ED-057 wrote:
This is quite the paradoxical situation you have attempted to paint. First of all, BLM is an organization, and it's one that is backed by wealthy donors and large corporations: Hyundai, Nike, Airbnb, Walmart, Target, Sony, etc. the list goes on, all stated publicly that they were giving cash to BLM. How can it be spontaneous and unorganized when you just called it the BLM riot?
I scooted over that bit in the interest of brevity, but apparently also clarity. I was referring to the riots that sparked as a reaction to George Floyd's death.
Quote:
The next question is what news did those people get and how did they get it? Information about George Floyd was selectively disseminated by the corporate media and via Big Tech platforms. Police body cam footage was not released for months. The coroner's report was not yet available. No official investigations had been carried out. But Big Tech, the MSM, BLM, and whoever else released a cell phone video and various commentary which set off the riots
Like the leaked porn tapes of a celebrity, shit like that spreads like fire on social media and keeps popping up no matter what you do. Once the cat's out of the bag and onto social media, realistically you can hardly succeed at getting people to stop talking about it, unless you want social media to globally go into a total lockdown mode whenever some kind of shit somewhere hits the fan.
Quote:
Does that apply to the most recent event which everyone is freaking out about or is it yet another double standard?
You're going to have to elaborate on that because I'm not sure what you're referring to, especially considering how you're defaulting to the 'double standards' button like your life's depending on it.
Honestly, I just tune out when someone is complaining about hypocrisy or double standards, considering how especially recently everyone is accusing each other of doing it to the other. It is repetitive, and incredibly
boring. But most of all it is terribly unhelpful for understanding platforms and positions. Pointing out hypocrisy is so easy that even a child can do it, so now you've got people everywhere using "yeah but they" as the central pillar for their public political orientation. All it nets you is people who are sooner motivated by being against other people than they are being
for something. And that kind of contrarianism only leads to honest tribalists who will end up logic trapping themselves by standards they've previously set forth as circumstances change, or it will lead to half-assed LARPers. Like reddit atheists being an embarrassing response to Bush-era religious fundies, or teenage male nationalist tradcath LARPers who don't even go to sunday mass and are sooner in it to own the libs, or zoommunists who don't even read any of the material they espouse and are sooner in it to own the alt-right.
Not to say that I'm hoping for people to learn to skip this step towards the bashing-in-eachothers'-skulls part (although I'll feel strongly compelled to if after reading all this you're still coming at me with the hypocrisy angle), but if we know that hypocrisy is a constant on both sides of an algebraic expression, then we can simplify the expression and make it easier to read for everyone involved, and so get to the actual meat of things.
_________________
Xyga wrote:
chum wrote:
the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.
Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.