So, before you get worked up about what happened, check the date, and try to see if there's any local news in the city that might indicate something might have changed in the meantime. You won't necessarily see these on frontpage headlines, so it might take a bit of digging. (I've found actual videos from local news reporting on the ground much more helpful than textual articles from national outlets here. It seems to me it's just too difficult to capture all the relevant dynamics, emotion, and nuance in text.)
In fact, if anyone's involved, I would suggest putting this information in the repo here as well. You don't want to add fuel onto a fire that was already under control a few days ago, and you want to know when (or whether) good progress is being made. Ultimately the goal is to find a working model that others can hopefully emulate.
As far as rational, controlled, and motivated anger goes, what day these events happen on should not stand in the way. This needs to be harnessed to enact massive structural change of course, not online flame wars or unproductive methods of protest. Still, that very anger you see is also able to be used to motivate many people to add in ways they may not have before. White people are starting to understand that they can be used as literal shields [1] against police brutality, and that should not be lost in this. There is much to be gained in a positive way from this anger.
I do appreciate your general sentiment here, I just wanted to underscore that the anger here, particularly that felt by POC, has deep roots beyond these incidents and can be used positively. I think that caveat is where we agree - how to harness that anger.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZJ5P_gWAAADwpQ.jpg https://twitter.com/michellebhasin/status/126747635543387750...
"Before you get angry about police brutality, remember context is important!" Are you serious?! Some people are talking to the police chief so you shouldn't be angry that they are blockading people on to a bridge. Or angry that they are driving SUVs into people. Or violently pushing people to the ground. And that's just the NYPD. A department where the commissioner was praising the department for their restrain, if that's restrain wait until they stop holding back.
Giving each other the chance to do the right thing? What are you talking about? What do the protesters need to do? Stop proetesting?
> So, before you get worked up about what happened, check the date, and try to see if there's any local news in the city that might indicate something might have changed in the meantime
> So, before you get worked up about what happened, check the date, and try to see if there's any local news in the city that might indicate something might have changed in the meantime. You won't necessarily see these on frontpage headlines, so it might take a bit of digging. (I've found actual videos from local news reporting on the ground much more helpful than textual articles from national outlets here. It seems to me it's just too difficult to capture all the relevant dynamics, emotion, and nuance in text.)
Are you nuts? So if it happened 3 days ago and the police are saying sorry but not laying charges, it's a-ok? There are no real nuances here. You have police shooting rubber bullets are people's faces, spraying them with pepper spray while they have their hands up, tear gassing people. All while not facing criminal charges.
> In fact, if anyone's involved, I would suggest putting this information in the repo here as well. You don't want to add fuel onto a fire that was already under control a few days ago, and you want to know when (or whether) good progress is being made. Ultimately the goal is to find a working model that others can hopefully emulate.
No, you want to add fuel to this fire if you want this problem to be solved. Working models can be found in nearly every civilised country in the world.
Stop telling people not to be angry and start being angry.
Adding emotive fuel will only cause more harm
If you'd like to be angry, at least please don't misquote me. The sentence you put quotes around is a modification of what I wrote, not a quote.
He was a cop for 38 years before becoming chief of Moline Acres, Mo: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500839-retired-st-l...
This is what anti police hatred brewing in this country leads to. Gang violence. You embolden true criminals.
Well, isn't this the entire point. The police are killing innocent people. Protesters aren't killing anyone. Seems like even more of a reason to be angry.
I just think a degree of restraint is required to avoid innocent people getting hurt.
Acts of violence are _always_ wrong. I did however point out the police are not prosecuted in any meaningful systemic fashion.
What security guard. I googled this since I haven't heard anything about it and it seems that it happened in Flint on the 6th of May before the protests and was about face masks and not police brutality. Or are you talking about a different murder? At first glance, this just seems like misinformation.
I heard about this from the Tim Pool podcast. Possibly they simply used the protests as cover to do this.
When I see people see double-quotes following a block quote, they're there to indicate that the following sentence(s) is about that specific portion of the larger quote... not to indicate deliberate misquotes.
In any case... every alteration he made to that quote resulted in a substantive difference to the thoughts and tone of my message. Including the sarcastic exclamation point he took the liberty to insert at the end. Maybe on a good day I'd have the energy to entertain it, but with everything being draining enough as is, I just don't have enough time or energy to reply to something that makes a mockery of something I'm already shedding tears on.
> Oakland police, who are assisting the FBI in the investigation, tweeted a statement Friday night saying the shooting appeared to be unrelated to the protest over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
So the police don't think it's related?
Focusing it on one single act tries to negate the point. It's not just a single act. It's multiple acts, on a daily basis. The police are arresting journalists live on air. For failing to obey commands that weren't given. They shot at other journalists on air. If that's what they're doing on the air.
There is no dispute in police brutality, the police do not deny it, the protesters do not deny it. So why would the truth lie in between an agreed-upon truth?
> The eighth night of protests saw less violence, fewer police clashes and more acts of civil disobedience.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/us-protests-wednesday-geor...
> Getting angry could cause more innocent people to get killed. Some are working towards a better future in these protests. Others are just getting inflamed and doing things they might regret. Adding emotive fuel will only cause more harm
...to which, you called for more anger and adding fuel to the fire.
As I’ve already identified above, the two extreme forces are the violent law enforcers who abuse their power and the arsonist protestors who are looting and vandalizing businesses as some kind of retribution. Both extremists are unjustifiable. It’s good they don’t represent the majority. It’d also be good if we were to not let them represent the agency ... and, frankly, to have control over our prejudices and our anger.
Three cops watched him do it, and didn't give a shit. That represents the entire police department.
