On the way home from the gym last night, I stumbled across a radio show discussing the effects that porn has on young men and how they sexually interact with young women after extensive porn consumption. While this is actually a fascinating conversation and one that in general doesn't get as much attention as it deserves, it's not where I want to take this.
Right before I got home, the "expert" (never heard a name or qualifications), was talking about how what we see in the media affects our actions. She talked about one study showing how what people watched changed their perceptions about hypothetical situations, she talked about the fact that advertising works, and even why the Russians chose media to try to influence our last election.
My question/thought is this.
If media influences people attitudes and actions, isn't it possible that seeing people getting away with assault, looting, arson, and general destruction, is influencing people to engage in those behaviors? Isn't it possible that seeing people on TV walking out of stores with free stuff, while the police look on and do nothing, enough of an attraction to push more people into doing the same? Isn't it possible that when politicians and "community leaders" excuse or rationalize this theft as appropriate, that it influences people?
At least with George Floyd there was some time between the incident and the riots. With both Kenosha and last night, the response was instant rioting/looting/burning, doesn't that indicate that there are a significant number of people out there who are looking for an excuse to riot, and don't really care if it's appropriate or not?
Finally, there is a narrative out there that every bit of the rioting/looting/assault/arson is being done by "outside agitators". Even if it's true that 100% of the damage is caused by "outside agitators", the fact is that the protests/riots are providing cover/excuses for these "outside agitators" and the BLM folks aren't really doing much to stop them.
7 comments:
The presence of outside agitators is a real problem, but it means nothing in the long run given that until they make significant arrests, it can't be known what percentage are outsiders or not. To me it doesn't matter at all. What matters is the authorities doing so little.
The reality is that they have made the choice to allow, cover for, join the “agitators” , I’m not sure it really matters. The non rioters made their choice, they chose harming the innocent.
It seems to me that in pretty much every instance of a "right-wing" rally, protest or other such gathering, the fact they are truly peaceful is a glaring difference. What's more, "agitators" from within or without would not be tolerated. The "right-wing" protesters, rally-ers, gatherers would oppose such attempts to make their gathering a "right-wing" version of what goes on at leftist "peaceful protests". We saw the stark difference between the various "Occupy" iterations versus the various "Tea Party" type gatherings. We can even argue that were it not for antifa and other lefty asshats, Charlottesville would never have resulted in any deaths, and that includes from the lefty racists siding with the defenders of R.E.Lee's statue.
I completely agree. Look at the after pictures from right gatherings vs. left gatherings as an example. Look at the fact that there were armed, peaceful protesters in MI who did absolutely nothing wrong yet were accused of "violence", while thousands of leftists destroy city blocks and who get a complete pass.
I do think it's more likely that right protesters would be less willing to tolerate outside agitators than left protesters. Further, I think it's clear that even if outside agitators start things, that the left protesters will follow them down the path of destruction.
Here in MN they ID'd one guy who started one fire as an "outside agitator" and that was enough to excuse everyone else who started fires or looted because an "outside agitator" started it. As if those who followed along surrendered their agency and responsibility because someone else started it.
There's also the possibility that those accused of agitating from outside didn't come to agitate, but to join it that which had already been "agitated", and to support the "cause" (which is really and without counter-argument to steal and destroy for fun). I find it hard to believe that there are too many who would set out to protest peacefully, only to then allow someone from outside the neighborhood convince them to burn the neighborhood down. No. They are not outside "agitators". That's just an excuse to pardon those from inside. They are like-minded outsiders who couldn't do much without the support and complicity of those from the 'hood.
I agree that the protesters are culpable in whatever harm is done to innocents by the rioters. If they’re not actively trying to prevent the mayhem, they’re passively enabling it.
The lengths that people will go to in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy to the rioters is amazing. Misrepresentation is just the tip of the iceberg.
Post a Comment