A Despot's Guide: Critical Thinking About Conspiracies

If you've read my posts before, you probably know that I analyze things. It's part of my job. It's something that I am good at. And in the case of conspiracy theories, it's something that I have been doing since middle school. Thanks, Bircher Grandma.

How do I identify the conspiracies that need debunking and how do I debunk them? By checking for cognitive biases and applying philosophical razors, but to do so accurately, you need to know about a few cognitive biases. But first, a note about the motivation for conspiracy theorizing and spreading conspiracy theories.

Weirdness as Rationalization

Most of the political conspiracies that I've seen recently are fairly obvious in their motivation: those people can't handle the truth. Conspiracy theories as they present in non-extremists are a form of rationalization. That's a pretty simplistic view, because the truth that each believer can't face varies by conspiracy theory and even for the same conspiracy, there may be multiple denied truths that vary by believer. 

OMG There was a brunette in glasses at both scenes!
Brunettes with glasses are super rare!

If we take the recent primary as an example, there are a ton of conspiracy theories spread by Sanders supporters because it is inconceivable to them that their candidate lost. It's not possible that people actually support Hillary Clinton (some because she's female, some for substantive reasons), so if Clinton won, it can only be explained by cheating. This also explains why there are conspiracy theories for every Sanders loss but not for Sanders wins that happened under the same rules that comprised a conspiracy the week before.

In the case of Sandy Hook False Flaggers, the truth that they can't handle is that "safe gun owners" like themselves aren't necessarily safe gun owners at all. They can't accept that maybe those people who want gun control might have a good point, because if they did have a good point, that point might be that the conspiracy believers aren't safe gun owners either and their guns should be taken away for safety reasons.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

Conspiracy theories are designed to perpetuate an existing bias by "proving" that the bias is justified and valid-- in cases where the bias doesn't make sense. To explain away the nonsense, additional information is added until it is "plausible" to people with the same biases. In effect, the conspiracy proves the bias "correct" with convoluted circular logic.

If we go back to the Bosnia Landing Under Sniper Fire "lie," if you think that Clinton is a liar or a bad person, you'll agree with people who say the story was a lie, and respond to her story by claiming that it is proof that she is a liar. If you think that Clinton is wrongly persecuted or a good person, you'll respond that you believe her when she says that she misspoke, "she probably confused it with a different trip," then conclude that harping on a mistake like this is wrongful persecution. This is called confirmation bias.

Far Side

No matter the topic, you interpret things according to your existing biases. Again, I'm talking about everyone because this is how memory works. As I have discussed elsewhere, memories are retrieved faster when they are emotionally charged, and faster still if the emotion is a negative one, due to anchoring, negativity bias, and availability heuristic (see the section of that name in the previous link about false cyberstalking claims). This mechanism is another bug feature in the brain, but unlike the Bosnia Landing / fish tale bug feature where storytelling and memory reinforcement change memories, this feature allows us to make fast decisions in an emergency. If there's an emergency, this mechanism is a feature; if there is no emergency, this mechanism is a bug. If there is a lion, decide whether to fight, fly, or freeze; if Clinton said something untrue, there is not actually a threat, but everyone on the Internet just picked fight.

Well, I don't know that, but that's because I have no
anti-woman bias to confirm.

In this case, we look at the allegation that Clinton is a liar because of the Bosnia Landing Story, the first negative memory that you retrieve could be "I hate that liar, Hillary!" or "It makes me mad that people lie so much about Hillary!" Then you realize that that's what just happened, because your brain framed the two things to be the same. You could be standing next to someone, looking in the same direction, observing the same event from a nearly identical angle, and still interpret the event as polar opposites, because both people have confirmed their opposing bias.

Often, there are other, simpler explanations, but we rarely look for other explanations because we've already come to a conclusion about what happened. One of the goals of cognitive therapy is to identify those moments when our reactions are based on emotions and stop them just long enough to examine our thought processes, identify unreliable assumptions, look for less biased explanations, and determine rationally if the emotion is based on reality as it exists rather than as we interpreted through our biases that it exists.

You know what else is "sealed?" Everyone else's college records, medical records, and birth certificate.
Releasing medical records without patient approval is a federal crime! Pretty simple explanation, right?

This is actually not what I do to come up with better conclusions. I get irritated that someone believed something so ridiculous, so I angrily go out and find the facts to correct them with. It's a great mechanism for debunking if you can train your brain to do it, but that's probably easier after your grandmother runs in yelling at CNN that "Everyone knows that the American Beauty is the most beautiful rose because it has America in the name!" then continues yelling at the TV for several minutes about the Jewish media conspiracy trying to destroy the reputation of the American Beauty rose because "the Jews hate America."  (This is a true story but I do not support those views and OMFG Grandma, what is wrong with you? Most people have mommy issues or daddy issues, but in my family, we have issues that go back generations.)

Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, Outgroup Negativism, and Propaganda

Political propaganda is designed to be emotionally charged, because if you encounter a strong emotion, you are less likely to continue on to examine the claims rationally. If you look at Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, for instance, their speeches are very emotionally charged. There is always an "other" to angrily blame (outgroup negativism) that we all knew was a problem all along (hindsight bias) and an "us" to celebrate as superior (ingroup favoritism) but no one would listen to us when we said those "others" were a problem (favorite-longshot bias).

And if you look at the articles about their speeches. you'll see Trump and Sanders show "passion" because they're pisssed off and yelling all the time. But Clinton is trying her damnedest walk the line between "unfeeling robot" and "yelling all the time" (ie ever) to manage women's double-bind, which makes her appear much more rational than Sanders or Trump. And that makes her boring. Clinton has done very little to be negative to her outgroup, so at the end of the rally, Clinton supporters just aren't pissed off, which makes us boring.

My choices are: angry white guys who hate people like me; or a mostly calm woman, who is rational, even while facing verbal abuse. Well, I'm obviously going to identify more with the latter, but what confuses me is that I'm faulted for liking the rational person because the pissed off people are "more compelling." Yes, compelling me to hate them because of their behavior.

We're electing a President, someone who has to decide a course of action in times of trouble when people are panicking. Why would I pick the people perpetually freaking out instead of the "boring" rational one? Who cares if the President is "boring," FFS? We're not voting for Prom Princess.

Selection Bias

When taking a poll, you either limit the poll results to specific demographics, or you poll widely, taking demographics into account so that you can ensure that you have a random and representative sample. If, however, you limit to a demographic and then claim that the results apply to other demographics, your study has a selection bias problem.

Imagine that I want to know what a amount of prison time should be applied in child molestation cases, so I go to a prison and I gather up all of the convicted child molesters and I ask them what they think is an appropriate amount of prison time for a child molestation conviction. Then I report that "75% of people think that prison terms for child molestation are too long and need to be reduced." I have selected a group of people who are all alike and extrapolated their positions to people in general, in this case, a group that is inherently biased on the topic. By selecting only them, I have created a bias in my poll. You can undoubtedly see the problem there. However, if I stated my results as "75% of convicted child molesters currently in prison think that prison terms for child molestation are too long and need to be reduced," that would be accurate. Since people can tell that the group polled has a bias, they can ask themselves if the results are meaningful. In this case, most would say that they aren't.

It would be similarly biased if I were to ask child molestation victims but not anyone else. If I presented the results as "75% of people think that prison terms for child molestation are too short and need to be increased," I would encountered the same selection bias problem. However, if presented as "75% of child molestation victims," people can ask themselves if the results are meaningful, and despite the inherent bias, they may decide that they are.

Inability to Timeline / The Time Machine Effect

Yes, I just named this. It's similar to hindsight bias, in which someone says "I knew it all along!" only, the speaker is projecting it onto someone else. They knew the outcome all along and used that foresight to sabotage the "real" outcome.

In order for the claim to be true, the actor would have to know the current situation months ago. It would require a time machine or clairvoyance.

If you encounter a claim that has someone acting months ago and it's only having an effect now, make a timeline! Did the action require information that no one could have had before last week? Then don't believe it!

Self-Serving Bias

Per Wikipedia: "It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors." We've all worked with someone like that: the guy who can't admit that he made a mistake, but he's willing to correct that other person's mistake as long as we all agree that it was generous of him because it's not his mistake.

I worked with another programmer who supposedly had a master's degree in mathematics from a prestigious university in India. The business owner had given him a mathematical formula to use for a calculation in large dataset. It specified that after you did all of the math on top, you divided by an employee's number of hours worked minus 40. Thus, if the employee worked exactly the umber of hours expected of each employee, the formula divided by zero. But it's not possible to divide by zero, so this made the program throw an error. But he also didn't handle the error elegantly, so the error caused the whole page to fail. The page displayed data for all employees of a specific location, so if any of the 39+ people at a given location worked precisely the number of hours expected, no data would display for the entire location.

When I brought this to his attention, he insisted that it was not a bug because was the formula that they gave him, so they must want to divide by zero. That would mean that they wanted to not retrieve any data if anyone worked exactly 40 hours per week. We tried to convince him to fix it but he refused because "it's not a bug." Eventually, I fixed it and improved on his code, which he immediately undid because his code is perfect. He even took out the error handling so that if a divide by zero occurred, the whole page failed again instead of showing an error and carrying on. And in the process he claimed that I was persecuting him because I was intimidated by his education. Because a guy with a master's degree in math doesn't know that you can't divide by zero and that's scary to ladies like me.

Since this is a pattern of behavior, it can only be detected over a long period of time. But when you do detect it, doubt it.

Duditis: Factual Imagination

I've noticed a trait, mostly exhibited by men, that I find very entertaining now that I've noticed it: they imagine something, then assert that thing as factual proof that their argument is correct. I also occasionally imagine things and assert them as fact, mostly as part of story embellishment, and as such, I was already deleting a lot of it. The really entertaining thing, though, is that they imagine things that they couldn't possibly know and sometimes, they even state that they made it up. Does it contradict the expert opinion of a woman? No such thing!

If you've ever seen a guy explain women's issues to women, especially incorrectly, that form of mansplaining seems to come from this: the idea that the imagination of a man is more valid than the expertise of a woman. Even on the subject of our own life experiences, the imagination of a man is superior than the expertise of a woman.

In the example on the left, Rod the angry Sanders supporter was "justifying" his hatred for Clinton supporters because for the whole primary they had been "my way of the highway--" because they "didn't listen to [his] opinions." What he means is that he gave his opinion and it wasn't accepted as factual; his opinion didn't change the opinions of everyone whose opinion he wanted to change. Apparently, he is entitled to have people accept his opinion as inherently more valid than their own. So who did he chastise with this post? A female Clinton supporter.

A man's imagination is even more valid than science if that science is reported by a woman! In the following case, I was looking for scientific articles for my Bosnia Sniper Landing piece about the inner workings of memory and came across an article on theMarySue on a recent experiment about this process with a particular type of memory. He "[doesn't] believe this to be generally true," thus he can continue to falsely believe that memory is write-once.

Of course, this is not limited to men, merely more typical of men. I won't get into the reasons why because that's a huge topic. But it's important to be aware of because I see people get away with this several times per day. No one calls them on that they invented that information and thus it's not reliable, even if they admit to inventing it.

White Duditis: Omniscience

Another annoying white dude trait is implied claims of omniscience: "If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." What they're doing is similar to the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" logical fallacy, only, they didn't actually look for evidence. Having not looked for evidence, they know that something doesn't exist because they don't know that it exists.

If you look at the 6/6 coin flips went to Clinton conspiracy, the reputable news sources stated that "of 6 known coin flips, 6 went to Clinton." This was spread as proof that there were exactly 6 coin flips, no more. Any other coin flips weren't known to whoever was talking about it, therefore, there were exactly 6. This example can be a bit tricky to notice because the appeal to omniscience is hidden behind the claim of 6 total coin flips when results weren't even complete yet.

"No Clinton supporters were disenfranchised by long lines" because all of the people who reported the problem in the local pro-Sanders subreddit were Sanders supporters. Quite often, these claims are absurd, such as this example. There is no difference in wait at a polling location for a Sanders supporter than for a Clinton supporter. That would require separate lines, which would impair the secret ballot. Anyway, separate lines per candidate is not how we do things in the US and everyone would notice.

When you see someone make a claim, ask yourself if it relies on the absence of evidence. If it does, make sure that evidence could be seen and that someone would have seen it; if those conditions are met, absence of evidence is a valid construct. If not, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But when they didn't bother to look or to ask people who have seen the evidence, and especially when they are contradicting the people who have seen the evidence, take the grains of salt that you were saving for their opinions and throw them in their eyes instead.

Super White Duditis: The Proven Negative

In extreme cases of White Duditis, sufferers will make imagination-based "claims of fact" which rely on a "proven" but unobservable negative. For instance, check out this "argument:"

I'm going to need citations on that, please.

The claim that Clinton never missed an opportunity to start a war can't be proven. The speaker doesn't have the expertise to do so and quite frankly, the only people who could ever know that is Clinton herself. Also, we have facts that disprove it. We would be at war with everyone else right now if this were true.

Similarly, the recent claims that "no true Sanders supporter" would use the hashtag #girliguessimwithher, based on... the speaker still hating Clinton. Their opinions are universal and inherently valid. It is inconceivable (Vizzini definition) that any Sanders supporter could disagree with them.

So when you see someone make a claim, ask yourself not just if they could possibly know that, but if anyone could possibly know that. If you accept that someone could know that, he could simply be repeating an informed opinion, but if there can be no opinion informed enough, he can't be.

The Razors

Let's assume that you've momentarily stopped yourself from freaking out about things designed to make you fearful or angry, because you would like to process a claim with the rational part of your brain. Good job!

The Extraordinary Razor

"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" according to Marcello Truzzi's axiom, popularized by Carl Sagan after inclusion in Cosmos. I prefer Pierre-Simon LaPlace's wording: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

Beyonce and the Illuminati

Let's take the "Beyonce is in the Illuminati" conspiracy. (Yes, that is actually a thing, hence her referencing it in "Formation.") Some of the people who are serious about this have written posts with information like this:

What is increasingly being promoted by mass media is a secret black feminist agenda where the black female wants the black male dead.... 

When black men are demonized, this allows black women to get with rich white men who will put them on a pedestal. This will then allow black women to take back what is theirs and to become leaders without any influence of black men in their lives.... 

Not ALL black men at the same deadbeats who abuse women and treat women badly, like this chapter perpetuates. Black men who are educated, respectable and have strong moral character exist just like in any race.

Elton John's glasses pictured on
Dame Edna.

To sum up the claim: Beyonce has gotten where she is because she's a member of the Illuminati, the super secret society that a ton of people know about, that is a handful of rich people who rule the world. They used their power to force her on us, making her popular, so that she can use that popularity to further their goal of creating the New World Order through the ultra-dangerous, divisive Black Feminism. (Which means that she was allowed to join the group of most powerful secret world leaders before she had any power.)

A Sanders-supporting
right-wing libertarian capitalist?
This requires
extraordinary evidence!

Their evidence is that she makes secret Illuminati signs with her hands, for instance, using both hands to make a triangle and for some reason, pretending to be Elton John's sunglasses. And while she is for killing all black men, apparently including her husband and fellow Illuminati member Jay Z, we must remember that #NotAllBlackMen! Good Black men exist, I promise! Beyonce and other Black Feminists don't accept that reality because they are the real sexists and racists.

I could go on for 4 more pages and it wouldn't make any more sense.

(For bonus points, click on the related link on the Cosmos video with a picture of a guy making a weird face. It's a "rebuttal" video by a Sanders-supporting manarcho-capitalist, atheist, right-libertarian, "men's rights" activist, "racial realist," sufferer of "Nice Guy" Syndrome, and self-proclaimed "savior of philosophy." Because I am not watching that shit. On second thought, maybe don't give him the click. Savior of Philosophy? Who calls themselves that?)

Step 1: Apply the Extraordinary Razor

Unbelievable? Maybe because every sentence is false.
But it made you feel, didn't it?

Listen to your words: if a claim makes you say "That's unbelievable!" listen to yourself and don't believe it, even if it confirms your bias. Stop yourself from automatically considering confirmation of your beliefs to be "factual" or proof that your beliefs were correct. You shouldn't believe it without extensive, relevant, indisputable evidence, but if you get that, you believe the heck out of it!

Now think about how extraordinary the Beyonce/Illuminati claim is and how much it would take you to believe that over: some sexist, racist, white dude on the Internet doesn't like her music and therefore, thinks that she couldn't have gotten where she is without cheating (a sexist trope).

Occam's Razor

William of Ockham proposed Occam's Razor (AKA The Law of Parsimony) as part of the scientific method, but we have proof of similar concepts as back as far as Aristotle. As usual, the wikipedia entry is convoluted and obtuse, so don't bother to read it. I'll paraphrase:

If you have a complex stance that requires a lot of unproven assumptions, especially if those assumptions were added after someone pointed out a perceived flaw in your stance, you should abandon it for a simple, straightforward stance, if for no other reason than "it's easier to prove or disprove."

Step 2: Applying Occam's Razor

Now think about how convoluted and complex the Beyonce/Illuminati claim is and how simple this is: some sexist, racist, white dude on the Internet doesn't like her music and therefore, thinks that she couldn't have gotten where she is unless powerful people forced her on us.

In order to prove the Illuminati theory, we'd have to prove that the Illuminati exists, that it is what people think it is, that Black Feminism is about killing all black men, that Black women are gold diggers, that Black Feminists think that there are no good Black men, that the hand gestures are secret Illuminati code, and about 15 other things just from my very shortened version of the theory. Now what does it take to prove that the person who wrote that post is sexist and racist? Reading the post and noticing the stereotypically sexist and racist claims.

Hanlon / Heinlein's Razor

Hanlon's Razor aka Heinlein's Razor predates both Hanlon and Heinlein, going back at least as far as Goethe: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding," or "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." Heinlein's version is "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity," which is less a razor and more "chastisement after becoming aware of the facts." Bernard Ingham's version is perfect for election time: "Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory."

Hanlon's Razor tells us that even though something may have been done with malicious intent, people screw up a lot and "someone screwed up" is far more likely. I like this not just because people really do screw up a lot, but because assuming malicious intent without any proof can be malicious or at least seem that way. Plus, if you confront someone about it and you assume that it was a mistake, they will respond better than if you say they're malicious, and that means that no matter the intention, you are likely to get a resolution faster.

Step 3: Applying Hanlon's Razor

Or maybe you just think all brown people look alike.

Imagine that you are driving on a highway and someone passes you on the left, then cuts in front of you and takes the immediate offramp on the right. You yell that he's "a fucking asshole that's trying to cause an accident." Now that you've gotten that out of your system, was he really "an asshole trying to cause an accident?" Or was he irritated that you were going slower than he wanted, so he was concentrating on that instead of noticing how close the offramp was? As much as it feels righteous to think that the other driver was being an asshole on purpose, it's more likely that he just screwed up. And hey, you screw up too, so chill out!

Xena's Chakram of Doubt

(Yes, I did just make that up.) If an argument is circular, doubt that it is true. After all, if it were true, people should be able to come up with some meaningful evidence.

Step 4: Applying Xena's Chakram of Doubt

Did you say circular? I'll show you circular!

This is the stance that I took on the Iraq War proposal under GW Bush, after watching Colin Powell deliver the "evidence" to the UN. The "evidence" was:

This is a chemical weapons supply truck and we know that it's a chemical weapons supply truck because it is going to this chemical weapons plant. And we know that that's a chemical weapons plant because that chemical weapons supply truck is going to it.

Even after the UN inspectors said that they had looked specifically at that plant and found no evidence of chemical weapons or their manufacture, that circular argument was repeated and treated as credible. No one in Congress mentioned that the evidence was circular logic and thus doesn't prove anything. I couldn't find anyone who disagreed with the evidence, just people who were opposed to any and all wars, like Sanders. I mentioned it to my roommate and then called my mother so we could talk about how appalling it is for Bush to throw Powell under the bus like that, taking advantage of his honor and loyalty to the Commander in Chief. And for pointing out the circular logic, I was attacked by dozens of people, who have now shown that their stance is hypocritical.

Now What?

If you got through step 4 and you still think that the idea has merit, try to find citations or news from reputable sources that back it up. If you threw the theory away, think about the people involved and what they might be like. Think about unexpected things that might have gone wrong and how that would have been handled. And make sure that anyone that you hold responsible actually was responsible. Look that up if you can't tell! Once you've done that and come up with a simpler, more reasonable theory, put that theory through the debunking process as well.

Go forth and smite irrationality!

Reasons That I Like Hillary Clinton, Number 425: The Pulse Massacre, Orlando

When I heard the news about the attack on Pulse in Orlando, I took a pill with anti-anxiety side-effects, made this image, went back to bed, and cried. After a nap I felt like getting up again but encountered my recurring "morning sickness while not pregnant" problem, and ate "something oh god what does it matter?"

Then I saw the Log Cabin Republicans require that Obama omit the anti-LGBTQI hate crime aspect of the incident and claim that radical Islam was to solely to blame, hiding any culpability to the anti-LGBTQ climate endorsed by the far right wing of the GOP. Having an LGBT group demand that the homophobic nature of this crime be erased turned me into Madeline Kahn in Clue.

I knew that the day was going to get worse, especially as the death toll increased, but then I saw the candidates reactions.

Trump

Trump, of course, used the incident to inflame fears of Muslims, to justify his plan to disallow them entry into the US, and do other things to "crack down" on Muslims. But only after he attacked Clinton to say that she's easy on terror. Could someone please explain to me how she is easy on terror while catching Bin Laden and being a supposed Middle East warhawk. You don't get to have it both ways, people.

Apparently, he thinks that we can catch them with racial profiling (aka racism), like Israel uses, but Israel uses psychological profiling, which is actually useful. When called on that Islam isn't a race, he replied that they are almost always Middle Eastern. It's almost like he doesn't know that people from the Middle East are Caucasian or that there are sizeable Asian and East Indian Muslim communities.

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Then he said "I told you so," which is ridiculous, because how difficult is it exactly to predict that at some time in the future, there will be an Islamic terror attack on US soil? This is some sort of accomplishment?

But of course, the real villain here, according to Trump, is Obama. Because Obama. Thanks, Obama!

I bet Trump doesn't even like shawerma.

Sanders

Sanders spent several minutes talking about the tragedy, with respect for the victims and their families. Then he spent another several minutes talking about forcing his platform on Clinton and the Democratic party, and promoting his upcoming speech. Can we stop with the "forcing things on the woman that she doesn't want" thing yet? Because seriously, dudes, this is so far past ok that I cannot even cannot even. That's how much I cannot even.

While he claims to be consistently pro-gun-control, he's voted anti-background checks repeatedly-- after getting donations from the NRA. That's not to say that the NRA loves him, but background checks? So we can agree to disagree on whether or not I should have rights but we can all agree that background checks are bad?

Clinton

She expressed sympathy for the victims and their families, treating them with respect. Then she discussed some plans that she thinks could lessen the frequency of this kind of attack. She didn't attack the other candidates or use the press conference as free campaign advertising. Unlike the other two candidates, she acted presidential and with nothing but grace.

Is that really so hard, Trump and Sanders?

---

In respect for the victims of the Pulse Massacre, primarily Latinx LGBTQI people, I will not be posting this in other social media and ask that you don't either. Their voices are the most important ones right now, so please read what they have to say about the incident. Please share their voices instead of mine.

Viva la Retribucion: Preemptive Victim Blaming for Not Voting as "Instructed"

If you go back through my posts this election, here and elsewhere, you can verify that not once have I asked for people to vote according to my opinion. I have my opinion. I state it. I back it up. I ask you to consider it. End of transaction. I have repeatedly stated that it is correct for different people to have different political priorities that depend on the circumstances of their lives. My arguments may or may not be compelling within the context of your life and that's fine.

However, there has been a very strong contingent this primary season of people who simply cannot abide people "refusing" to vote for "the right" candidate. And I'll be clear about this: it's only one candidate. In fact, they've been so adamantly pro-Sanders that they consider it "telling them how to vote" for superdelegates or Clinton supporters to have an opinion-- or even for reporters to report statistics showing Clinton in the lead. "That's unethical and it shouldn't happen!" But of course, it's perfectly legitimate for them to tell us how to vote based on their opinion of what's best for us, which of course is actually what's best for the Default White Male.

Orange fluff ball of hate.

It's not surprising; it's just the same old same old. They are mostly educated, middle-class white men who spent the primary whitesplaining to Black people and mansplaining to women that our needs are actually less important than helping poor people pay for college, on the (very flawed) assumption that the middle class goal of attending college is a universal goal among the poor and also, anyone who paid for college already suffers no forms of inequality.

However, stomping your feet and yelling that people must vote with you because you know that your needs are universal? It's just not very convincing to people who have different needs. And when people voted for their own needs instead of following instructions, Sanders zealots were appalled and shocked and furious! "Why are women and Black people so stupid that they voted against their interests?"

"They refused to vote as we instructed, but they ask for party unity, so now they're telling us how to vote? No one tells us how to vote!"

Bernie Trump or Bust!

"And I'll say 'I told you so!'"

At first, the Bernie or Bust movement seemed like nihilism with a side-order of "I thought socialism was a boogeyman until a white dude ran against Hillary Clinton." But when they didn't win, a nastier side came to light.

Clinton supporters said "OK, we have a nominee now. It's time to work together to defeat The Orange Fluffball of Hate! If he wins, the GOP will control all three branches of government, and women and minorities will lose rights! And the SCOTUS nomination means they could lose rights for decades! And also, he's freaking terrible and will probably kill us all but will most certainly make penis jokes during the State of the Union Address!"

And Bernie or Busters replied "No! I'm voting for Trump because he's anti-establishment! If we get a Trump presidency and you lose your rights, it's your fault for voting for Clinton! That's what you get for not supporting the right candidate! Then you'll come begging for us!"

They don't want the best remaining candidate to win. They don't want to protect the progress that we've made. They don't want to ensure that women and minorities retain our rights and get access to greater equality-- progressive ideals that Busters previously claimed to hold dear. They want us to lose health care, lose rights, and suffer so that we learn the error of our ways and beg them to take us back like a codependent ex.

They want retribution.

Viva la Retribucion!

Many of them insist that they will not back Clinton unless she adopts Sanders' platform, which lost. Even though it lost, it is "the only platform that can win." [insert mental gymnastics here] And because we dared to vote "incorrectly," they will sabotage the election to punish us. Also, we must be superdeduper nice to them because don't we know they have feelings?

I really loved this friend of a friend, who believes that the person who got 55% of the vote isn't "a vital piece of the [Democratic Party] puzzle," but the guy who got 45% is (stats cherry-picked in his favor). Because reasons! It's Clinton's job to unite the party, not Sanders' job to endorse her, breaking from tradition. And she is to unite the party by conceding to the loser on every issue!

After all, tradition and even contracts don't apply if that means supporting a woman. If the woman doesn't submit to their demands, she's not "doing the right thing."

Also, if Sanders endorses her, it's because he's diluting his own message.

He'd even be a traitor to his own cause, just like Elizabeth Warren.

Or perhaps just a hostage to the party that he decided to join to get publicity, since upholding your end of that bargain is... well, I'll let this dude speak for himself because I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.

Totes the same thing, dude.

Others insist that the DNC nominate Sanders anyway, to listen to the "Will of the People." Otherwise, they will write Sanders in in the states that allow that, which should totally intimidate us because they are the only people who count. Or exist, I can't tell which it is anymore.

Or leave the Democratic Party, which should scare us because they are so goddamned important.

And on their way out, they are going to vote against any downmarket candidate that supports Clinton, to ensure that the Democrats can't take the Legislative branch either.

After all, the DNC cheated by upholding its rules, making "the wrong person" win.

I prefer a trochaic victory, myself.

Some of them are even threatening to vote for Trump as a way to convince superdelegates to switch to Sanders, overruling the "Will of the People" that they said they held so dear.

Oo. He's not afraid to follow through with threatening to vote for Trump to troll. I'm impressed. Some just believe that Trump and Sanders are the same because "Establishment."

Obviously, civil war is better than foreign war.

It's a "fuck you to the stupid people that voted Hillary in." At least someone can admit that the motivation is vindictiveness and retribution.

She Was Asking for It

And as a last resort, if Trump wins because they refuse to support Clinton (which they do based on lies and misogyny), all of those women and black people who voted for her will lose their rights and get what's coming to them.

Saying that you want rights is a guilt trip and not an actual concern, obvs.

After all, once there was a man in the race, she should have dropped out!

Well, we should defund Planned Parenthood too then. Any trumped up investigation is proof!

"This gash." Totally no sexism involved here, "Valerie."

Or at the very least, it's "The Establishment's" fault, so they absolve themselves of responsibility for their votes.

Because lying about Clinton and the DNC for months is "righteous" and irrelevant.

The guy who did nothing isn't entitled but the woman who worked still needs to earn it. Hmm.

The popular vote "forced Hillary Clinton on the electorate." Because, you know, votes by women and minorities aren't actually votes because we're not part of "the electorate."

Ahh yes, the "spineless" lady from the Benghazi hearing who didn't quit the race when ordered.

Because, of course, the way to prove that misogyny has nothing to do with your beliefs is to say that women are "asking for it if" they vote for the female candidate and then you vote with the intention to sabotage the female candidate. You voting to sabotage the female candidate is the fault of her supporters for not following your orders.

After all, women are responsible for anything bad and men are responsible for anything good.

If you are ever discussing women and the phrase "asking for it" comes out of your mouth, just fucking shut up and rethink your life.

In Closing... 

I bring you this thread, which should live in infamy if there is any sanity left in the world. (TW: sexism, suicidal threats, more sexism, ableist false claims of mental illness, a lot of cursing, and a metric butt tonne of racism.)