I didn’t say misogyny is the more important issue—literally anywhere in any of my comments. I also didn’t say anything about how much political power Hillary Clinton has vs. any ordinary civilian, food co-op bro or not, because that’s not the point.

In that case, cool! I agree that that is rude. I’d hope you can see where the confusion came from based on the wording of your original comment.

I asked you to do that where?

You know how there are people who reasonably disagree with Obama’s policies, and then there are others who whine about how they can’t express their tinged-with-racism dislike without being accused of being racist? I feel like this is kind of like that. Yes, there will be the occasional person who is faced with…

Again—I’m not talking about whether this site does a good job covering Clinton. All I’m saying is that I don’t believe there’s any excuse or reason to dismiss the fact that women might be offended by these guys, which is what a lot of the commenters on here are doing.

She did indeed. And that being the case, and being deplorable, doesn’t make it OK to use misogynistic language to bolster criticism of her. It’s not an excuse to tell women who don’t like hearing what these dudes clearly think of all women directed at a presidential candidate to shut up about it. This should not be…

If people don’t want anyone to mislabel them, perhaps they can stick to hating her for her actions and positions. It’s not hard to criticize Clinton without being a misogynist, and people do it all the time. Anyone who fails to do so is a misogynist, and that doesn’t become not deplorable just because it’s directed at…

I’m a Bernie supporter myself, but “Berniebro” isn’t just as sexist as the things they’re saying, because there is no institutionalized sexism against men (or history or marginalization) upon which it feeds. Calling someone a Berniebro doesn’t imply a general disrespect for all men—throwing gendered insults at Hillary…

Not sure what this has to do with the fact that somebody else’s supporters are being vocally sexist. It’s a dumb belief and some people hold it, sure, but it’s not an excuse to dismiss sexism.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this, and didn’t in my comment.

Where did I say that this article was going to change reddit? All I said was that it’s OK for people who might be offended by discriminatory language/treatment of a candidate to talk about that, because Hillary Clinton doesn’t exist in a vacuum where misogynistic things people say about her somehow don’t reflect what…

I mean, realistically, most articles are not going to do things like that. Sometimes the purpose of reporting on something is just that. Sometimes things about people running for office are deemed newsworthy.

Why is it that these things being true about Hillary makes it entirely irrelevant that a very vocal portion of his base is extremely sexist?

People would be mean, but would her most aggressive supporters be as likely to call upon sexism/misogyny (or any other form of institutionalized discrimination) to make their point? That’s all anyone’s saying here. Nobody said that every candidate doesn’t have obnoxious supporters, because they always do and always…

And the second statement makes the first entirely irrelevant how? I’ll probably vote for Bernie in the primary, but facts about other candidates (no matter who they are) don’t render everything problematic surrounding one’s preferred candidate irrelevant.