For example, it's possible that Breona Taylor isn't quite the innocent victim she's been portrayed as .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=Louisville+Courier+Journal+Police+Officers+Should+not+be+charged
We've seen the news of George Floyd's Fentanyl levels
https://www.fox9.com/news/court-filings-medical-examiner-thought-george-floyd-had-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-in-system
Usually one thinks of medical examiners as being experts in their field, and strangely enough so do the courts.
Obviously the version of Jacob Blake that first hit the news hasn't survived the first few days of investigation.
I posted the link elsewhere to the conclusions the P-BO justice department led by Eric Holder reached regarding Michael Brown, and the multiple litigations of the incident support the DOJ conclusion.
As we saw last night, people chose not to believe that evidence, but the narative.
The question this raises is...
If things like data, evidence, and facts, can't stop people from believing and acting on the narrative (which lacks things like data, evidence, and facts), then what's the point of ever offering or asking for data, evidence, or facts?
13 comments:
Because someone could hear. Because someone might be persuaded. Few who believe what they want to believe or believe what they think is true will ever change their minds without the facts being made known constantly and boldly. And if those facts are presented in different, but still honest and accurate ways, even those who have rejected the facts initially might be persuaded by the new presentation that hits them in the necessary way to compel that change of heart. Sorta like with voting choices, I will continue to find ways to make the case.
The worst part of all this with regard to the deaths of black people is that those who pretend they're concerned about justice are not really concerned about justice, or else they wouldn't act unjustly toward their fellow man by rioting, looting and assaulting people. They insist on the false narrative about police brutality and racial injustice to rationalize their desire to riot, loot and assault. They don't give a flying rat's backside about the lives of those killed by cops doing their best to do their duty in a difficult situation. It's easy to see this is true by how quickly they choose to portray each of these situations as examples of those two positions (racism, police brutality).
The question I have for all of them is just how have they profited by playing the victim card? I'm not seeing anything other than weak politicians cowing to their tantrums, but other than the stolen products, I see no real benefit.
I agree that facts and Truth are important, perhaps the most important element in these conversations. The problem is that way too many are simply choosing to ignore facts, data, and evidence, in favor of #s, slogans, and narratives that often contradict what the facts show us. What's especially galling is the folks who demand facts, (data, proof, etc), yet can't provide those things when asked. Or who ignore those things when it suits them.
I do so love the fact that even though there are multiple examples of video evidence that call the narrative around Rittenhouse's actions, this notion that we should do anything but blindly and uncritically accept the narrative is going strong.
It's amusing that now "armed" doesn't actually mean "armed".
It's disgusting that "We don't have all the details. We should wait for as many details as possible before jumping to a conclusion. (and) We should be willing to modify our tentative, early conclusions as more detail and evidence come out." are somehow taken as inappropriate ways to asses things.
Clearly, "Let's loot, burn, harm innocents, and rampage, is a much more reasonable approach to every situation we find ourselves in.
It's likely happening. I've made on topic comments at Dan's. Answered his questions, responded to his follow ups, followed his lead, and pointed out his hypocritical double standard, and he's insinuating deletion if I don't stay on topic. So, it's time to save my comments in order to have evidence to counter the inevitable false characterizations of my comments,
Well done Dan!!!!
Yes, the claim does mean something. It means that I've addressed King's entire speech from which the out of context quote comes, and you chose not to interact with what I said then. The fact that you choose to make unfounded assumptions, based on your prejudices, instead of doing your research is your problem not mine.
As to staying on topic. I started on topic, I've simply responded to what you've said. It's as if you "led" me off topic, and now plan to use what you've done to blame me.
I'll simply note that you've chosen this path as opposed to the path where you prove your claims.
I think your silence is quite eloquent at this point.
More potentially saved from Dan's delete button.
You've not proven any of the claims you've made in this thread, and you clearly haven't bothered to look at what I've actually said. It's so much easier to just make shit up and let your prejudices do the talking.
"Disagreeing with reality gets you nowhere."
I'm not disagreeing with "reality", I'm disagreeing with you, your unproven claims, and your prejudice driven hunches. Perhaps the problem is that you're conflating yourself and your hunches with "reality".
That must explain why you won't/can't prove your claims and need this sort of diversion instead.
I've always been most annoyed by Dan's routine redirection toward these diversion from discourse to that which has no real value to it. He'll go on and on about how one supposedly spoke about something he didn't say, when clearly what was said was a conclusion Dan's words provoked. He won't clarify, he'll just whine about what he "didn't say". That is, "OK, Dan. If what I said is not what you meant, why not focus on making your meaning more plain rather than boring me with crap about what you claim you didn't say?" Because he'll never get around to that clarification. He won't get around to defending his fact-free position. "That's not what I said" is not an argument. "You're 'delusional'...not seeing reality...don't understand 'nuance'" is not an argument. Nor is it at all true until THAT is proven. I'd prefer spending no time on any of that crap, but simply making the defense.
This seems a little different. He's literally led the conversation to the current point. I've merely followed him along and responded to his comments. It's almost like he doesn't understand that if he writes something in a comment, then it becomes de facto on topic because it's his post, his blog, his comment thread and if he goes somewhere...
OH yeah...I get that and I agree that's what happened with regard to your current concerns. I was just adding to it with an example of another of his tactics that don't help his own cause (though his cause is indefensible).
And of course, when a blog host makes a comment of any kind, a reader can't be accused legitimately to have strayed from the topic by responding to the comment the blog host made. It's just something he's doing because your response is too difficult to handle.
I've begun to post totally on-topic comments there (on topic because they're directly responding to his ten reasons for supporting Biden). We'll see if they remain.
I saw, I added one as well.
I think I saw a comment over there, amongst all the falsehoods, that said that Dan's groupie wasn't going to grace our blogs with his "wisdom" any more. Either we're dealing with severe memory loss, sheer stupidity, or someone who can't control their lies.
I guess quoting MLK when it can’t be interpreted as justification for riots isn’t “on topic”.
Dan posts an out of context quote, it’s on topic, any other quotes, “off topic”.
While I’ve never had anything like Herpes, or any other disease where the symptoms come and go, I know have a sense of what it’s like. You think you’ve gotten rid of a disgusting disease, then it comes back.
"I think I saw a comment over there, amongst all the falsehoods, that said that Dan's groupie wasn't going to grace our blogs with his "wisdom" any more."
"Wisdom"? What "wisdom"? I don't recall Dan's troll posting any wisdom on my blog, and I don't recall him posting any here or at Dan's, for that matter. I've been ignoring his drivel, but I did happen to see one that seemed to suggest he falsely "interpreted" something I said in the few (perhaps only two at that point) comments I made. Easy to check that he totally made shit up, like he so routinely does, being the false priest he is and all.
I haven't spent much time with the MLK quote, but did see when Dan referenced it initially. If King meant it as a mere analysis of what a riot is, I can deal with it. If he meant it as a justification, then he's as stupid as Dan and the troll. I don't think he meant it as a justification or worse, rationalization for rioting, and thus, referencing it requires a more detailed explanation. As if that wasn't bad enough, to present that quote as if there is some true parallel between King's time and ours is simply a lie. This "unrest" we're seeing is not about injustice, despite those who say it is, because injustice is not a true issue. Every incident exploited to rationalize rioting, looting and assault, is not a case of some innocent black dude being victimized by racist cops. None of them are in the same universe as John Lewis getting his ass beat in Selma (and aside from that, I'm no fan of Lewis). Race-hustlers and marxists are exploiting these cases of assholes resisting lawful directions of cops and then being shot or forcibly restrained, and then inciting riots to disrupt our communities and destroy our way of life. None of these "victims" are true victims at all...not even Brianna Taylor. Nor are their stories unique to the black race, which is what the hustlers and their ignorant sheep like to pretend. Thus, to cite that MLK piece is to purposely, or stupidly suggest that it is relevant to what is going on today. It is not in any way.
The context of the MLK quote is a passage from a speech about economics, and a condemnation of rioting.
It’s amazing how folks can claim that pacifism works, and that there are all these effective non violent techniques, and talk about the effectiveness of King and Gandhi, yet still excuse the riots and ignore their innocent victims.
Post a Comment