7 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5GNB_7cQxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5GNB_7cQxY There you go. The Australian Prime Minister is calling for investigatio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5GNB_7cQxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5GNB_7cQxY There you go. The Australian Prime Minister is calling for investigation into why police attacked an Australian news crew. There are literally hundreds of video's like that out there.

TheGrim-888 6y ago
Oh, so you're giving up on that first piece of propaganda you linked to? Let's see what you've linked to this time .. Ok, the video starts, and the very first frame of what you see is police going hands on with people. The very first frame. Absolutely zero context of what led up to it. This is a good start! It's not selectively edited at all, with absolutely zero context given, no rationale given to explain why the police were doing what they were doing, just the message that "police bad! look at police hurt people!" Now let's look some more .. there's a group of cops dispersing a crowd that was obviously declared a riot, ordered to disperse, and failed to do so. The journalists are some of these people that are refusing lawful commands to disperse. The cops have no idea who they are, even if they do have a camera, they're dressed like rioters, have nothing that identifies them as journalists except a camera, and lots of people have cameras, and the main one that's "attacked" is hiding behind a pillar and refusing to disperse as cops go by physically removing people from the area. Man, that's so horrible. A guy that physically refused to obey lawful commands, and stuck around and didn't move when a riot was being dispersed, got physically kicked out. Man, that's the end of the world right there. There's nothing that any of them could have done to prevent the situation. The police are just dehumanized power hungry murderers.
- whymauri 6y ago
  1. You are never going to agree because your beliefs are fundamentally misaligned. Since you believe police retaliation is warranted when targets are breaking the law, you will simply excuse violence upon protesters when: >[Protesters] physically refused to obey lawful commands. You may or may not be aware, but that’s typically what protest via assembly means. 2. You are replying to a different person. If you’re going to be so condescending and rude at least employ due diligence in identifying who you’re replying to. Or, preferably, just stop being so rude and condescending.
- gwicks56 6y ago
  You don't read so good. Check the usernames genius.
Anon1096 6y ago
If there's literally hundreds of videos out there (which is probably an exaggeration for the time period given, but regardless there are plenty), there's no need to publish lies or Twitter hearsay. Sticking to publishing solid evidence makes criticisms like the GP's totally irrelevant. I'm on the side of the protests, but really to change minds you need to be concise and accurate in reporting. Quality > Quantity if quantity means you're not filtering garbage.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > I'm on the side of the protests, but I smell a concern troll. > but really to change minds you need to be concise and accurate in reporting Ok. Show us the links you think are the right ones.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Evidence that supports your side gets a free pass? Being skeptical of claims from any side seems like what we should be striving for. There's no need to treat every story as True/False binary - considering the quality of the data we're working with, the most proper status for most claims should probably be [unknown].
mistermann 6y ago
I have no horse in this race, but a YouTube video doesn't seem like an adequate rebuttal to what seemed like fairly reasonable skepticism about the quality and trustworthiness of the evidence supporting claimed abuses.
- gwicks56 6y ago
  It's literally footage from 7 News Australia, the biggest TV station in Australia. Are you suggesting the footage was doctored? Where do you host video, if not YouTube? Honest question. If video from a reputable Australia News crew, hosted on YouTube is not adequate, what do you think would be?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Honest question. If video from a reputable Australia News crew, hosted on YouTube is not adequate, what do you think would be? The article in questions is titled: U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28 The person to which you replied was questioning the trustworthiness of the data upon which that claim is based. Do you consider footage of one event conclusive evidence for 120 events? Would your thinking style change if we switched up some of the variables, say something like: Young black males have attacked elderly women more than 120 times since May 28 Would one video be sufficient evidence to satisfy your mind in this scenario as well?

TheGrim-888 6y ago

Oh, so you're giving up on that first piece of propaganda you linked to? Let's see what you've linked to this time .. Ok, the video starts, and the very first frame of what you see is police going hands on with people. The very first frame. Absolutely zero context of what led up to it. This is a good start! It's not selectively edited at all, with absolutely zero context given, no rationale given to explain why the police were doing what they were doing, just the message that "police bad! look at police hurt people!" Now let's look some more .. there's a group of cops dispersing a crowd that was obviously declared a riot, ordered to disperse, and failed to do so. The journalists are some of these people that are refusing lawful commands to disperse. The cops have no idea who they are, even if they do have a camera, they're dressed like rioters, have nothing that identifies them as journalists except a camera, and lots of people have cameras, and the main one that's "attacked" is hiding behind a pillar and refusing to disperse as cops go by physically removing people from the area. Man, that's so horrible. A guy that physically refused to obey lawful commands, and stuck around and didn't move when a riot was being dispersed, got physically kicked out. Man, that's the end of the world right there. There's nothing that any of them could have done to prevent the situation. The police are just dehumanized power hungry murderers.

whymauri 6y ago
1. You are never going to agree because your beliefs are fundamentally misaligned. Since you believe police retaliation is warranted when targets are breaking the law, you will simply excuse violence upon protesters when: >[Protesters] physically refused to obey lawful commands. You may or may not be aware, but that’s typically what protest via assembly means. 2. You are replying to a different person. If you’re going to be so condescending and rude at least employ due diligence in identifying who you’re replying to. Or, preferably, just stop being so rude and condescending.
gwicks56 6y ago
You don't read so good. Check the usernames genius.

Anon1096 6y ago

If there's literally hundreds of videos out there (which is probably an exaggeration for the time period given, but regardless there are plenty), there's no need to publish lies or Twitter hearsay. Sticking to publishing solid evidence makes criticisms like the GP's totally irrelevant. I'm on the side of the protests, but really to change minds you need to be concise and accurate in reporting. Quality > Quantity if quantity means you're not filtering garbage.

ebg13 6y ago
> I'm on the side of the protests, but I smell a concern troll. > but really to change minds you need to be concise and accurate in reporting Ok. Show us the links you think are the right ones.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Evidence that supports your side gets a free pass? Being skeptical of claims from any side seems like what we should be striving for. There's no need to treat every story as True/False binary - considering the quality of the data we're working with, the most proper status for most claims should probably be [unknown].

mistermann 6y ago

I have no horse in this race, but a YouTube video doesn't seem like an adequate rebuttal to what seemed like fairly reasonable skepticism about the quality and trustworthiness of the evidence supporting claimed abuses.

gwicks56 6y ago
It's literally footage from 7 News Australia, the biggest TV station in Australia. Are you suggesting the footage was doctored? Where do you host video, if not YouTube? Honest question. If video from a reputable Australia News crew, hosted on YouTube is not adequate, what do you think would be?
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Honest question. If video from a reputable Australia News crew, hosted on YouTube is not adequate, what do you think would be? The article in questions is titled: U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28 The person to which you replied was questioning the trustworthiness of the data upon which that claim is based. Do you consider footage of one event conclusive evidence for 120 events? Would your thinking style change if we switched up some of the variables, say something like: Young black males have attacked elderly women more than 120 times since May 28 Would one video be sufficient evidence to satisfy your mind in this scenario as well?