3 ms·
No, you used George Floyd as an example. George Floyd was limited in how he was able to operate in society after his release, as people are asking this person b
by olliej 5y ago
No, you used George Floyd as an example. George Floyd was limited in how he was able to operate in society after his release, as people are asking this person be restricted.
You chose George Floyd because he is a name that has been made significant, not because he was allowed at a conference but because he was murdered.
You are therefore comparing to case:
* a person who is well known because they were murdered
* a person we don’t even know the identity of, because people don’t want to be present at a conference
So you are equating them, you could have used any name, or said a general ex-con, but you specifically chose Floyd.
- Gunax 5y agoYes, that's all correct. I chose Floyd (and Gibson) because they are famous. I am also comparing Floyds crime to the unnamed person's crime and to Gibson's famous tirade. But I am not comparing Floyd's murder to anything. His murder is not related. Yes, you can replace them with hypothetical people if you want.
- olliej 5y agoYou made the choice about bringing someone like Floyd into this. you thought that there was an equivalence to make. Here’s the thing: no one said Floyd wasn’t an excon, and his crime did severely limit his options in life. It is inescapable though that if you bring in Floyd for his “fame” that you are comparing the thing that made them famous: being murdered vs being anti-Semitic