I'm going to try for two in one post today.
1. The "MI protesters were protesting because they didn't want to wear masks" fallacy.
The MI protesters were quite clear about the fact that their protest was about government overreach, and how their governor was handling policies regarding the reopening or more stringent lock down of the state. The MI narrative was "Look at the scary guys with scary guns." protesting. Yet, those guys for the most part stood quietly. They certainly, not that I'd seen, didn't brandish their weapons, or engage in any actions that would have signaled the intent to harm others. In general the MI protest was peaceful, if one applies the current standard of how peaceful protest is defined, the MI protest was damn near a Zen garden. Further, the MI protesters protested, made their point, and left.
The MI protesters didn't riot for days on end. They didn't attract "white supremacist agitators" who pushed things out of control. They burned nothing, robbed no one, robbed no banks, killed no LEO's. In short, they were the polar opposite of these recent protests. They seemed to even respect social distancing more that the Floyd protesters/rioters. There really is absolutely zero equivalence to be had in this comparison.
2. The "Tea Party" fallacy.
I won't belabor the actions of the Floyd rioters again, we see it every night on TV.
The Boston Tea Party was a well planned, well organized, limited, specific action, directed at a specific unjust tax. Yes, it was after many other injustices perpetrated by the crown, but this was not an out of control generalized wanton destruction.
The perpetrators were a "quasi official" group representing the forming (soon to be formed Continental government). They quietly infiltrated the specific ships carrying the tea subject to the new tax, took great pains to make sure that they destroyed or damaged nothing except the tea, cleaned up and left quietly. They even went to the trouble to replace a lock that was broken.
What these men weren't doing was looking for personal gain. In reality the Tea Party and following events probably cause them more harm that they caused to the crown. These men has a specific (arguably noble) purpose in their act. (It could be argued that the "goal" of the rioters was noble as well) They were trying to send a specific, direct message to the crown, and succeeded. Finally, these men engaged in this act knowing that if they were caught, that the likely outcome was death.
It seems pretty obvious that the comparisons between these two acts as at best only superficial, at worst in service of a false narrative built on falsehood. Both fallacies seem to be an attempt to give the rioters a veneer of legitimacy and justification.
2 comments:
Look at the protests of the Tea Party Movement beginning in the first year of Obama's first term. It was formed to address specific grievances regarding fiscal policy and immigration that actually was brewing during the previous administration, but pushed to activism because of Obama (it may actually have become active regardless of who was elected in 2008, though better policies by a different president may have prevented it).
When they engaged in public protest, it was always peaceful and clean, leaving almost no evidence it even took place in the area it did. These protests probably accomplished far more than any violent outbursts by those protesting perceived racial injustices. In fact I think we can state that confidently given how many "Tea Party" candidates ran for office and got elected (certainly more of the latter than the former, but you get the point).
This was quite similar to the MI protests in style, and their effectiveness may be beginning to take root, given recent relaxing of some Whitmer policies.
The Civil Rights protests of the 60's were peacefully run and they led to changes in law that have improved the lives of the black community (though too many that did just the opposite).
It seems to me that if one's grievances are legitimate, most people will join in and real change will occur. This isn't the case with the BLM narrative, nor that of the "black voices" to which white-guilt pantywaists insist listen. Those who question the validity of anyone's grievance do so because they see evidence that conflicts with it. They can then, if they choose, research to confirm or contradict the validity of the grievance. This has been done quite a bit with the BLM grievances, and thus they are dismissed as the falsehoods they are. Whatever truth may reside among those grievances has been distorted and thus are no longer truths. No one will listen to that which has no appearance of truth and no one should act on that which isn't true. As mentioned in the other post, if one cannot question the the narrative, one will no longer wish to listen. One will no longer feel it wise to act on the claims of the narrative. Nothing will change. And nothing should based on a narrative that includes too much that isn't true. We do not benefit as a society with laws or policies enacted based on falsehoods. Having the courage to have a discussion on race, as Eric Holders believes white people don't have, requires courage, honesty and the willingness to listen by BOTH sides. Not just white people.
The Tea Party movement is an excellent example of how it's possible to have peaceful protests without leaving behind litter, or damage. How effective they were might be in question, but at least they didn't leave the areas they protested in covered in trash like the occupy protesters did.
I think the BLM movement has a few problems that make it difficult to completely get behind them, even though their motives seem noble.
1. They started this movement by choosing bad role models to celebrate.
2. They clearly don't value all black lives the same
3. Victimizing members of the black community doesn't seem like an effective strategy.
4. Much of the narrative they are pushing is built on falsehoods, and they refuse to change the narrative even when it's been demonstrated false.
It's a hard discussion. It's made harder when it becomes impossible to balance feelings and emotions with facts and Truth. I understand that it's not necessarily always productive to lead with facts when someone is expressing hurt or frustration, but it's also not productive to make sweeping public policy changes based on false premises.
Post a Comment