Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
By discriminating against others.
There was definitely a time when affirmative action was necessary for people to get a leg in at all, ie during the periods of historical exclusion you mention (which, unless you happen to live in a really bad place somewhere in the world, are no longer). I don't know how you explain to a modern 18 year old why they've been rejected from a school due to top-down
quotas"preferences" (though personally I see this as a boon if they end up going to a cheaper school they never considered before because of the hype around the "great" schools).I don't know how you expect a job market to be seen as fair when people who tried very hard (parental help or no) are discriminated against because of their skin color or sex. Especially when the media will still magically turn around and continue to claim the job market is unfair on the opposite direction (which it hasn't been in ages).
I remember reading a Vox article about how a White, Male author had fallen upward in the writing world despite the fact that the writing world is overwhelmingly female. Not to mention that his books were good, he was just also a consummate liar/fraudster, and a giant jerk.
And I mean, disagreeing with this takes a lot of kool aid;
Plus, pay special attention to:
How fun will it be to work in the same department as somebody you know has prospects that are just generally better than yours because of their skin color. Oh wait, we had that! Huh, I wonder how it turned out the first time...
By "we", you mean where you live, or the States? It's honestly hard to tell at times.
You do make a good sidenote though that smaller schools might be worth considering, as a general point. Though, I think that idea is interesting for reasons entirely unrelated to this current topic.
Also, while explicit discrimination is certainly not as bad as it was back in, say, the Jim Crow era, I'm still skeptical of your claim here: Specifically, the parenthetical statement. The events of recent years have demonstrated that bigoted sentiment (and I'm talking about not the direction you're trying to say is happening, but the opposite direction, that which corresponds to a variety of historical precedent) has very definitely not disappeared from this country, and displays of it seem to be on the rise. So, it's plausible that there might be some truth to those claims of "the media" that you malign.
Furthermore, there are things -- such as matters of appearance, language, etc. -- that aren't explicitly discriminatory, but are de facto proxies for race. Some people may have dispreferences for purely non-racial reasons, while others may use it as a veil for racist ideas, and it's not necessarily clear how much there is of each. But, I think it might be better to address these things more directly than with affirmative action, though I don't yet know how feasible this is in practice.
Well, the whole Western world and it's various historical colonies, which at times I will admit I consider the "whole world".
And even in areas where there weren't clear racial divides, there have been many instances of people being shoved aside for preferred "groups", such as the (seemingly undying) caste system in India, or even more implicit situations like what I brought up the other day with tribal groups in many parts of Africa.
This societal framework; "Everybody should get a shot to show what they can do as an individual, and be regarded based on that." is very new, still less than a hundred years old. As far as I can tell, most people who are exposed to it quite like it.
I don't like things that try to mess with it, because humans are selfish and tribal and despite our learned sensibilities we can easily be switched back into the opposite state of thinking.
We will never eliminate people thinking bad things about perceived outgroups, or expressing those things to others, or organizing for said causes. A whole generation can try, but the next will still have eyes and ears and minds capable of re-invigorating bad ideas.
All we can do is confront things where we can. The world gets better from the bottom (or middle) up, not the top down.
This is, as you've probably guessed, a lot of different issues. I feel like unpicking our disagreements here would be too much, so let's maybe get around to it when it comes up again.
On this, we agree.
Darn it this is post #5...
It probably will haha.
I haven't looked through the entire thread to recount, but I think a lot (most?) of the posts you initiate are about race, gender, and societal ideas about them. (While most of the posts I initiate are about pretty much anything but those topics.)
There was the one time we talked about demand and inflation, but I always get the feeling that if I discuss numbers policy I'll get even more wordy than I am normally.
We should probably do fully nationalized medicine schemes sometime too.
Also, replying to an earlier comment:
The world doesn't only work in one direction, and ideally it works with cooperation from various angles.
Clarity of Purpose and Target
As I said already;
Be Mistaken For
As I said already;
Now, this is the relevant part.
Contribute to
My example in this scenario was worded badly, and it confused even me, which led me to argue in a random loop.
What I meant to say was;
My mistake was, when I wrote 'gay people', confusing those who are in progressive outgroups (such as myself) with those in progressive 'ingroups', even though I had already figured that out (but then forgot).
This is basically a threat to members of progressive ingroups. If you write your anti-racist joke wrong, you are contributing to racism, and so on with all the phobics and isms. That's genuinely insane and the tactic of somebody who wishes to go on a witch hunt on a whim.
Your whole commentary really seems like "I have beef with this statement because of one ridiculously specific context on which I have an opinion". That said, the only part I am actually sure I understand is that you disagree with the statement; I'm not sure I fully understand any of the rest of what you said. Perhaps if I re-read it several more times I might figure it out, but reading it really makes me feel like I've been dropped into some social commentary context that is foreign to me.
Edit: so I re-read your commentary a few times and it seems to suggest that you're saying that progressives are overzealously sensitive about what forms of satire are allowable. But I don't see how that disagrees with the statement.
For reference, in case the original image gets buried:
image link: https://64.media.tumblr.com/b294cb438a9133eda718c4d4e2bdb5e1/60bb5c194da82566-83/s540x810/9f851370ca30c3725c3404a3a83b6e360d8398eb.png
originally reposted and followed by comments here: https://itjustbugsme.com/forums/discussion/comment/366340/#Comment_366340
Text: (For reference, it's edited onto some guy's sleeveless shirt.)
Satire is a criticism of something, such as a concept, person, or institution, by bringing something about it to absurdity and (implicitly or explicitly) critiquing of the result.
It's piss-easy to mock anything by creating an absurd caricature of it. But, the result of that caricature doesn't necessarily result in convincing the audience to agree with a criticism of it. A caricature could instead result in people finding the target endearing or sympathetic, for example. It could help promote said target by raising its visibility, even if unwittingly.
"Clarity of purpose" means that the satire must be structured in a way that clearly communicates to the audience that the target should not be respected/seen in a charming light/etc., so as to convince the audience to have a negative view of it.
("Clarity of target" applies similarly, such as in that it should be clear that what's being criticized is actually a real problem, not an imagined one, nor just a vague feeling that one is shadowboxing against.)
Another way of stating the sentiment of this quote is the following comment on an example that crops up occasionally on the Steam forums: Renaming oneself something offensive like "Adolf Hitler" with the excuse that one is being "ironic" does not hold water, because there is no clarity of purpose. Instead of serving as satire, it serves as promotion.
(I know, yes, Godwin's Law, but that's a thing that actually happens every so often.)
Satire is not necessarily comedy, though comedy is a frequent form.
Ehh, no; the best satire is designed to convince people that those parts of their beliefs that are targeted by the satire are wrong.
Something that promotes the targets that it supposedly satirizes is an attempt at satire that has misfired.
I don't understand why this is either bad or concerning. Is this just a really soft warning?
There is clarity of purpose though. You're trying to inflame a segment of the population, or are trying to bring attention to yourself. The correct response to this sort of thing is to ignore it, especially nowadays considering how ridiculous the whole concept of anybody taking accusations of "Hitlerian" behavior seriously.
For an example outside of comedy, when the ACLU actually stood for the principles in it's name, it defended the rights of a Neo Nazi march in a mostly Jewish town, because preventing such forms of speech is not only starting a slippery slope, but it might prevent people from exposure to such bad ideas, which can then be debunked via not only historical context but also present time discussions.
I mean if we go to the roots of storytelling, there's comedy and there's drama. Satire is never drama, that would just be nihilism.
Satire is about having fun. It is not primarily a means of societal change.
And what's so wrong with that? That's also funny!
It's not specific. It doesn't matter if your satire is anti-waffle, nobody can decide that since you "misfired", you contributed to waffle culture. That wasn't your intention, and so you can't be charged with it.
That shirt is basically this in short-form.
But then that's not satire (nor irony for that matter).
I'm not sure what going to these "roots of storytelling" is supposed to do for us; but satire could involve a tragic result of something taken to an absurd extreme. Stories often aren't purely either comedy or drama anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
"Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society."
Satire is not (merely) about "having fun", any more than any other analogous form of entertainment is. This greater purpose of criticism is what differentiates satire from more generally making fun of something.
I don't know exactly what you mean "charged with it", but it is entirely fair for someone to observe that a person has done something they did not intend to do. No expression/message/presentation (whether satire or not) is inherently guaranteed to only result in the creator's intention being carried out properly.
Now, a person who unwittingly brought about something bad shouldn't be viewed the same way as someone who intentionally brought about something bad. But we're moving away from the topic of satire.
And that article is basically an explanation of a variant formulation of Poe's Law.
Anyhow, is there something in that article that you also disagree with? Since you say you disagree with the message on the shirt.
First of all, this doesn't disagree with me. These opinions can exist in tandem.
Second of all, this brings up the Satire Police again; who decides what is constructive and what isn't?
Nothing in your example was satirical or ironic to start with.
That is still comedy, because a part of you knows you aren't meant to take things seriously.
A tragic result is not a tragedy.
But this is exactly what the shirt is about.
People, individually, as members of the audience, and in consultation with each other or other parties if they so desire.
The "Satire Police" you speak of is merely the audience.
Not taking things seriously =/= comedy
No, the shirt doesn't say anything about how to treat these people. It's simply saying that critiquing satire based on clarity of purpose and of target, as well as its potential to be mistaken for an unintended purpose, is a fair thing to do.
Satire is not immune from criticism.
edit: it's probably more just that you focus on these topics a lot, tbh
I remember specifically that art used to just be for the craft, and that we all used to value artists who worked to the bone with not much but their vague ideas. I still do.
It only takes a tiny percentage of an audience to bring a joke down. Demi Lovato singularlycancelled a decent episode of Shake it Up! because she decided it promoted body dysmorphia even though it was just a joke about models not eating (which I mean, you've seen non-"body positive" models, they don't eat). I always liked that episode.
A part of the audience I don't appreciate.
I mean, I'm betting you're not going to sit around defending the part of the audience made up of Christian conservatives who spent the pre-00s going from one moral panic to the next. What's changed?
You've removed the operative words from my statement and act like it's a point.
Of course it's not. The shirt does not once mention fair criticism. It's just a generalization.
I don't agree with the shirt, and think it fosters a bad form of discourse, whereas you defend it based on what you believe are it's merits in criticism. Can we just agree to disagree?
And...part of the craft is making the art effective at what it's supposed to do?
So this would be differing opinions on the work, which is quite normal.
What's changed about what?
Heck, there's always someone complaining that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and picking out whatever suits this interpretation of their circumstances.
You said "That is still comedy, because a part of you knows you aren't meant to take things seriously." I said "not taking things seriously =/= comedy". What "operative words" have I removed, and how do they change the meaning?
It's a general statement implying that criticism is fair game when satire is written wrong such that it has unintended results.
(Again, satire is not the same as simply making fun of something. Well, if you disagree with this idea itself, then I'm not sure we really have much more to say here, because then the defense that something is "satire" can be used to nullify any criticism of it...)
We can, but I'm still finding it hard to believe that you have so much beef with such an unspecific statement indicating the general idea that that satirical intent can go awry if the writer isn't writing it correctly.
...
The fact that the newsmedia, entertainment, entertainers, sports people, and progressive activists beat these drums day in and day out really doesn't explain why I am so focused on pushing back?
I checked cbsnews.com (i.e. one of the major news networks in the US) just now and there are zero headlines on the front page about sex and gender ideologies. The closest things are a handful of "these women are doing some neat things" headlines, an in-depth coverage piece about cancel culture, and general coverage of civil rights stuff related related to black people (rather than about gender) -- all of which are beneath the break in the page asking people to sign up, which is itself below the first four sections. Those sections talk about stuff like
* Trump's visit to Kenosha and other stuff related to it
* Coronavirus (an entire section on it)
* Election 2020
* Civil rights protests
* jobs
* Fort Hood soldier's death
* education
* ICE arrests
I also went and checked dailykos.com (i.e. a major progressive activism site) and again I couldn't find anything on sex and gender ideology. The closest things were a piece on the #metoo movement and incarcerated women, and a piece about the fight over abortion rights in Missouri. Other topics include:
* election results (we just had a big primary election in Massachusetts), polls, fundraising, ads, etc.
* other elections-related stuff, such as something about how millions of swing state voters' data was allegedly found on "a Russian hacker's server"
* Trump/this Republican/that Republican/Trump supporters did various bad/crazy things (from using government money for campaign purposes to punching protesters to his strange comments about stroke etc.)
* Police brutality, victims of police brutality, civil rights protests (with a focus on race, not gender)
* COVID-19 and its impacts
* Climate change
* a request for people to sign petitions (specifically about supporting Dr. Anthony Fauci's continued presence in his current position, stopping banks from seizing stimulus checks, revoking the NRA's tax-exempt status, criticizing the U.S. Senate as "an insult to democracy", and demanding that the Senate save the US Postal Service)
* "human-interest" type stories such as about students using Taco Bell wifi and that story going viral
There is so much more going on and the emphasis on sex and gender stuff in your posts is definitely evidence of your personal interest in them.
That's not to say you can't have your own pet issues; it's just that that's not the only show in town, by far.
(At the risk of making this longer than it needs to be) it seems to me that the disagreement is about the shirt's statement (satire can go wrong) rather than how the statement might end up being used (soapboxing). I mean, both are obviously true but you two are going at it in completely different directions, something that happens often between you two.
I've already mentioned how the seemingly unmovable bestsellers in books on every English-facing Amazon site right now are White Fragility (distilled white identity politics ie the author says her goal is to "be a little less white every day"), and How to Be an Anti-Racist (written by an insane black supremacist who may also be a totalitarian).
"Whiteness" is frequently used as a synonym for something resembling "irredeemable spiritual wrongness", so don't go around telling me this isn't happening.
And the fact that you keep calling BLM protests for criminals who happened to encounter the police (where yes, brutality was involved in some but certainly not others) "civil rights protests" makes it clear that even you feel the need to sanitize what you say to me.
Police brutality and ICE protests are only in the news because they're racial issues. Nobody cares about Tony Timpa, and nobody would really care about ICE if all they did was deal with Eastern European migrants. These are massive issues that, for progressives, are basically entirely about race.
Also that stroke thing was a thing Mike Drudge started up, claiming that Donald Trump had had a set of mini-strokes, but of course the dailykos story clips things to make them look worse. Mike Drudge being the same new collector these people hated when he did the same thing to Hilary Clinton.
That last one is kind of creepy considering what we know Jacob Blake (who the current wave of protests is about) has done to his girlfriend.
The CBS page has a whole section that's titled "The Power of August", which is just pro-BLM nonsense.
One article equates Emmett Till (killed in a lynching for possibly saying words) with George Floyd (a case that I am never ever going to attempt to litigate here, but you can assume my disapproval at how he's being portrayed and certainly how his death is being portrayed).
Another equates BLM protests with the civil rights movement, which was not "fiery but mostly peaceful", and the "peacefulness" certainly didn't "intensify" during it. Their protests were genuinely carried out peacefully.
You know what was similar though? The LA Riots, which I have not seen mentioned once since this began.
An article here actually defends Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, who is the man that the no-knock warrant that led to her unfortunate death was for.
And as for this man who was fatally shot;?
Later in the same article, they actually bother clarifying what happened;
You do not punch law enforcement in the face, you comply, no matter what race you are. You can figure out your stuff later, not when you're staring a volatile situation in the face (that you shouldn't punch!), and you should certainly never inflame a situation yourself.
These are not the people I will ever sit around defending. If you wish to do so, then go ahead.
Yet the media is regurgitating what "activists" have said wholesale, they are genuinely claiming the police are lying.
In the same article there's this convenient graphic;
To make it clear, the concept of racial justice is bad, it separates man from man based on immutable identities and will, I swear to you, result in a terrible breed of tribalism that we have tried to stop over and over in humanity.
What is genuinely going on here is that because there is a narrative to sell, the media is genuinely picking up stories of criminals and lionizing those criminals into saints in order to destroy public confidence in the police, which is extremely bad.
I went through sites looking for evidence of that topic and found basically none.
Yes, you've also complained about race, but that topic is an actually-current hot button political issue.
Sanitize what?
Last time I checked, criminals (and especially alleged criminals, i.e. before due process has been conducted) still have civil rights, one of which is the right to due process of law itself. Excessive use of force does not stop excessive just because someone's a criminal; whether use of force is excessive has to do with their actions.
If you're allergic to me using a more general term for these protests without explicitly mentioning a specific name (which has been used by and confused between different organizations at this point), then I don't know what you're on.
I should note that this country has dealt before with issues of discrimination against Polish immigrants. The "racial" dimension has changed over time to whoever is convenient to rag on.
Drudge didn't bring up the strokes first; Trump did in his tweet.
Sure, and now you suddenly see how much more there is going on besides that, by the fact that you had to go draw boxes to highlight stuff and look beneath the fold just to find more.
I would complain that you moved the goalposts on my point (which was explicitly about sex/gender ideology wanking) but if you want to argue race let's do that too.
Race is a current topic of controversy. So there's more reporting on it. But your pictures show that it's definitely not the only thing that's going on, whereas by your own admission it's a topic that you've focused on.
Thanks for making my point for me.
1. Whatever he did to his girlfriend does not excuse the excessive use of force by police. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. So his family is not allowed to have and express their opinions?
And OH MY GOSH THEY OFFERED VOTER REGISTRATION, COVID-19 TESTING, and FREE HAIRCUTS.
WHAT AN OUTRAGE.
Oh hey look, two and a half historical stories, and one about boosting voter participation, and one describing the people involved in an ongoing news story.
What an outrage.
I wouldn't have thought of the comparison myself, but in terms of galvanizing social action, it actually seems kinda apt.
Funny you should mention this because I watched an entire documentary on it a little while ago.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kenneth-walker-breonna-taylor-shooting-boyfriend-lawsuit/
"defends" what? The article reports that Walker is filing a lawsuit, and explains the circumstances leading up to it. And it even indicates that Walker admits to discharging his own weapon.
The article reports that this shooting took place, the circumstances surrounding it are fuzzy due to lack of body cameras ("just a day before the L.A. County Board of Supervisors was scheduled to vote on a motion to purchase hundreds of body cameras for deputies, who currently are not required to wear them, CBSLA reported", incidentally), and that the police say such-and-such happened and led to an officer-involved shooting but activists disagree with the account and are protesting.
What exactly is wrong with this report? Is it supposed to go tar the guy? Is it supposed to take the side of the officers as unambiguously correct and/or claim without substantiation that the activists are wrong?
So is everything for you is about taking sides in social movements, as opposed to actually trying to sort out the details of the case? Because there are many good people here trying to the latter, regardless of social movements.
The quote you posted literally gives an attribution to this opinion, attributing it to said activists.
"They" the activists are questioning the police report; "they" the media are not the entity "claiming the police are lying". If you are going to complain about the activists' position being reported, then do note that the police's position is also reported.
I bet if I ask you what you mean by "racial justice" it will be some sort of concocted weirdness posting a variety of different articles involving a word salad of ideological terms.
Meanwhile, though, you're managing to imply that the notion that people should be treated fairly regardless of race -- and in tandem, the idea that unfairness based on race should be pointed out and corrected -- is "bad".
It's not the media who are pushing it; it's the activists who are, and those activists' protests are a thing right now so the media is reporting on it, the same way they reported on a variety of other protests.
You're claiming a pattern of intentional malfeasance where there isn't one.
Meanwhile, the most relevance that your position has is simply a complaint that the media is too sympathetic in their portrayals............which does not contradict any facts regarding whether the police have been using excessive force.
Again, criminals don't suddenly become bags of straw for roughhousing by police just because they've been convicted of crimes. Doubly so for alleged criminals -- i.e. people who have not yet been given due process of law with regards to the crimes they are accused of.
I was wondering whether to post the list. But I might as well at this point. Here's the list.
Again, there are a ton more things going on besides arguments over race, and particularly over sex and gender ideologies (which is, again, what my post earlier originally addressed).
fourteenwings, based on what you've said, your position appears to be either that the media shouldn't even touch covering anything vaguely related to the Black Lives Matter movement/protests, or that when covering such, they should affirm that the police's allegations are correct (despite their correctness being in question is at the heart of this issue) while either not reporting what activists are saying or claiming that what activists are saying is incorrect.
Frankly speaking, what you appear to be doing is complaining about the fact that there are non-negative portrayals of, and/or positive ideas being associated with, Black Lives Matter, with the protests, and the whole nine yards.
You're complaining about the association. The portrayal.
The whole argument about "these people are criminals" has only one tack to it, which is "don't be that sympathetic to them". Whether they are criminals does not excuse police misconduct.
This tack ignores police misconduct, which is precisely what the protests have been about.
Okay, De-escalation Take II;
You didn't specify what you meant.
It probably got confused here:
(plural)
What I am saying is that all of these people (save Breonna Taylor) were in the midst of committing a crime when they were shot (or knelt on) by law enforcement.
And to address the bolded section; a criminal punching you in the face is basically an invitation for roughhousing (unless you mean to let them get away). However, police aren't trained via karate, they're trained to use tasers and guns (as they should be).
It's kind of hard to try and give somebody due process when they're punching you in the face in the present moment.
I will never defend any individual criminal who is assaulting police officers whilst committing a crime.
And in terms of cynicism, this kind of takes the cake;
The cases are nowhere near morally equivalent but it got people on the streets, and so the "comparison is apt".
I'm yet to see an example of this from the cases the media is hyping. They have to find criminals basically because it's extremely rare for the police to accidentally kill someone who isn't one, and it's almost certainly never because of their race.
And racial justice is not this. Racial justice is a concept of anti-racism, and therefore it goes one way. That's why the Hispanic police officer who shot this most recent guy is being called 'white Hispanic' and the creeps who say 'this was never about black and brown' are coming out of the woodwork.
The activists wrote that piece desecrating the name of an actual lynching victim so they can create moral equivalence with a man in the middle of a criminal act?
If I don't think the police are using excessive force in the majority of these cases, then I have no reason to write sympathetic portrayals. In fact, even if I do think their cause deserves sympathy, I'm just a journalist who is meant to report the facts.
An art that was lost long ago (or, maybe, according to Yellow Journalism scholars, never even existed).
30% of a single-minded view on one topic is more than enough, you know.
Go ahead and reply. I'll read it but I don't think what's happening here is constructive, or that you have a healthy understanding of the concepts of policing or law and order in general.
I mean, somehow a police officer getting punched turns into his own fault for not providing a lawyer and courtroom .2 seconds later to a violent fleeing criminal, and that this then justifies the demonstrations for 'racial justice' in response to a bunch of incitement and disinformation by various parties (mostly 'activists' whose most active duty appears to be stoking more and more peacefully intense unrest).
You actually say it's okay to take Emmett Till's name and run it alongside an actual criminal's because both caused unrest.
You say BLM has become a disorganized mess to avoid the fact that it's most active arm, BLM Inc, the one run through the same fundraising mechanism as many progressive causes (ActBlue), has gathered hundreds of millions in just a few months, as well as rave endorsements from almost every breathing Fortune 500 executive.
This as the neighborhoods where unrest is stoked suffer the inverse amount in damages, and also suffer in a myriad of other ways.
I just can't argue with this position anymore.
* Charles Kinsey, behaviorial therapist, serving an autistic patient at the time of the shooting
* Philando Castile, pulled over because he looked like a suspect in a recent robbery
* Dontre Hamilton, a mentally ill man sleeping in the park
* John Crawford III, shopping for a BB gun and talking on a cell phone
* Ezell Ford, walking down the street, and crouching in a driveway
* Anthony Hill, erratic behavior while naked
As for the ones "committing a crime", sure, let's also look at what they were accused of doing:
* Dijon Kizzee, riding a bicycle in violation of vehicle codes
* Freddie Gray, possession (though not brandishing) of a switchblade (which may or may not have been illegal depending on whether Maryland state law or Baltimore city law applied, apparently)
* George Floyd, using a counterfeit $20 bill at a supermarket
* Eric Garner, selling individual cigarettes without tax stamps
* Alton Sterling, while being one person (among others) selling CDs, on an anonymous report that someone selling CDs was waving a gun and threatening a person
N.B. these are accusations and not even convictions.
And I've barely broken into 2016 in the Wikipedia template so far. I've also read through incident after incident and filtered out those where there was violent behavior that police were called to.
So, in your opinion, assaulting police officers ought to be punishable by death? Note that I am not asking about reasonable likelihood or expectation; I am asking what you think ought to happen.
And so you are unable (or unwilling) to view events without filtering them through moral judgement, rather than being able to observe a pattern of events and see a reasonable similarity that explains a someone's comparison.
Like I said, I didn't even think up the comparison but I can understand how someone might plausibly say that. I just didn't jump on moral outrage first.
????? Being against racism is bad?
There are a variety of cases that involve police officers of minority races. Meanwhile you're just complaining about portrayals again.
Given the kind of coverage you're complaining about, such as the article about the Dijon Kizzee, you seem to think that even factual reporting is too sympathetic.
But, perhaps more relevantly...again, you're focusing on the portrayal, rather than the facts of the case.
And that "30%" includes of reporting on stuff that's happening. This isn't just a pile of opinion-wanking thinkpieces.