2020 Elections

[writingprof]

Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

[Parasaurolophus]

Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.

[quasihumanist]

(perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them).

No one does.  The US is ungovernable.

BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.

[writingprof]

Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.

Yes, well said.

BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.

Wow.  If you have a recording of this conversation, you should definitely release it.  It might make some waves here.

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.  Indeed, the next woman whom Jacob Blake would have raped is delighted that he's now unlikely to do so."

[nebo113]

Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.

Yes, well said.

BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.

Wow.  If you have a recording of this conversation, you should definitely release it.  It might make some waves here.

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.  Indeed, the next woman whom Jacob Blake would have raped is delighted that he's now unlikely to do so."

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

[writingprof]

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

Thank you.  We now know what it takes to get the Left to minimize sexual violence: blackness.  Sounds like privilege to me.

[marshwiggle]

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

I'm honestly curious here about what definitions you're applying to each of these. As far as I know, "sexual assault" has essentially just replaced "rape" as the term for the same thing.

[ciao_yall]

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

Sexual assault is a broader term. It can mean rape, typically defined as phallic penetration, but can also include a number of non-consensual activities.

Still, whatever he was accused of, does not condone shooting him.

In the back.

7 times.

While he was of no immediate physical threat to anyone.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.

[marshwiggle]

Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the mainstream media does.

If doing something bad in another instance doesn't justify bad actions on the part of police, how does the fact that "most of the protests are peaceful" justify mostly ignoring the rioting that isn't?

Consistency in reporting is what is in very short supply all around.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the mainstream media does.

If doing something bad in another instance doesn't justify bad actions on the part of police, how does the fact that "most of the protests are peaceful" justify mostly ignoring the rioting that isn't?

Consistency in reporting is what is in very short supply all around.

I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable (perhaps why the current leader of the US brands the free media an "enemy of the people").  Additionally, poor reporting from media is a world apart from purposeful misinformation by taxpayer funded government agencies (DHS in this case). 

Also, I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen.  They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course). 

[marshwiggle]

I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen. 

"did" happen????

September 06, 2020 11:50

  There were 59 people arrested during the riot that took place Saturday night and Sunday morning. Forty-three were processed by the Portland Police Bureau.

Unless it's all stopped in the last couple of days, it's still going on.

They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course).

From what I've seen, it's mostly cities with Democrat leadership that have ongoing riots.

I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable

So why aren't the leaders of the cities with ongoing rioting being held accountable by those venerable institutions?

[Sun_Worshiper]

I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen. 

"did" happen????

September 06, 2020 11:50

  There were 59 people arrested during the riot that took place Saturday night and Sunday morning. Forty-three were processed by the Portland Police Bureau.

Unless it's all stopped in the last couple of days, it's still going on.

They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course).

From what I've seen, it's mostly cities with Democrat leadership that have ongoing riots.

I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable

So why aren't the leaders of the cities with ongoing rioting being held accountable by those venerable institutions?

Very selective responses to my post, excluding the main point about disinformation and propaganda being used (quite effectively) to make people panic about "law and order," but here are few points:

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.

(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy. 

[marshwiggle]

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.

The public attention span is very short. The situations that get the public attention closest to election day are what matters. A couple of months ago, Biden was up by 10-15 points on Trump; Trump's awful handling of covid was a big factor. However, the polls have gotten a lot closer. If the rioting was gone completely, it wouldn't be useable.

(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

What matters is who voters think is responsible.

(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy.

For the record, I don't like Trump. If I were an American, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, and wouldn't in 2020. But it's kind of like watching a train wreck to see how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way. As long as they keep claiming anyone who votes for Trump must be a racist (or whatver other type of bigot you prefer), then they just alienate those people, who may indeed vote for Trump out of spite.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist". Most ordinary voters (including most ordinary *black people) can see through that scam and will avoid voting for politicians who are either too clueless to see it or too spineless to deal with it.

(About 80% of black people are NOT in favour of defunding the police.)

[Parasaurolophus]

how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way.

I don't think there are as many of those as you seem to think there are. In fact, I rather doubt there are more of them than there are very left- or even right-leaning potential Democratic voters. Catering largely or exclusively to the interests of this tiny slice of the electoral pie at the expense of those other constituencies, which the Democrats take for granted--which seems like the strategy, just like it was in 2016--looks to me like cutting your nose off to spite your face. As someone whose nose was actually cut off (yes, literally), I know a thing or two about that scenario.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist".

Where have you been the last several months? Protestors have been assaulted and arrested en masse. In New York state, a judge recently ruled they could be held without charge indefinitely (rather than for 24 hours), because there were "too many to process and charge". Shouting "BLM" is a surefire way to have the police gas you, beat you down, drive their vehicles into you, club you in the pregnant belly, etc.