5 ms·

This is an interesting take that I have seen in my Facebook feed, media and Joe Biden about white privilege allowing the protestors into the Capitol building.

by j8hn 6y ago

This is an interesting take that I have seen in my Facebook feed, media and Joe Biden about white privilege allowing the protestors into the Capitol building. How did white privilege allow them access?

pmiller2 6y ago
They got in because police reaction to this protest was far different from police reaction to BLM protests in DC: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/07/metro/photos-how-law-enforcement-treated-black-lives-matter-protests-dc-compared-attack-us-capitol-wednesday/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/07/metro/photos-how-law-... I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you?
- j8hn 6y ago
  Could it be that this particular group at the Capitol didn't have any supposed proclivity to violence? This was supposed to be a group of people who "backed the blue" and stood for law and order. Perhaps their guard was let down because of this? Perhaps it was because the police response to mass gatherings has changed and become more lenient since the beginning of the BLM protests. Interesting that you posted this link with the image of national guard members on the Lincoln Memorial steps this summer. I had read the an official, maybe Mayor Bowser didn't want this exact scene pictured to happen again because it looked bad. Anyway, here is the tweet from the Mayor Bowser officially declining additional federal law enforcement to help MPD and their partners. https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466 https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    So, you're telling me the response had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that almost all the 1/6 "protestors" were white, that that was just a coincidence? You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line.
    - j8hn 6y ago
      I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege. I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Given the difference between the two types of protestors, Occam's Razor leads us to the obvious conclusion. Now, I say again, if you want to claim it wasn't white privilege, I'm still gonna need more than "could it be the case," and "perhaps." Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?
        j8hn 6y ago
        I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that. That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree. I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented. All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history of racial relations in this country, including the fact that there's an entire protest movement about police violence against non-white people, you've gotta bring something besides "could it be," and "perhaps." If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely.
        j8hn 6y ago
        I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit. "I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? " "You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line." "Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?" "If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely."

by j8hn 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago

They got in because police reaction to this protest was far different from police reaction to BLM protests in DC: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/07/metro/photos-how-law-enforcement-treated-black-lives-matter-protests-dc-compared-attack-us-capitol-wednesday/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/07/metro/photos-how-law-... I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you?

j8hn 6y ago
Could it be that this particular group at the Capitol didn't have any supposed proclivity to violence? This was supposed to be a group of people who "backed the blue" and stood for law and order. Perhaps their guard was let down because of this? Perhaps it was because the police response to mass gatherings has changed and become more lenient since the beginning of the BLM protests. Interesting that you posted this link with the image of national guard members on the Lincoln Memorial steps this summer. I had read the an official, maybe Mayor Bowser didn't want this exact scene pictured to happen again because it looked bad. Anyway, here is the tweet from the Mayor Bowser officially declining additional federal law enforcement to help MPD and their partners. https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466 https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466
- pmiller2 6y ago
  So, you're telling me the response had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that almost all the 1/6 "protestors" were white, that that was just a coincidence? You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line.
  - j8hn 6y ago
    I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege. I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Given the difference between the two types of protestors, Occam's Razor leads us to the obvious conclusion. Now, I say again, if you want to claim it wasn't white privilege, I'm still gonna need more than "could it be the case," and "perhaps." Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?
      - j8hn 6y ago
        I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that. That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree. I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented. All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history of racial relations in this country, including the fact that there's an entire protest movement about police violence against non-white people, you've gotta bring something besides "could it be," and "perhaps." If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely.
        j8hn 6y ago
        I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit. "I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? " "You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line." "Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?" "If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely."