3 ms·

> it claims more significance for this mechanism than, you know, masses of people marching on the streets Sure, seeing large marches are great at grabbing atte

> it claims more significance for this mechanism than, you know, masses of people marching on the streets Sure, seeing large marches are great at grabbing attention, but seeing actual video evidence of police brutality is _much_ more persuasive. Now almost everyone has high-def cameras, and the ability to stream live to everyone (so people will see it even if the police take/destroy your phone). I think that makes a big difference, though I'm not arguing that tech alone deserves credit for improving things. Having people in the streets still matters.

clairity 6y ago
> "Sure, seeing large marches are great at grabbing attention, but seeing actual video evidence of police brutality is _much_ more persuasive." again, for you. the people marching didn't need to see the video to be angry and mobilize for change. they were already angry, a long-simmering anger of an even longer and more widely tolerated injustice and oppression. when people protest, we should listen to them, believe them, because protesting is not without its risks and costs. that the video matters so much to you relative to the protesters is exactly the criticsm of perspective leveled here.
- frakkingcylons 6y ago
  Yes the people marching don't need to see the video, but the unfortunate reality is you DO have to convince everyone else. That's why the attitudes of non-black people towards police brutality are have shifted significantly in the past 10 years [0], at least in my opinion. I'm not saying there should have to be video in order for victims of police violence to be believed, but the larger public won't start believing it otherwise. That's my belief on why the marches we're seeing since Floyd's murder involve more non-black people. [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-lots-of-white-democrats-ended-up-protesting-the-death-of-george-floyd/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-lots-of-white-democ...

clairity 6y ago

> "Sure, seeing large marches are great at grabbing attention, but seeing actual video evidence of police brutality is _much_ more persuasive." again, for you. the people marching didn't need to see the video to be angry and mobilize for change. they were already angry, a long-simmering anger of an even longer and more widely tolerated injustice and oppression. when people protest, we should listen to them, believe them, because protesting is not without its risks and costs. that the video matters so much to you relative to the protesters is exactly the criticsm of perspective leveled here.

frakkingcylons 6y ago
Yes the people marching don't need to see the video, but the unfortunate reality is you DO have to convince everyone else. That's why the attitudes of non-black people towards police brutality are have shifted significantly in the past 10 years [0], at least in my opinion. I'm not saying there should have to be video in order for victims of police violence to be believed, but the larger public won't start believing it otherwise. That's my belief on why the marches we're seeing since Floyd's murder involve more non-black people. [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-lots-of-white-democrats-ended-up-protesting-the-death-of-george-floyd/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-lots-of-white-democ...