What happened to fixing things through conversation?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

People getting fired for saying the wrong thing
.

Especially when the wrong thing that gets you fired, is saying "all lives matter".

If I say 'all lives matter', and somehow what you hear is 'black lives don't matter', i'm pretty sure that's your problem, not my problem. Saying all lives matter necessarily means that black lives matter, and it doesn't mean that I don't agree that there's some residual racism left that we need to work on.

And I though liberals were all about free speech?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Especially when the wrong thing that gets you fired, is saying "all lives matter".

If I say 'all lives matter', and somehow what you hear is 'black lives don't matter', i'm pretty sure that's your problem, not my problem. Saying all lives matter necessarily means that black lives matter, and it doesn't mean that I don't agree that there's some residual racism left that we need to work on.

And I though liberals were all about free speech?

Pretty tone deaf Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Pretty tone deaf Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty snowflake-y Spence. I said black lives matter, I said that blacks have unique issues we need to address.

Call that tone deaf if you want, I don't see it. Except to you that any attempt to talk about anything that doesn't serve the liberal agenda, is tone-deaf. It's a lame political ploy to deny that there are some facts and results that are contrary to liberal talking points. Liberals don't like to concede this.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Ian

As to the elements who benefit, the news right now is the biggest one of them, which is the tragedy in the reality of where we are right now: the narrative (all of them, regardless of perspective) is being controlled, VERY publicly, by people/companies/etc who have no incentive for you to go back to your daily lives.

So if we’re going to adjust/restructure funding for police, maybe we can get a media earmark in that bill too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Companies like NYTimes? WAPO? They are having a protest revolt at the moment because the staff, particularly the younger ones, want to be more partisan than, organizationally, they were before.

So this circular fuel will be one more (large) shift to further drive people away from the center - exactly the opposite of what is needed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Companies like NYTimes? WAPO? They are having a protest revolt at the moment because the staff, particularly the younger ones, want to be more partisan than, organizationally, they were before.

Or maybe they're just trying to keep the papers centered. The Cotton op-ed seemed a bit problematic both factually and in spirit from what I read of it. The headline of "all buildings matter" was way out of bounds.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Or maybe they're just trying to keep the papers centered.

.

this is hilarious

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is hilarious

I know, right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is hilarious

Sort of like a movement called Black Lives Matter, that vandalized memorials to Abraham Lincoln and the Massachusetts 54th Regiment (all black regiment in the Civil War). What did Lincoln and the Massachusett's 54th ever do for black people, right?

This whole thing is like something out of SNL or MAD magazine. It's a parody of a political movement. It's a farce.

"I care about black lives! So let's reduce or eliminate the police! If we do that, blacks in Chicago and Baltimore will live forever!"

The Washington Post is as liberal as it gets. And according to their data, 9 unarmed blacks were killed by police in 2019. Now one is too many, but it's not an epidemic. Coincidentally, that's the same number that were murdered in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend.

But let's tear the country apart over the police, and never speak of what people in the cities are doing to each other. Why ignore the major problem to focus on the more rare problem, you ask? Because the large-scale problem (gang violence in cities, and the socio-economic causes of that violence) doesn't help liberals win elections. Shrieking about police brutality, does help liberals win elections. And that's what this is obviously about.