Ode to Steve, My Wrong Friend

 

I have this Facebook friend. Let’s call him Steve….’Cause his name is actually Steve, so why not? Steve penned a Facebook post this morning that kind of got under my skin as most of Steve’s posts have lately. And, as usual, I have this problem keeping my big fat mouth shut whenever anybody on the internet is wrong.

Now, as we all know, the list of people on the internet who are wrong is quite long, and it helps to prioritize one’s responses depending on how egregious the nonsense is that is being spewed forth. Well, it seems that Steve must have missed that day in Kindergarten where they teach kids to wait their turn because Steve keeps selfishly pushing his way to the top of my list with every new thing he posts. I penned a few quick replies, just to remind Steve that there are still one or two people following him who aren’t drinking his Kool-Aid. Steve replied in kind. Well, not so kind actually, but kind enough. I’ve had worse. Anyway, I eventually felt that a more lengthy response was in order, but as I began furiously composing the following reply, I soon came to realize that this was going to be way too long for anyone on Facebook to bother with. Especially the folks that Steve has cultivated on his friends list. So I thought I’d drop it here instead. Nobody on Steve’s page would have read past the first paragraph or two anyway, and even if they had, I suspect I would have been deluged by lots of negative feedback. Now, I don’t have any problem with negative feedback, but you see there’s that list I was telling you about. The one with all the wrong people to whom I must reply. Yeah, that one.

Anyway, I thought the Ricochet crowd would be a far more receptive audience for the wisdom which I am about to impart. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s not that I prefer preaching to the choir. Here’s the deal though. If I get enough likes on this post, there’s a chance it will get promoted to the Main Page. If that happens, I promise to compose a short, polite reply to Steve and link to my article here on Ricochet. That way, Steve gets the benefit of my good judgment without my having to rudely take up so much space on his Facebook page. Furthermore, if any of you dear readers would care to leave a comment on this page, Steve and his followers would reap the added benefit of your wisdom in addition to mine. It’s win-win-win! Maybe collectively, we can jar Steve and his readers loose from that ideological silo they occupy.

So first, some background on Steve’s post. I considered simply just linking to it as his Facebook page is public, but then I thought that sounded too much like doxxing, and that is not my goal here. So I’ll summarize Steve’s post. It shouldn’t be too hard to do it justice.

Steve was basically commenting on the ingenuity of the protesters who are facing down the police in Portland. He cited Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” and commented that the protesters were way better at rapidly adapting their tactics than the police were. He cited some examples such as the line of moms and the naked lady who tried to distract the cops from bringing their best game. He further warned about the underlying danger that law enforcement would lose their cool and some real bloodshed might ensue. He then went on to draw some references to Lexington Green in 1775, and Selma during the sixties, suggesting that Lexington had some violent consequences, and the reaction to Portland today might not mimic the reactions to Selma in the 60’s. I pointed out to Steve that Lexington and the American Revolution was a bad analogy, and that a more appropriate one might be the Bastille and “the terror” that followed in France. Steve is a history professor you see, and I felt the historical reference might get some traction with Steve. Alas, I was mistaken. Steve’s response struck me as a slightly more polite version of “Shut Up!” And with that summary complete, here are my thoughts on the subject:

It’s been a while since I took calculus, and I was never very good at it, so you’ll just have to forgive me if this analogy isn’t perfect. We seem to be dealing with a third or fourth derivative problem here. I hope I haven’t lost too many of you with a STEM reference. I know math is hard. Especially for those of you in the humanities. Ya know what? Let me put a pin in this and come back to it later.

Steve seems to be very focused on the cleverness and the resourcefulness of the protesters. He used the phrase “creative minds,” bless his heart. I suppose that’s all well and good. Then again, the Nazis were creative too. (Godwin’s Law Alert. Some of you can stop reading now.) Those V-1 and V-2 rockets were groundbreaking technology for their day. And let’s not forget the SS. Weren’t they the ones who perfected mass murder on an industrial scale. Bullets are expensive, and individual graves are labor-intensive and very inefficient in terms of land use. But poison gas and crematoria. Wow! Those Germans were an amazing lot weren’t they? To use a couple of Steve’s references, if you had “blinked”, you’d have missed some world-class developments from some of the most “creative minds” in the genocide business. So clever. So innovative. So resourceful.

Does my Nazi reference offend you? Did I go too far? I’m just trying to make a point. Steve was making a big deal about resourcefulness. When did this become about resourcefulness? Let me see if I understand your premise here. The debate is concluded now because your side is represented by smart, resourceful, creative thinkers, and my side is represented by a bunch of knuckle-dragging Morlocks who appear “stymied” (Steve’s word) by superior intellect. Do you think that just because you’ve got some crazy chick on your side who’s willing to flash her b**v*r at some unsuspecting LEO’s that the debate is over now? Really? Is a line of “moms” backed up by a line of “dads”, backed up by a line of teenagers with hockey sticks the final word in this dialogue to which there can be no worthwhile response? Isn’t this really just political schtick. Carnival antics. Those were rhetorical questions. I have the answer. The answer is yes. It’s propaganda. That’s all it is. It’s clever, catchy, interesting, and headline-grabbing. It’s political performance art and it’s fun for the performers, just as Alinsky said it must be. And it’s innovative. That’s what Steve likes. It’s edgy. But is it the final word? Is it really the end of the debate? Steve seems to think so. I’m not so sure. In fact, I think that not only is it not the end of the debate, I don’t think it has anything to do with the debate. It’s a clown show in lieu of a debate. It’s the illusion of a debate for those who are not capable of a debate. By the way, nice move there Steve, trying to portray kids with sticks showing up at a “peaceful protest” as normal. Move along folks. Nothin’ to see here!

Just what did you think this debate was about in the first place? Is it about the superiority of intellect among the protesters compared to that of the police? Pretty arrogant assertion considering the police are limited by rules of engagement, many of which are dictated by a Portland political hierarchy more sympathetic to the protesters than they are to their own police.

And since I mentioned that subject, let me digress for just a minute and talk about that whole rules of engagement thing. I just remembered that Steve seemed very concerned about that as well. Let me go back and get the quote.

“IF we reach the point where somebody (either in the Trump White House, the military, or law enforcement) makes the decision to change the law enforcement rules of engagement, there’s going to be a bloodbath.”

Oh my goodness! News Alert! The blind squirrel just found his acorn. Steve is actually right about that. Well, almost right. He left the protesters off of the list of those who might change the rules of engagement for the worse. In fact, I’d argue that the protesters belong at the top of that list. In fact just today I read that some protesters have used lasers devices to blind police officers. Steve will likely deny it ever happened. Or he’ll suggest that it was agent provocateurs inserted into the crowd by the police themselves. I’m not sure how to counter that argument beyond simply saying I don’t believe it. There was a time when I couldn’t scroll my Twitter feed for even an hour without seeing a video of some skinny white girl yellin’ in some black cop’s face about how big a racist he is. Or some shirtless hippie walking a line of cops trying to see whether, if he crowds their personal space enough, he can’t get one of them to push him for the cameras. (I’m finding it more than just a little bit odd that now that I go searching for those images on Google, I can’t find them. Nothing suspicious about that.) These sorts of images make me so mad I want to punch a wall, but the cops take it. They take that and all the bottles and bricks, and all the rest of it. They take it because they know that it is the protesters who want a violent overreaction. It’s the protesters who want a change in the rules of engagement. The police are looking for a de-escalation. The protesters are looking for another Minneapolis. And just like Steve said, they want to make sure they get it on video for social media. The police have instituted some pretty reasonable (all too restrictive in my judgment) rules of engagement. The protesters seem hell-bent on provoking the police to violate those rules. If the cops break the rules, there is a propaganda machine standing by to amplify and broadcast that breach. If they abide by those rules, then you’ve got good old Steve here to imply that the police are just too stupid (stymied) to keep up with his basement-dwelling cadre of super-geniuses.

But why are we even talking about the police/protester standoff? Is that what this is about? Of course not. It’s about something much more important, right? You know what it’s about, don’t you?…..Well, don’t you? Did some of you have an immediate knee jerk reaction to say, “YES! I know what it’s about?” Did some of you have to stop and think? Could some of you not remember what it’s about? Do some of you have no clue what it is about? Cause it’s not about the relative merits of police vs protester. That’s the fourth (or fifth, or sixth, or…) derivative problem. Remember, I told you this was a calculus analogy.

Let me remind you of what this was supposed to be about. This is for the benefit of those of you who forgot and for those of you who remembered but stopped caring once it morphed into an opportunity to hate on the police and fantasize about jackboots in the streets (I’m talking to you, Libertarians.) It started out about George Floyd. Remember him? Actually Floyd isn’t the genesis of this whole series of events either. Floyd is the second derivative. It started out about policing in the black community. Then George Floyd happened in temporal proximity to several other incidents. Some of them, by the way, with no racial component and some of them not even involving the police. Rather than try to write a narrative of how one derivative argument led to another derivative argument, and then another and another, let me just make a list of the progression of subjects. Your list of events relevant to the evolution of the debate could be different, but here’s mine:

1. Policing in the black community. I’ve got my views. You probably won’t like them, but that’s a worthy focus for debate.

2. George Floyd incident and others. Again, a worthy focus for debate. This quickly evolved into:

3. Defund police. Where the f**k did that come from?!?! Marxists had it teed up for years just waiting for a catalyst.  That’s where it came from.

4. CHAZ>CHOP>Federal building in Portland. OK. Not about George Floyd anymore in anything but name.

5. Should police protect property vs allow destruction. How did George Floyd evolve to this? And why is this even a debate? Then the debate shifted further:

6. Should we tolerate the destruction of public and private property and attacks on police or should police function like…you know…police? George Floyd is rapidly disappearing in the rearview mirror. It’s all about the Marxism now.

7. How should police respond (if they are even allowed to respond) to violence directed at them and at property? Tear gas, rubber bullets, direct confrontation, and overwhelming force or should they rely on attempts at de-escalation, restrictive rules of engagement, deliberate mapping of the networks of the instigators of violence, and targeted detentions/arrests of ringleaders. George who?? George Floyd? Never heard of him! As far as I know, no one has alleged violence toward detainees. They’ve alleged the police actions are unconstitutional. I disagree, and I’ve addressed my views elsewhere including here on Ricochet.

So this is where we are. It started off as a debate about one thing, and it’s evolved through several iterations to the point where the argument bears no resemblance to the original argument. It’s like a game of telephone. We started debating black policing and we ended up arguing about the fantasy of jackbooted stormtroopers on the streets of Portland. How did that happen? The narrative got sidetracked, that’s how. It happens on the internet all the time. It’s called a hijacked thread. Someone posts something. Another guy comes along and changes the subject to something he prefers to talk about. Something on his agenda. It’s considered bad manners to do that on the internet. I think it’s even worse to do it in real life. And it wasn’t an accident. It was done on purpose, and it was done by some pretty ruthless folks with an agenda whose only use for black people is as potential recruits in their revolution.

Now Steve wants to take the argument one step further (it stopped being a debate weeks ago). He wants to make it all about ingenuity. It’s about who should prevail when you have so-called “creative minds” opposing a stymied bunch of lethargic dullards who can’t seem to react quickly enough in an environment that’s just too complicated for them. If only they had been smart enough to get a degree in intersectional studies like so many of the protesters had. It’s about these saintly moms Steve describes. It’s about women willing to shed their clothes for the cause (or maybe just for their 15 minutes of fame. Whatever!) That’s what it’s about. Right? Isn’t that what it’s all about? Of course, that’s not what it’s all about. What a bunch of nonsense. It’s not about any of that. As I said earlier. It’s political performance art. That’s what this is all about. And Steve is just the apologist carnival barker trying to get you to buy a ticket for the show.

Note: I’m sure that not everybody showing up at the Federal building in Portland are rioters. Some of them are just rioters’ accomplices. Nevertheless, feel free to mentally replace every instance of the word protester in this essay with the word rioter. If it is preceded by the word “peaceful”, whether in quotes or not, please delete that word as well. Thanks.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Boy you are mad at Steve. Don’t worry be happy. Steve isn’t worth it.

    • #1
  2. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    I agree with everything you said!

    • #2
  3. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Hmm.  So, Steve’s argument amounts to:

    1. My unrestrained rioters are more inventive than your restrained cops
    2. Shut up

    And the devastating logic of his position will convince us to…?

    1. Arrest the cops who killed George Floyd?  That’s been done.
    2. Reform policing?  In process. Trump signed an executive order instituting some good programs, including creating a nationwide database to ensure that bad cops can’t get rehired by another department in another town.  Also, Congress has been debating reforms and may actually come up with something after the election when they can no longer milk it for votes.
    3. Shut down police departments?  CHAZ/CHOP has already given us a taste of that.  And, apparently, Minneapolis is going to provide a larger test case, which will, no doubt, ensure good and prevent bad.
    4. Start a dialogue about race?  Well, a monologue has begun that goes something like, “Unwoke white people, listen up and keep your mouths shut.”
    5. Take a knee at football games?  Already in the works.
    6. Paint “Black Lives Matter” on streets everywhere?  Done.
    7. Get corporations to chant “black lives matter” and to hire graduates from university grievance study programs so they can create toxic work environments from sea to shining sea?  In process.
    • #3
  4. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Boy you are mad at Steve. Don’t worry be happy. Steve isn’t worth it.

    I’m not mad at Steve.  He’s almost the perfect foil.  It did cross my mind that some might think that Steve was living in my head rent free, but the truth of the matter is I enjoy the writing, and Steve’s post sparked an idea for something that needed writing about.  I hope readers enjoy it.

     

    • #4
  5. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Two observations.

    1.George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose.  Read the coroner’s report. The cop was incidental.

    2. A concerted crowd control with water cannons, rubber bullets and other non lethal but violent means, followed if necessary with a round of buck shot, followed if necessary with bullets, would injure or kill a handful of rioters but would end this now.  In the long run, ending this now would be the more humane response.

    • #5
  6. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    1.George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. Read the coroner’s report. The cop was incidental.

    I don’t think this is accurate. There are two coroner’s reports — one from the county medical examiner (which I read), and a second from a former NYC ME, who was hired by the family. (I couldn’t find this online, but it was quoted from consistently across the several articles I read, so it seems legit.) My best understanding is that both reports ruled it a homicide, but disagreed about the precise cause of death. The family’s examiner cited “mechanical asphyxiation” as the cause; the official ME cited “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.” (Note: apparently, the official ME also issued an earlier, preliminary report that concluded that there were “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”) I don’t think any of the reports characterized the cop’s actions as incidental. I’m just a layman trying to make sense of some of the language, so maybe I missed something.

    • #6
  7. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    1.George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. Read the coroner’s report. The cop was incidental.

    I don’t think this is accurate. There are two coroner’s reports — one from the county medical examiner (which I read), and a second from a former NYC ME, who was hired by the family. (I couldn’t find this online, but it was quoted from consistently across the several articles I read, so it seems legit.) My best understanding is that both reports ruled it a homicide, but disagreed about the precise cause of death. The family’s examiner cited “mechanical asphyxiation” as the cause; the official ME cited “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.” (Note: apparently, the official ME also issued an earlier, preliminary report that concluded that there were “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”) I don’t think any of the reports characterized the cop’s actions as incidental. I’m just a layman trying to make sense of some of the language, so maybe I missed something.

    As far as I know, the mE hired by the family did not do an autopsy. He just expressed opinions in a press conference, I think.

    The official ME’s office issued a full autopsy report, showing a fentanyl level high enough to cause death, plus other drugs and serious heart disease. 

    I did a full post on this (but I don’t know how to link it from my phone – sorry.)

    • #7
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    1.George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. Read the coroner’s report. The cop was incidental.

    I don’t think this is accurate. There are two coroner’s reports — one from the county medical examiner (which I read), and a second from a former NYC ME, who was hired by the family. (I couldn’t find this online, but it was quoted from consistently across the several articles I read, so it seems legit.) My best understanding is that both reports ruled it a homicide, but disagreed about the precise cause of death. The family’s examiner cited “mechanical asphyxiation” as the cause; the official ME cited “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.” (Note: apparently, the official ME also issued an earlier, preliminary report that concluded that there were “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”) I don’t think any of the reports characterized the cop’s actions as incidental. I’m just a layman trying to make sense of some of the language, so maybe I missed something.

    As far as I know, the mE hired by the family did not do an autopsy. He just expressed opinions in a press conference, I think.

    The official ME’s office issued a full autopsy report, showing a fentanyl level high enough to cause death, plus other drugs and serious heart disease.

    I did a full post on this (but I don’t know how to link it from my phone – sorry.)

    I’m at my computer now.  Here is the link to my full post on the autopsy of George Floyd.  It includes a link to the autopsy report itself.

    I do not go as far as Doctor Robert, as I do not conclude that Mr. Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose.  My conclusion is that the autopsy results are consistent with death by fentanyl overdose, and not consistent with death by neck compression.  I conclude that we do not know the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, which undermines the criminal case against the officers.

    • #8
  9. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Short version:

    Steve wants violence, injury, and death.

    You and the [federal] police want peace and prosperity. 

    Portland city officials seem to be on the side of violence, injury, and death. 

    • #9
  10. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Short version:

    Steve wants violence, injury, and death.

    You and the [federal] police want peace and prosperity.

    Portland city officials seem to be on the side of violence, injury, and death.

    I don’t think Steve wants violence, injury or death, but I think he believes they are likely to occur.  When it does, he thinks it will be the fault of the police/feds.  That’s where he’s mistaken.  The rioters have the goal of promoting the escalation.  They’re the ones who seek violence, not the feds.  It’s a standard tactic for revolutionary movements.  The Boston riots of 1770 were a reaction to the shooting of some protesters by British soldiers whom the protesters were provoking.  You could say such provocation has a rich history in America.  I would NOT say this makes the current lot of rioters patriots though.

    • #10
  11. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    Thanks for the feedback everybody.  This post has been promoted to the Main Feed, and as promised, I have posted the link in a polite reply on Steve’s original Facebook post.

     

    • #11
  12. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    You left out Ahmaud Arbery, which preheated the mix for George Floyd.

    And this:

    • #12
  13. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    It would be polite to give credit for the xkcd comic that adorns this post. It would also be respectful of, and compliant with, the terms of the Creative Commons license under which its author has made it available to you: 

    You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

    Last of all, it is required by the Ricochet Code of Conduct:

    Copyright violations or plagiarism, including, and especially, of images.

    Maybe it’s just me but I have a thing about taking the work of others without acknowledgement.

    • #13
  14. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Arvo (View Comment):

    You left out Ahmaud Arbery, which preheated the mix for George Floyd.

    And this:

    No he didn’t.   “Then George Floyd happened in temporal proximity to several other incidents. Some of them, by the way, with no racial component and some of them not even involving the police.

    That’s Ahmaud Arbery.  

    Don’t know what the little photograph shows because my eyes aren’t sharp enough to see it!

     

     

    • #14
  15. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):

    You left out Ahmaud Arbery, which preheated the mix for George Floyd.

    And this:

    No he didn’t. “Then George Floyd happened in temporal proximity to several other incidents. Some of them, by the way, with no racial component and some of them not even involving the police.

    That’s Ahmaud Arbery.

    Don’t know what the little photograph shows because my eyes aren’t sharp enough to see it!

    Sorry about the picture.  I posted from my phone.  I updated my post with a more legible one.

    So what’s going on?  People are saying racism is a problem in America.  Not a lot of consensus on how bad or why or who.  Even Bush II said so in 2000, but maybe he was wrong or we got it fixed in the intervening years.

    I think we conservatives have made an error in thinking that when people say that there’s a racism problem in America, we think that means, “Police kill Black men.”  That’s not what they’re talking about, in the main.  It’s the smallest by number but largest by visibility, but it’s not the main problem.

    When Ahmaud was murdered in broad daylight on a neighborhood street by racists, it took a surprising amount of time for the story to reach the national media.  I’m thinking it was the NYT who escalated it to the national consciousness maybe three or four weeks before Floyd.  At that time, there was a lot of talk about it probably everywhere but conservative media.  So your impression that it wasn’t an accelerant for the response to Floyd makes sense.

    But I interact with ministry people of all political stripes, and Ahmaud had nearly eclipsed the quarantine in those circles immediately before Floyd.

    Ahmaud was a much bigger deal in the reaction to Floyd than you’re suggesting.

    • #15
  16. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    Arvo (View Comment):
    At that time, there was a lot of talk about it probably everywhere but conservative media.

    I don’t read Georgia papers, so like most people, I didn’t even know about it until weeks later.  To suggest conservatives didn’t care very much about this is just plain wrong.  I don’t mean this in a belligerent way, but if you think conservatives ignored this, I have to wonder if  you’ve been captured by this White Fragility nonsense and consider it your duty to perpetually self flagellate.  I’ll be honest with you, the Ahmaud Arbery incident bothers me a lot more than the George Floyd incident for lots of reasons I won’t go into here.  I’ll bet there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me on that. 

    • #16
  17. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):
    To suggest conservatives didn’t care very much about this is just plain wrong.

    Oh, gosh, no, not at all!  Apologies for that impression!

    For the people I was talking to, it was a very big deal, that’s all I’m saying, and it had an amplifying effect on Floyd’s death.

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):
    I’ll be honest with you, the Ahmaud Arbery incident bothers me a lot more than the George Floyd incident for lots of reasons I won’t go into here. I’ll bet there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me on that.

    Yes, me too!  I had to reexamine everything I’d been saying about racism in America.  The Floyd situation is a lot easier to analyze into a one-off perfect storm of an overaggressive LEO and a suspect with maybe some health issues or something.  Ahmaud’s situation was another category entirely.

    @GrannyDude said Ahmaud did not preheat the mix for Floyd.  I was respectfully disagreeing, and my premise was not that conservatives didn’t care, but that maybe conservatives were’t aware of the impact of the story, how much the temperature had been elevated by it.

    • #17
  18. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I did a full post on this (but I don’t know how to link it from my phone – sorry.)

    That was one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this site.  As usual, I’m shocked but not surprised that the details of that autopsy report weren’t covered more comprehensively by the MSM.  Didn’t fit their narrative.  I said at the time that there was a good chance that Derek Chauvin will be acquitted, at least on the more serious charges.  Apparently, the transcript from the body camera of one of the officers which was released 1-2 weeks ago casts further doubt on at least some of the criticisms of the police.  I haven’t read those transcripts yet.  I also think that AG Keith Ellison may have bumped up the charges against Chauvin, not simply to extract a greater potential punishment, but to deliberately raise the chances of an acquittal due to overcharging.  I seriously believe that the renewed rioting that will likely ensue will serve his political interests more than actual justice would.

    • #18
  19. JesseMcVay Inactive
    JesseMcVay
    @JesseMcVay

    Arvo (View Comment):

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):
    To suggest conservatives didn’t care very much about this is just plain wrong.

    Oh, gosh, no, not at all! Apologies for that impression!

    For the people I was talking to, it was a very big deal, that’s all I’m saying, and it had an amplifying effect on Floyd’s death.

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):
    I’ll be honest with you, the Ahmaud Arbery incident bothers me a lot more than the George Floyd incident for lots of reasons I won’t go into here. I’ll bet there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me on that.

    Yes, me too! I had to reexamine everything I’d been saying about racism in America. The Floyd situation is a lot easier to analyze into a one-off perfect storm of an overaggressive LEO and a suspect with maybe some health issues or something. Ahmaud’s situation was another category entirely.

    @GrannyDude said Ahmaud did not preheat the mix for Floyd. I was respectfully disagreeing, and my premise was not that conservatives didn’t care, but that maybe conservatives were’t aware of the impact of the story, how much the temperature had been elevated by it.

    I understand your position now.  Sorry for the push back.  I think we’re on the same page on all these issues.

    • #19
  20. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Arvo (View Comment):

    When Ahmaud was murdered in broad daylight on a neighborhood street by racists, it took a surprising amount of time for the story to reach the national media. 

     

    The media probably sat on the story until Floyd-mania had died down and they needed something fresh to kick up more dust. A civilian-on-civilian murder, even if the perpetrator is racist, does not advance the “systemic racism” narrative the way an out of control law enforcement officer does. Racist individuals are simply a fact of life, and sadly will always be with us. All we can do is punish them when they become violent.

    • #20
  21. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    The media probably sat on the story until Floyd-mania had died down and they needed something fresh to kick up more dust.

    My experience was very different.  I’m showing the story breaking in my facebook interactions around May 5, which is when the media started reporting it.  Those discussions only grew in intensity until Floyd was killed on May 25.

    • #21
  22. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Ahmaud Arbery was a career criminal who the dad, a retired cop, had investigated in the past. He recognized him, and since he knew they were looking for a burglar, attempted to make a citizen’s arrest. Of course, instead of publishing Arbery’s mug shot, the media all showed only an angelic shot of him in a prom tuxedo or some crap, just as all the Trayvon Martin pics were him at age 12 or in his high school cap and gown, instead of the ones I have seen of him at his current age with a grill on his teeth, in front of a table full of cocaine and a gun.

    They said Arbery wrestled the gun away from the guy.

    I hate it that he was shot, and I’m betting those two white guys hate it too, especially now that they’re facing prison. But I don’t think it’s helpful to gloss over inconvenient details in order to inflame the race issues which have been reignited by people who could not care less about “black lives,” but are using black people for their own ends. Let’s not add to the ranks of their useful idiots in a selfish need to be White Saviors. There are plenty of real problems which don’t need to be artificially inflated.

    • #22
  23. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Arvo (View Comment):

    . I’m showing the story breaking in my facebook interactions around May 5, which is when the media started reporting it. Those discussions only grew in intensity until Floyd was killed on May 25.

    That’s to be expected on Facebook where you interact with lefties, you know.

    • #23
  24. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    The media probably sat on the story until Floyd-mania had died down and they needed something fresh to kick up more dust.

    My experience was very different. I’m showing the story breaking in my facebook interactions around May 5, which is when the media started reporting it. Those discussions only grew in intensity until Floyd was killed on May 25.

    Okay, I had the timeline wrong. I confess, I haven’t paid as much attention to that other story. I made an assumption based on mistrust of the media.

    But the larger point still stands. Racist-on-Minority violence is not an “American” problem – it happens all over the world – and doesn’t feed the Narrative (capital N intended) that America is systemically racist and needs to be torn down and rebuilt the way it does when a law enforcement officer is the perpetrator. Whichever happened first, I still think it’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why one story was pounced upon and the other remained a local story for some time.

    • #24
  25. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    But the larger point still stands. Racist-on-Minority violence is not an “American” problem – it happens all over the world – and doesn’t feed the Narrative (capital N intended) that America is systemically racist and needs to be torn down and rebuilt the way it does when a law enforcement officer is the perpetrator.

    Right,  and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them.  Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors.  But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    Whichever happened first, I still think it’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why one story was pounced upon and the other remained a local story for some time.

    Agreed.

    • #25
  26. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Arvo (View Comment):
    Right, and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them. Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors. But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Not from Portland?

    • #26
  27. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):
    Right, and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them. Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors. But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Not from Portland?

    No, but I do have a rather radical leftist friend in Seattle.

    Do you know how many people are stirring up trouble there?

    • #27
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):
    Right, and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them. Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors. But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Not from Portland?

    No, but I do have a rather radical leftist friend in Seattle.

    Do you know how many people are stirring up trouble there?

    Enough.

    • #28
  29. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):
    Right, and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them. Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors. But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Not from Portland?

    No, but I do have a rather radical leftist friend in Seattle.

    Do you know how many people are stirring up trouble there?

    I know there haven’t been mass counter-rallies calling for shutting them down.

    • #29
  30. Arvo Inactive
    Arvo
    @Arvo

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Arvo (View Comment):
    Right, and one thing I’ve learned interacting with left-of-center types is that there isn’t much of a call for tearing down and rebuilding America amongst them. Same thing when I talk to my Black neighbors. But there a few, very few, people that propose radical and cataclysmic solutions.

    Not from Portland?

    No, but I do have a rather radical leftist friend in Seattle.

    Do you know how many people are stirring up trouble there?

    Enough.

    Yeah, it doesn’t take many, and unless I missed it, there aren’t other places where this is happening.  So I’m guessing that there aren’t enough to start a similar activity in another city.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.