
DNC chairwoman will resign in aftermath of committee email controversy - molecule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html
======
blhack
She is resigning so that she can be Hillary Clinton's fulltime "honorary chair
of her campaigns 50 state program".

No, I am not making this up:
[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/07/2...](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/07/24/hillary-
clinton-statement-on-the-resignation-of-democratic-national-committee-chair-
debbie-wasserman-schultz/)

------
p4wnc6
It is mind-boggling to me that the character of the DNC emails isn't basically
under 24/7 _emphatic_ media coverage and on the minds of all citizens.

The only counter-argument I can imagine is basically what Bernie Sanders
himself said -- that it's no surprise. lolwut ... who cares if it's a
surprise.

The administration of the Democratic party: (i) conspired to push favor in the
direction of a predetermined candidate long before any public preferences were
known, (ii) made some outrageous and extremely, extremely, as-extreme-as-
anything-you-want-to-say-about-the-Republican-platform bigoted remarks about
homosexuals, often as _fucking jokes_ and (iii) kicks around the idea of
finding an audience plant to question Sanders on whether he is an atheist to
win votes.

And what's the Democrat response? _Russia 's trying to do it._ WTF!!!??? Don't
believe expressly bigoted email data showing that popular opinion is ignored,
mocked, and conceived as an opportunity for engineering. No. Discount that.
Becuz Russia izzz 4 Trump. Jesus.

There's nothing further to say. It's not an excuse to vote for the equally
train-wreck Republican ticket, but it's an overt and unequivocal confirmation
that the parties, in every pragmatic sense, are identical, and that for the
overwhelming majority of Americans, apparently even marginalized Americans in
certain minority groups, _there is absolutely no fucking difference between
the two parties, no justification for favoring one over the other, no
impending immigration or terrorism or international relations crisis that 's
going to drop like the sword of Damocles on us if one is elected over the
other._

They. are. the. same. The. exact. same. There. is. 100%. zero. debate. about.
it. any. more. So. just. fucking. stop.

The content of the email leak was one of the most depressing things I've
experienced in my lifetime. Followed quickly by the equally depressing
rationalizations basically trying to say "that's just politics" and downplay
it. Vox immediately posts an article saying "they found no smoking guns" blah
blah blah more of the same shit. It's just unbelievable the degree to which we
are engineered.

Sorry. Had to vent.

~~~
nl
I'm one of those who thinks there isn't much interesting about them. I'd note
that most mainstream media outlets have covered them, but I guess you mean
that it doesn't appear to be the main story or something?

What specifically do you find so outrageous?

I've had a bit of a look through them, and I don't see anything that seems out
of place in any big company or organisation. Talking about advertising as
propaganda, thinking of the public as a set of numbers and being disrespectful
in discussing them, trying to help people they liked out over people they
didn't. Isn't all of this just normal organisational stuff?

I think that Vox's assessment was pretty much correct.

(For context: Not a Hillary supporter, and think it is entirely appropriate
that the DNC Chair resigns).

~~~
p4wnc6
The reddit megathread [0] does a fine job summarizing. What do you personally
make of the remarks about homosexuals, many of which are identified and linked
in the reddit thread?

You say it is nothing that would be "out of place in any big company or
organization" \-- it's hard for me to read that without gathering that you
tacitly imply it's OK for big company or organizational leadership to banter
about their own bigoted beliefs over email, and that since this is commonplace
among companies, no one should feel outraged by it.

How does that follow? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's commonplace
only makes it all the more outrageous. A lot of people doing an indisputably
anti-human behavior doesn't somehow make it more human.

[0] <
[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/)
>

~~~
nl
I haven't seen any remarks about homosexuals until I searched that thread. I
found one email[1]. I presume it means that the person they are discussing
literally swims with/for the DC Gay and Lesbian Swimming Squad[2]. The reply
was which was kinda creepy, but didn't seem to show any particular
discriminatory behaviour. Is there something else I should be looking at?

 _You say it is nothing that would be "out of place in any big company or
organization" \-- it's hard for me to read that without gathering that you
tacitly imply it's OK for big company or organizational leadership to banter
about their own bigoted beliefs over email, and that since this is commonplace
among companies, no one should feel outraged by it._

I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being
persuaded otherwise.

People use email when they are gossiping. They shouldn't, and lots of what
they talk about it dumb or rude. But isn't that just the nature of gossip?

To be clear - I'm not defending the DNC. They shouldn't have talked like this
over email.

But show me some email that has something that is an actual, interesting,
newsworthy story in itself, but "creepy" isn't really going to make the front
page of the NY Times.

So far people do these big link dumps, I read a few, and my opinion gets more
solidified - the Vox assessment of "no smoking gun" seems appropriate.

Like I said - very happy to be shown to be wrong about this. I think this
story is flagged of the front page, so there aren't even imaginary internet
points at stake.

[1] [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/498](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/498)

[2] [http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php](http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php)

~~~
p4wnc6
> I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being
> persuaded otherwise.

See, I am starting to realize that you're not actually open, or at least
you're not as open as you think you are and you're not acknowledging the way
you're going out of the way to ignore or write off blatantly bigoted behavior.

Here's just one example [0] <
[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/d5n5e6r)
>.

Since it seems like we have a disagreement even in kind, it might be best to
just see what your thoughts are about that lone example. If we can't agree
that it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted, then it's doubtful
we can agree on anything else.

~~~
nl
I didn't see that example, sorry. (I did Ctrl-F and found the swim team
example first.)

It's pretty bad stereotyping, I agree. But for the LGBT Finance Director to
say that - why do you think it is _egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot
bigoted_?

The linked Reddit discussion has a pretty wide range of views, but even there
I don't see anyone calling him bigoted. The closest is "It's an vicious joke.
I don't care whether the joker is gay. He's a duplicitous prick.", and the
author of that comment is getting quite a lot of push-back on it. They later
qualified their comment to say:

    
    
       You missed my point which I approached a bit too indirectly, perhaps. I don't take offense to jokes. My point: the question of whether the joker is gay is irrelevant to the ethical status of making a joke about being gay
    
      It's relevant for PC bots, sure, but I'm not bound to their code.
    
      Edit: but, yeah, the guy is still a duplicitous prick
    

I don't really understand this explanation, but it doesn't really sound like
an accusation of bigotry.

"Bigot" means "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different
opinions". How do you get that from that particular comment?

I'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a position we can both understand. I
completely respect your anger over these emails - they are nasty and
unprofessional, and I'm not endorsing that or the behaviour they represent in
any way.

But I'm not surprised they aren't "under 24/7 emphatic media coverage" \- like
someone said in that Reddit thread - it's like a bunch of office gossip.

~~~
p4wnc6
Tolerance extends to the understanding of a culture and abstaining from
deriding someone based solely on that culture.

The joke, which reveals a deeper personal value judgement on behalf of the
person telling it, speaks of a "good gay" as if to stereotype gay men by a
particular behavior, denying the possibility that you can be a "good" gay man
but have a different cultural outlook. That, to me, is unquestionably a form
of intolerance. Making light of someone can be a form of intolerance,
depending on what property it is by which you make light of them and whether
or not it is based in a harmful generalization. Another way to say it is: you
can't claim tolerance if you're happy to propagate harmful stereotypes or
generalizations.

Emphatically, it is crucial to dive into the language deeply. The urge to say
"it's just a joke" is precisely the kind of let's-sweep-this-frat-house-
bigotry-under-the-rug-and-go-back-to-thinking-everything's-nice
rationalization that allows such bigotry to perpetuate.

Re: your last line that it's like gossip:

Except that this is our political process. It happens rarely (once per four
years) and is a matter of passion, contention, and deep moral conviction. We
have every right to expect it to be held to far higher standard than some
bullshit gossip.

Let me be clear that I do not believe it's merely gossip and I'm not offering
any credibility to that stance. It's not mere gossip. It is harmful,
derogatory language about gays, as well as at the very least an amazingly
insensitive and offensive simplification of American religious beliefs (e.g.,
that some particular Christian people will see "a Jew" differently than "an
atheist" and that could be worth a few polling points, and that all three
belief groups are nothing whatsoever but sources of polling points, to be
engineered and manipulated with audience plants, etc.)

But even if it was "mere gossip" [it isn't] it would still be outrageously
flagrant that the primary administrators of one half of our most important
political process essentially view their jobs as a frat party. That's not some
kind of let's-roll-our-eyes-but-boys-will-be-boys-and-move-on kind of thing,
as you seem to think it is, but rather it is a let's-eject-everyone-from-this-
Neanderthal-administration-and-hire-people-who-actually-give-a-damn issue.
It's not boring nightly news to be eye-rolled and skipped for the sports
section. It's our goddamn political process. It's frankly shocking to me that
someone would suggest it's just boring gossip to be unconcerned with. I cannot
reconcile that with any notion of caring about even the tiniest component of
civic duty.

~~~
nl
_The joke, which reveals a deeper personal value judgement on behalf of the
person telling it, speaks of a "good gay" as if to stereotype gay men by a
particular behavior, denying the possibility that you can be a "good" gay man
but have a different cultural outlook. That, to me, is unquestionably a form
of intolerance. Making light of someone can be a form of intolerance,
depending on what property it is by which you make light of them and whether
or not it is based in a harmful generalization. Another way to say it is: you
can't claim tolerance if you're happy to propagate harmful stereotypes or
generalizations._

I think this is a fair point, and one I'm quite sympathetic to. I agree that
it is all too easy to say "it's a joke, ha ha" when people say very offensive
things.

I think you've persuaded me that it was pretty bad judgement to say that.

BTW, I think this one is inexcusable: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/7643](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643)

 _It 's frankly shocking to me that someone would suggest it's just boring
gossip to be unconcerned with. I cannot reconcile that with any notion of
caring about even the tiniest component of civic duty_

I think that this is a great ideal to stand by, but I can't imagine finding
any large group where this kind of behaviour doesn't occur.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical to fight that kind of fight any more. Maybe I
shouldn't give up so easily, but I just don't see any possibility of an
organisation existing with ideals as high as that and yet still be able to win
elections.

Bismark said: _Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art
of the next best_.

~~~
p4wnc6
I like David Deutsch's idea of an effective form of government too: how easy
is it to eject the current one and try something new? Then, if we must be
subordinate to the idea that we're just making small changes, aking to "the
art of the next best" that you quote, at least we make it easy to displace bad
ideas and try something else.

I think one way of ensuring no bad forms of government entrench themselves,
thus making it impractically difficult to ever even try that next best thing,
is to be vigilant when it comes to all of this.

Am I expecting zero gossip? Of course not. But do I think the opportunity of a
massive email leak that exposes behavior that is, at minimum, inexcusably
unprofessional, should go by without trumpets blaring? Absolutely not.

------
nxc18
Whether or not you have a problem with her sentiment or attitude, you can't
deny that putting those words in an email caused a lot of damage to Hillary's
campaign and the party.

One would think in the age of wikileaks and Snowden that politicians would
have learned by now not to write anything they wouldn't want printed in the NY
Times or the Washington Post.

~~~
rplst8
Yes, because hiding the corruption is a better choice.

I'd argue that ALL government official communications must be recorded and
made public.

~~~
Agustus
We tried to do that, but they set up their own servers, create Gmail accounts
to be off FOIA, or switch over to off the record instant messenger.

------
kabouseng
Wow, just finished watching House of Cards S4 and can't help thinking it is
somehow based on the Clintons... :D

------
xbmcuser
The democrats I feel have elected the 1 person that could loose to Trump and
the Hillary campaign keep making things worse. At this point I feel any
vanilla Democrat will do better than Hillary in the elections

------
peterkelly
If only they'd been using encryption...

------
adamnemecek
Is the leaker in legal danger?

