Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[downzy]

11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

His initial tweet was divisive and was extremely one sided.   He could have been 100% correct in his statement.

Well, he was 100 percent correct in his statement.

This is why America amazes me.  People find factual claims divisive.  This is partly why America can't move past its problems around race.  Acknowledgement of facts can be considered divisive.  

11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Half the country thinks the sky is blue.  The other half of the country thinks it's red.  People that think the sky is blue are upset and ready to riot because not everyone agrees that the sky is blue. One day, someone kills someone for saying the sky is blue.  People who think the sky is blue become even more outraged.  

The governor tweets:  The sky is blue.  We have another incident when someone who thinks the sky is red killed someone who thought the sky is blue.  We will back up any person who thinks the sky is blue because the people that think the sky is red are wrong.

Sorry, but I don't remember Governor Evers' claiming that Wisconsin and his office will back up anyone who thinks rioting is the solution to the killing of Blake.  Care to show me that statement?

As for your analogy, are you saying that people who don't believe black people are unfairly treated by law enforcement are akin to believing the sky is red?

In that case I would have to agree with you.  At this point, with everything we've seen, people still willfully ignorant of the realities black people face with respect to treatment by law enforcement are akin to people who want to believe the sky is red.  Well put.  

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And this, ladies and gentleman, is a great demonstration of straw man argumentation. Thank you for providing the example and showing us you now know what it is, Ace 

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

 

 

[Padme]

Here we have it, a wanna be vigilante. Apparently he took matters in his own hands. "A group" asked him to go to Kenosha and restore order. It's under investigation. We don't know all the facts

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/kenosha-wisconsin-shooting-suspect/index.html

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Padme said:

Here we have it, a wanna be vigilante. Apparently he took matters in his own hands. "A group" asked him to go to Kenosha and restore order. It's under investigation. We don't know all the facts

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/kenosha-wisconsin-shooting-suspect/index.html

Yeah, Kenosha Guard, a wannabe militia. They literally asked the internet who was up for coming there with guns. 

Facebook has removed its page. And last I read was looking into a number of more real life militias pages for possible removal for having promoted and celebrated violence - which violates T&C's.

[Ace Nova]

16 minutes ago, downzy said:

Well, he was 100 percent correct in his statement.

This is why America amazes me.  People find factual claims divisive.  This is partly why America can't move past its problems around race.  Acknowledgement of facts can be considered divisive.  

Sorry, but I don't remember Governor Evers' claiming that Wisconsin and his office will back up anyone who thinks rioting is the solution to the killing of Blake.  Care to show me that statement?

As for your analogy, are you saying that people who don't believe black people are unfairly treated by law enforcement are akin to believing the sky is red?

In that case I would have to agree with you.  At this point, with everything we've seen, people still willfully ignorant of the realities black people face with respect to treatment by law enforcement are akin to people who want to believe the sky is red.  Well put.  

Maybe.  Maybe not.

That's not the point I'm making.  The point is something stated by a leader could be considered divisive if only half the people agree with his statement regardless of whether or not he is 100% correct.

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

The point is something stated by a leader could be considered divisive if only half the people agree with his statement regardless of whether or not he is 100% correct.

So essentially you want politicians to play to the cheap seats; the lowest common denominator. 

They can't acknowledge a fact publicly because a certain portion of the public will take offence.

With that kind of logic elected leaders would never bring up issues like climate change.  

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

So essentially you want politicians to play to the cheap seats; the lowest common denominator. 

They can't acknowledge a fact publicly because a certain portion of the public will take offence.

With that kind of logic elected leaders would never bring up issues like climate change.  

Not at all.  That's exactly what democracies are about.  Those issues should and need to be acknowledged and debated.  Debate it all-day-long on tv, social media, in Congress, on mygnrforum  etc etc.

What shouldn't be done by a leader, imo, is to bring up the issue on social media immediately after someone is shot or killed and tensions are high.  Leaders should focus on peace (immediately after) something like that happens, imo.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe we need some good old knock out brawls out there so people wake up to what is happening with this country.  

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

29 minutes ago, downzy said:

So essentially you want politicians to play to the cheap seats; the lowest common denominator. 

They can't acknowledge a fact publicly because a certain portion of the public will take offence.

With that kind of logic elected leaders would never bring up issues like climate change.  

Well, in a society as diverse as ours it doesn't take much to get people at eachothers throats and for riots to start up. That's a whole other topic, but that's a fact of life for us.

Would it have been better if the Wisconisn Governor tweeted something like this, probably:

"There has been a police related shooting in Kenosha. While I believe we need police reform and am urging the Republicans to work with me on this, I urge citizens to wait for more information to come in on this particular incident."

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well, in a society as diverse as ours it doesn't take much to get people at eachothers throats and for riots to start up. That's a whole other topic, but that's a fact of life for us.

Would it have been better if the Wisconisn Governor tweeted something like this, probably:

"There has been a police related shooting in Kenosha. While I believe we need police reform and am urging the Republicans to work with me on this, I urge citizens to wait for more information to come in on this particular incident."

Bingo.

[downzy]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

What shouldn't be done by a leader, imo, is to bring up the issue on social media immediately after someone is shot or killed and tensions are high.  Leaders should focus on peace (immediately after) something like that happens, imo.

For many who acknowledge the problem, seeing their elected official acknowledge the action for what it is would be an effort to keep things peaceful.  Had Evers said, "black man shot in the back by the cops.  Can't really say more than that because we don't know all the facts," it would have likely inflamed anyone who is remotely familiar with the problem.  This isn't an isolated incident.  It wasn't done in a vacuum.  It connects to the long-simmering issue that millions of people have taken to the streets for the last three months.  Failure to acknowledge the painfully obvious would only worsen the problem.  And for what?  To assuage and placate the feelings of the ignorant?  Please. 

As many have rightfully argued, being silent on this matter is to be complicit.  

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe we need some good old knock out brawls out there so people wake up to what is happening with this country. 

What your country needs is an education and acknowledgement and acceptance of facts.  

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

"There has been a police related shooting in Kenosha. While I believe we need police reform and am urging the Republicans to work with me on this, I urge citizens to wait for more information to come in on this particular incident."

And I find your proposed comment insulting and absurd.

You're essentially telling people not to trust their own eyes; that there could be some circumstance that somehow justifies the cop's actions.  What further information do people need that could possibly justify what happened to Blake?  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

11 minutes ago, downzy said:

And I find your proposed comment insulting and absurd.

You're essentially telling people not to trust their own eyes; that there could be some circumstance that somehow justifies the cop's actions.  What further information do people need that could possibly justify what happened to Blake?  

How about if there was a longer video, did he have any weapons, was he tazed and why did that not phase him (was he on drugs and not feeling pain?), did he make any statements to the officers threatening them or saying he had a weapon, etc.

[downzy]

9 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

How about if there was a longer video, did he have any weapons, was he tazed and why did that not phase him (was he on drugs and not feeling pain?), did he make any statements to the officers threatening them or saying he had a weapon, etc.

None of that would have mattered.  He was still shot in the back seven times from point blank range.  There was ample opportunity to apprehend him with three cops surrounding him at one point.  A threat directed towards the cops at any point would have warranted being arrested, not shot in the back. 

Again, there is no extenuating circumstance that justifies this action.  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

None of that would have mattered.  He was still shot in the back seven times from point blank range.  There was ample opportunity to apprehend him with three cops surrounding him at one point.  A threat directed towards the cops at any point would have warranted being arrested, not shot in the back. 

Again, there is no extenuating circumstance that justifies this action.  

I want to know all the facts before I start jumping on a narrative. Although I have said, it appeared to me they should have tackled the guy when he was walking to the car. We'll find out when it goes to trial why they didn't and what was all done before the camera starts.

[Gibsonfender2323]

35 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well, in a society as diverse as ours it doesn't take much to get people at eachothers throats and for riots to start up. That's a whole other topic, but that's a fact of life for us.

Would it have been better if the Wisconisn Governor tweeted something like this, probably:

"There has been a police related shooting in Kenosha. While I believe we need police reform and am urging the Republicans to work with me on this, I urge citizens to wait for more information to come in on this particular incident."

Don't talk reason here @Basic_GnR_Fan  only emotions.

[soon]

I kinda putter along trying to educate myself on the philosophical schools of thought, logic and rhetoric (insert joke here ). In the last year + Ive been really interested in the themes of clarity in communications, accessibility or language and popular ed models (as opposed to themes like debate which are more often associated with logic and rhetoric). I guess one could call it a 'personal pedagogical' lens, if yo nasty. lol

I, as a silly layman, would have given the gov an A+ for his clarity, logic and rhetoric. It was good popular ed phraseology.

I have a hard time believing that individuals all came to this bizarre and wrong conclusion about the Govs tweet being "divisive." I think its engineered propaganda. 

They seem to have crafted this propaganda off of a knowledge of things like "truthfulness bias" (many people assuming people always tell the truth. leading to people believing the first thing that they hear on a subject). Also, the "the persuasiveness effect" (Being more easily persuaded when distracted). So, to put this all together - Social media land is hurtling along at a high speed which is a form of distraction. And through that blur pops out a person making a statement about the tweet being divisive.

They can rely on the observable fact that many people are instantly entrenched in their original position in online debate - especially as mediated by socials platforms. In this case "Correspondence Bias" seems to be whats fuelling the questions about the initial tweet (Assuming that other peoples behaviour reflects their personality and not the situation). Also, perhaps some "denial innuendo" (for some reason people tend to believe things that are being strenuously denied). So to put that together, the person already believed the propaganda and is then entrenched in that position. They assume that the Governor was displaying some sort of a personal angle in a tweet that was in fact about the situation. And the more people prove that wrong, the more some people will belief it to be true (denial innuendo).

 

[Gibsonfender2323]

19 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

How about if there was a longer video, did he have any weapons, was he tazed and why did that not phase him (was he on drugs and not feeling pain?), did he make any statements to the officers threatening them or saying he had a weapon, etc

Yes he was tazed. They found a knife in the drivers seat of the car and Blake admitted  he had a knife on him.

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

For many who acknowledge the problem, seeing their elected official acknowledge the action for what it is would be an effort to keep things peaceful. 

It could have gone that way but it didn't, did it?

11 minutes ago, downzy said:

For many who acknowledge the problem, seeing their elected official acknowledge the action for what it is would be an effort to keep things peaceful.  Had Evers said, "black man shot in the back by the cops.  Can't really say more than that because we don't know all the facts," it would have likely inflamed anyone who is remotely familiar with the problem.    

When people (eventually) watch the video, they will form their own conclusions, regardless of the governor's opinion. 

So why throw gasoline on a fire that is already burning? 

Wouldn't it be better to let the fire simmer down, so that you don't burn the food and risk burning down your house?  Once the fire simmers down, you can cook your food and feed it to the people in your house.  When half the people in your house see the food you are serving, they think to themselves, "That doesn't look good".  But since you cooked the food properly by letting the fire simmer down, they eat it and most of them realize "It's not that bad after all". 

 

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

39 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Yes he was tazed. They found a knife in the drivers seat of the car and Blake admitted  he had a knife on him.

See these are the things that were not known initially. It helps to create an overall picture of what happened and why it happened.

[SoulMonster]

28 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

So why throw gasoline on a fire that is already burning? 

Again, who are these people who was enraged because a governor stated that a police man had shot a black man in the back seven times? Who are these mysterious people you keep talking about who don't want their governor to describe police violence? 

People didn't riot because their governor said it like it is, people rioting because a fucking cop shot a black man seven times in the back. If anything, by acknowledging the seriousness of the incident and indicating that the police were in the wrong, the governor calmed the waters because otherwise people would be rioting both because a police officer shot a black man seven times in the back AND because the authorities didn't come out quickly to unequivocally condemn such a murder.

[Ace Nova]

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

People didn't riot because their governor said it like it is, people rioting because a fucking cop shot a black man seven times in the back. 

I said...

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

When people (eventually) watch the video, they will form their own conclusions, regardless of the governor's opinion.

(I agree).

 

 

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 Who are these mysterious people you keep talking about who don't want their governor to describe police violence?

 

I said...

 

2 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

That's exactly what democracies are about.  Those issues should and need to be acknowledged and debated.  Debate it all-day-long on tv, social media, in Congress, on mygnrforum  etc etc.

What shouldn't be done by a leader, imo, is to bring up the issue on social media immediately after someone is shot or killed and tensions are high.  Leaders should focus on peace (immediately after) something like that happens, imo.

 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

People didn't riot because their governor said it like it is

If this is true ....

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

(people rioted) because the authorities didn't come out quickly to unequivocally condemn such a murder.

...then how can this be true?

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If anything, by acknowledging the seriousness of the incident and indicating that the police were in the wrong, the governor calmed the waters

I said...

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

It could have gone that way but it didn't, did it?

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Ace Nova

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

If this is true ....

...then how can this be true?

Whut? I didn't say people rioted because authorities came out too latr to condemn the killing  Try to read my post again and go easy on the quoting 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Whut? I didn't say people rioted because authorities came out too latr to condemn the killing  Try to read my post again and go easy on the quoting 

This is the extended version...

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

people would be rioting both because a police officer shot a black man seven times in the back AND because the authorities didn't come out quickly to unequivocally condemn such a murder.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

This is the extended version...

 

Yes, IF the governor hadn't gone out and condemned the murder THEN people would be rioting because of that, too

[Gibsonfender2323]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Oh, you've just had a ''Soul Monster argument''. All my sympathies (from an experienced campaigner).

Same here