What’s so hard about this

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Ian

The complicated item here is that justice seems to follow a different path in this case. If this had been 4 guys who did this to a cop, the conversation would be entirely different, and the other 3 wouldn't be free right now.

...and the news wouldn't be bombarding us with it 24x7.

....And there would be no protests/riots
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

...and the news wouldn't be bombarding us with it 24x7.

....And there would be no protests/riots
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The news would be bombarding us with it, and you know that.

There wouldn’t be protests because there wouldn’t be a systemic issue of ignoring justice when things like that happen. Cops get hurt, their brothers and sisters hunt down the perp and beat the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of them before they get to a DA.

Saying that protests of racial killings leads to riots is diluting the fact that there is a problem in this country with the balance of justice. I don’t know if you’re combining the two intentionally or not, but it’s important that you know the impact of the way you choose to make your point. Whether you choose to recognize that and adjust how you simultanously recognize the obvious imbalance that justifies protests and systematic change AND express your justified outrage at the riots is entirely up to you.

But by conflating the two you ignore the existence of the underlying problem and become part of it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Ian

The news would be bombarding us with it, and you know that.

There wouldn’t be protests because there wouldn’t be a systemic issue of ignoring justice when things like that happen. Cops get hurt, their brothers and sisters hunt down the perp and beat the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of them before they get to a DA.

Saying that protests of racial killings leads to riots is diluting the fact that there is a problem in this country with the balance of justice. I don’t know if you’re combining the two intentionally or not, but it’s important that you know the impact of the way you choose to make your point. Whether you choose to recognize that and adjust how you simultanously recognize the obvious imbalance that justifies protests and systematic change AND express your justified outrage at the riots is entirely up to you.

But by conflating the two you ignore the existence of the underlying problem and become part of it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No they wouldn't, we'd here about for a day or two and it would fade. Last year 48 officers were killed in the line of duty, 9 unarmed black men were. How many of those 48 officers did you hear CNN reporting on?

And stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that racial protests would lead to riots, I said their wouldn't be either of those in the situation You gave.

Right now Minneapolis has a problem with there PD that they need to take a hard deep look at.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions about what I think from two lines of text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

No they wouldn't, we'd here about for a day or two and it would fade. Last year 48 officers were killed in the line of duty, 9 unarmed black men were. How many of those 48 officers did you hear CNN reporting on?

And stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that racial protests would lead to riots, I said their wouldn't be either of those in the situation You gave.

Right now Minneapolis has a problem with there PD that they need to take a hard deep look at.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions about what I think from two lines of text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fair point, I’m not thrilled with the way I made my point, a bit holiest-than-thou than I intended, apologize for that.

What I did want to point out is that the words we use are important, especially around a topic as charged and complex as the one playing out across the country eight now.

You said there would be no protests/riots. Which, as written, insinuates that they come together.

By saying them together you are suggesting, you’ve now confirmed unconsciously, that they go together. This was the point I was trying to make.

Saying “there would be no protests/riots” is a symbolically different way of referring to current events than saying “no one would be protesting it and providing cover for others to riot in their wake.”

I know it sounds like it’s splitting hairs, but the reality is that if we perpetuate the perception that rioting and looting are hand-in-hand with protesting, we are a part of the problem.

Again, wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, was trying to provide an example of how the words you did use could be interpreted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device