As far as I can recall, I have never written -- or even much thought about -- the organization called Black Lives Matter, i.e. the non-profit corporation that owns the trademark to the name. I believe I came across the name of at least one of the founders once, but I don't remember it. I don't know anything about them and I don't even know what, exactly, they do. I can assure you that 99.9% of people who attend demonstrations against police violence are not associated with the organization and know no more about it than I do, if they even know it exists. I actually did not know that an actual organization of that name existed until fairly recently. I am unaware that any elected official is associated with it, and I know that the prominent civil rights leaders who are often seen at news conferences and funerals, such as Al Sharpton, are not.
Why, therefore, someone would think that constantly sending me what he considers to be derogatory information about this organization is somehow on topic to anything I discuss here eludes me. I do know that this has nothing at all to do with the actual issues that concern me and confront the nation. If there happened to be an organization named Save the Kittens, and it turned out that their leaders were actually dog lovers who were pocketing the contributions, would that be an argument against saving the kittens?
This is what is called a distraction, and it is a basic technique of Faux News and other Murdoch-owned properties. Since they can't discuss the issues in good faith, inasmuch as their actual positions are unconscionable, they send their brainwashed followers off in pursuit of shiny objects.
Similarly, I don't understand how rooting for Derek Chauvin's conviction to be overturned on a technicality is supposed to be an argument against accountability for what is, quite obviously and indisputably, a conscienceless, cold blooded murder. The jury saw what we all saw.
3 comments:
These are desperation tactics, the kind people use when they have no substantive argument but just can't admit defeat. The weirdest aspect of such is that the person doing so is incapable of recognizing what they're doing. The human mind is a strange and wondrous thing...
It's a smear to say that I was rooting for an overturning of conviction of Chauvin.
I was merely stating a fact that there appears to be grounds for an appeal and I wouldn't be surprised if it was granted.
It's your bias that leads you to the conclusion that I give a shit about Chauvin.
i can't agree with that. He has no hope of winning an appeal. In high profile trials, people talk about the defendant's guilt an innocence all the time, that's inevitable. The jury was partially sequestered throughout and instructed not to follow the news, and fully sequestered during deliberations. This is not an issue.
Post a Comment