism of their various social bases and/or pandering to bourgeois sentiment within said clusters. The one thing they all agree on is the most important, the maintenance and continuation of capitalist social property relations.

Ain’t No Fooling Around

Leftists like to point out how absurd this all is, a politician with an objectively better record on gender, and certainly on abortion, is denounced strongly by NOW in spite of the high grades they gave him, higher than Biden on some measures. “People are in camps at the border and I can’t pay for my insulin but Bernie Bros were mean to me on the internet” or something along these lines. But it goes beyond that. The animus to Bernie and the people around him, for those who are responsible for, buy into, and thus reproduce the slanders about the Sanders movement is predicated on popular racism and anti-Semitism. Since Bernie is just a “white man”, one does not examine why his gruffness evokes discomfort. One is encouraged to feel this discomfort with his gruffness, yet this gruffness is proletarian gruffness in general, and Jewish gruffness in particular. And the same goes with Turner and “the Squad”, their ascribed identity being absolutely co-constitutive with their embodiment of the proletarian or at least downwardly mobile petit-bourgeois majority of Americans.

This is why Sanders supporters on the internet are genuinely seen as a bigger deal than a swastika, or even the bombing of mosques, synagogues, churches, abortion clinics, Jewish Community Centres, labour union halls and so on. If you are willing to talk about Trump with regards to these shootings but unwilling to squarely examine the constitutive violence of the American system, it is not that you are “intentionally” as bad as they are. Rather you have signed what the late Marxist theorist Norman Geras called the “Contract of Mutual Indifference”. You are prepared to acknowledge tragedy but are afraid or unwilling to fight it when the species itself is at stake.

There is implicit naturalization of Nazis interrupting Sanders events and white supremacist violence throughout society, even an implicit naturalization of Trump’s most xenophobic policies, like his concentration camps for migrants or the Muslim ban. All of these things are objectively more preferable to liberals, than electing Bernie Sanders, a moderate social democrat.

So this absurdism is only absurd insofar as our reality is absurd, a context that the artist Anupam Roy suggests is impossible to represent. But it is an internal logic that in the “fishhook” theory that objectively unites liberals with fascism. This affinity is merely less hidden now. Even if it is disavowed.

The classic era of right-wing thuggish movements from below instrumentalized by powerful forces has given way, for now, to the era of stochastic violence. The more anti-Semitic innuendo and coding there is about Sanders and his supporters, the more one should become concerned. These dynamics raise serious questions about his safety in the context of right-wing and fascist stochastic terrorism and state intrigue alike.

But Bernie Bros were mean on the internet.

This is exactly the kind of eloquent, non-vulgar, well thought out emotion from our fans that inspires us.

And I’m pretty sure you could use a refresher on 🕊🐝 https://t.co/EeoRpmS0u0

— Kevin Demoff (@kdemoff) March 10, 2020

There is hard data that shows “Bernie Bros” are a myth
A computational social scientist’s study shows Bernie’s Twitter followers act pretty much the same as everyone else

https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/

Mainstream pundits and politicians continue to obsess over the stereotype of the “Bernie Bro,” a perfervid horde of Bernie Sanders supporters who supposedly stop at nothing to harass his opponents online. Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens have all helped perpetuate the idea that Sanders’ supporters are somehow uniquely cruel, despite Sanders’ platform and policy proposal being the most humane of all the candidates.

The only problem? The evidence that Sanders supporters are uniquely cruel online, compared to any other candidates’ supporters, is scant; much of the discourse around Bernie Bros seems to rely on skewed anecdotes that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Many Sanders supporters suspect that the stereotype is perpetuated in bad faith to help torpedo his candidacy.

A few weeks ago I penned a story for Salon attempting to qualitatively disprove the Bernie Bro myth by pulling from psychological theory and the nature of online behavior. To summarize my conclusions: First, there is a general tendency for online behavior to be negative, known as the online disinhibition effect — but it affects all people equally, not merely Sanders’ supporters. Second, pundits systematically ignore when other candidates’ supporters are mean online, perhaps because of the aforementioned established stereotype; in this sense, the Bernie Bro is not dissimilar from other political canards like the “welfare queen.” Third, Twitter is not a representative sample size of the population, and is so prone to harboring propaganda outfits and bots such that it is not a reliable way of gauging public opinion.

Now, to add to this qualitative assessment, there is quantitative evidence, too — reaped from studying hundreds of thousands of interactions online — that reveals the Bernie Bro myth as, well, a myth. Jeff Winchell, a computational social scientist and graduate student at Harvard University, crunched the numbers on tweet data and found that Sanders’ supporters online behave the same as everyone else. Winchell used what is called a sentiment analysis, a technique used both in the digital humanities and in e-commerce, to gauge emotional intent from social media data.

“Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other follower,” Winchell says of his results. “There is one key difference that Twitter users and media don’t seem to be aware of…. Bernie has a lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat’s campaigns,” he added, noting that this may be partly what helps perpetuate the myth.

I interviewed him about his work and his results over email; as usual, this interview has been condensed and edited for print.

First, for those who haven’t heard of this technique, what is a sentiment analysis?

Sentiment analysis summarizes human expression into various scores. Most commonly the score is how negative or positive it is. But it can also be used to evaluate subjectivity (for instance, is a politician’s statement factual or mostly opinionated?). Even taking the simpler text analysis, there are multiple challenges due to sarcasm, negations (e.g “I don’t like their service”, “After what he did, this will be his last project”), ambiguity (words that are negative or positive depending on their context), and [the fact that] texts can contain both positive and negative parts.

How are sentiment analyses used? What are other examples of this technique being used?

The overwhelming application of sentiment analysis is in e-commerce (for instance, scoring how positive/negative customer feedback is). Customer service surveys are often analyzed this way. Marketing uses sentiment analysis to test product acceptance.

Other commercial applications are in recommendations. While a system may have the user given an overall rating, analyzing the comments they provide can identify the sentiment on subtopics within.

So tell me about the sentiment analysis script that you wrote to study online behavior among different politicians’ followers. How did this work?

I downloaded all the followers of the Twitter accounts of the nine most popular Democratic presidential candidates and the president ([around] 100 million Twitter accounts). I then randomly chose followers from them and downloaded all their tweets from 2015 to the present.

I have run two different sentiment analysis algorithms on these tweets. So far, nearly 6.8 million tweets from 280,000 Twitter accounts have been analyzed out of the 100 million-plus tweets I currently have downloaded (I continue downloading more).

One sentiment analysis algorithm uses a well-regarded example of grammar/word dictionary sentiment rules that were popular 5 to 10 years ago before deep learning became popular. This one is identified by the Python libary’s name, Textblob.

The other algorithm is Microsoft’s supervised deep learning-based algorithm with default parameters. To those unfamiliar with deep learning, the number of parameters in this model is in the millions, and no human can be expected to understand them. The deep learning model learns/generalizes from examples of text given sentiment ratings by humans through millions of trials, each time evaluating how well it predicts the results and passing that model and accuracy to the next iteration.

Candidate's Twitter followers don't differ much in the chance someone's tweets are negative.

New Update: Adds Microsoft's Deep Learning-based sentiment analysis algorithm. It predicts the chance of positive text. Textblob's algorithm rates tweets from -1 (neg) to 1 (pos). pic.twitter.com/1tIyoRI5g2

— Jeff Winchell (@CompSocialSci) March 7, 2020

The categories of negative and very negative are based on ranges of values in the two algorithm’s outputs. Textblob generates a number from most negative (-1) to most positive (+1). I classified scores of [below] -0.75 as very negative and -.75 to -.5 as negative. Microsoft’s algorithm predicts the chance that some text is classified as positive. Based on the frequencies of a specific chance, I separated the lowest 1.5 percent of tweet ratings as very negative and the lowest 1.5 percent to 5 percent of all tweet ratings as negative.

What did your results find?

The chance that some tweet is negative when it comes from a follower of candidate X is pretty much the same as if it came from a follower of candidate Y.

This uses two different algorithms, once very sophisticated (Microsoft’s supervised Deep Learning-based model), the other a good algorithm based on the algorithm standards of 5 to 10 years ago (Textblob’s grammar/dictionary-based rules). Microsoft’s algorithm calculates the chance a tweet is positive. Textblob’s rates the tweet from most negative (-1) to most positive (+1). But the variation of these measures changes little among tweets from followers from different candidates.

I deliberately round my numbers to 1 digit for smaller samples (negative or very negative percentage) or 2 digits if it’s about an average over all the tweets. I don’t like false accuracy and it is rampant in the political media. Any NLP [Natural Language Processing] expert will tell you that reducing a tweet to a single number denoting its negativity/positivity is not an exact science. So the rounding reflects that uncertainty.

Given this data, what do you think of the “Bernie Bro” narrative about his online supporters?

Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other follower. There is one key difference that Twitter users and media don’t seem to be aware of. Bernie has a lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat’s campaigns.

People responding to hundreds of millions of people online tend to dehumanize others. They remember that someone is female/male or follows some candidate or is of some race, but they frequently don’t pay attention to differentiate actions of one member of that group versus another. So rather than consider how frequently an individual of some group acts, they think of how frequently the group acts as a whole. If they interact with many more members of one group than another, that perception of the group is magnified by the number of members they see.

Interesting. Did your opinion change after doing this little analysis?

Yes. I believed that Bernie’s followers are more likely to like him because they are more likely to experience the very negative life circumstances that Bernie Sanders wants to fix. People in a negative situation are more likely to interact negatively with people, particularly those anonymous online people that they have no in-person relationship with. So I had anticipated that Bernie’s followers on average would have a much higher chance to be negative. This does not appear to be the case or at least not as much as the claims I read on Twitter, political media reports or on TV.

Is there actually any difference between different candidates’ supporters online behavior, based on this?

As a data scientist, I am usually skeptical of any result. So I’ll say maybe not or at least much less than claimed.

I still would like to dig deeper into this. This analysis looks at all tweets. I would like to look just at twitter interactions between candidate’s supporters, look at tweets responding or mentioning media professionals. I want to use some algorithms in the research that evaluate hate speech, racism, sexism. I’d like to look at specific topics of discussion, and possibly evaluate the influence of negative tweets (eg. retweets and number of followers who could see a tweet/retweet).

Despite the disappointing final outcome last season, #LARams had some bright spots across their key corps

Team Grades that #LA ranked Top 10 in during 2019:
– Pass Rush (2nd)
– Receiving (5th)
– Overall Defense (6th)
– Coverage (8th)
– Tackling (8th)
– Rush Defense (T-10th) pic.twitter.com/VKIjbWM720

— PFF LA Rams (@PFF_Rams) March 9, 2020