Double Trouble in St. Louis OR Legitimate Social Protest

[Ken B]

Mark, your argument frankly seems to be that you approve their cause and believe they are right. What about the NRA raising consciousness that gun control causes rape? What about Fred Phelps raising consciousness that gay marriage cause floods? Birthers raising consciousness that Obama is a muslim?
Try your arguments above on those cases.

[NorthNYMark]

Mark, your argument frankly seems to be that you approve their cause and believe they are right. What about the NRA raising consciousness that gun control causes rape? What about Fred Phelps raising consciousness that gay marriage cause floods? Birthers raising consciousness that Obama is a muslim?
Try your arguments above on those cases.

Ken, I acknowledged before, in response to Velimir, that it is definitely easier to defend demonstrations when you agree with their cause, and easier to condemn them when you disagree with their cause.  However, I laid out what I consider to be fair criteria for judging the appropriateness of a demonstration: Did it involve violence or destruction of property? Did it seriously disrupt peoples' ability to carry out their necessary activities? Did it seem like a particularly tasteless attack on people's values?  Obviously, the latter is the most open to debate, but I suspect that most reasonable people would agree that Phelps's demonstrations at peoples' funerals would violate that criterion (as would, perhaps, explicit or obscene demonstrations interrupting church services, for example).  Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I could eliminate "taste" as a criterion altogether, as both examples are extremely disruptive in the way that a three minute performance before a concert just isn't, IMHO.  Is anyone likely to be traumatized because of what happened in the St. Louis concert hall?  That does not seem even remotely likely--which is why I don't see why it bothers you aside from the fact that you disagree with the message. Honestly, if they had unleashed insects or something I would be the first to condemn it--but all they did was sing (briefly, and relatively sweetly).  I wish more "protests" on my side as well as the other side of most issues would be this gentle and creative.

If the same situation were reversed--let's say supporters of the police officer in Ferguson had done the same thing--I probably would have found it annoying.  You are right about that!  But I think I would have to admit that there was nothing truly inappropriate about it, and that I was only annoyed because I disagreed with the message.  If you don't believe that I will stand up for the rights of those who disagree with me, or to criticize those on my own side of various issues when I think they have crossed a line, you do not know me at all.

[ibanezmonster]

Wouldn't it make more sense to protest the underlying issue: police brutality, or whatever? Instead of mentioning an incident where no one knows the details of what actually happened, they could either express the issue in general or cite an example of proven police brutality. Of course, it's all about context (time/location), but that doesn't erase the possibility that they could be supporting someone who might have tried to physically harm an officer.

[Ken B]

Ken, I acknowledged before, in response to Velimir, that it is definitely easier to defend demonstrations when you agree with their cause, and easier to condemn them when you disagree with their cause.  However, I laid out what I consider to be fair criteria for judging the appropriateness of a demonstration: Did it involve violence or destruction of property? Did it seriously disrupt peoples' ability to carry out their necessary activities? Did it seem like a particularly tasteless attack on people's values?  Obviously, the latter is the most open to debate, but I suspect that most reasonable people would agree that Phelps's demonstrations at peoples' funerals would violate that criterion (as would, perhaps, explicit or obscene demonstrations interrupting church services, for example).  Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I could eliminate "taste" as a criterion altogether, as both examples are extremely disruptive in the way that a three minute performance before a concert just isn't, IMHO.  Is anyone likely to be traumatized because of what happened in the St. Louis concert hall?  That does not seem even remotely likely--which is why I don't see why it bothers you aside from the fact that you disagree with the message. Honestly, if they had unleashed insects or something I would be the first to condemn it--but all they did was sing (briefly, and relatively sweetly).  I wish more "protests" on my side as well as the other side of most issues would be this gentle and creative.

If the same situation were reversed--let's say supporters of the police officer in Ferguson had done the same thing--I probably would have found it annoying.  You are right about that!  But I think I would have to admit that there was nothing truly inappropriate about it, and that I was only annoyed because I disagreed with the message.  If you don't believe that I will stand up for the rights of those who disagree with me, or to criticize those on my own side of various issues when I think they have crossed a line, you do not know me at all.

Mark, I'll only address the last point. The protestors don't have the right to disrupt a concert or annoy and insult the patrons. "Defending their rights" is not an issue. Whether you approve of or seek excuses for their disregard and violation of the rights of others is, as is whether making everything, even symphony concerts, a forum for us vs them politics, regardless of the facts no less,  is admirable or shameful.

[Mirror Image]

I think their behavior in general was obnoxious, rude, and disrespectful. A classical concert was not the venue for a protest. I mean what the hell could concert goers do anyway? They need to protest their local government. Picketing outside the capitol building is the correct venue not a concert hall.

[kishnevi]

I think part of the problem is the ideological framework imposed by the American Left on these situations.  It is accepted dogma that whites inherently victimize minorities simply by being white... and that minorities are inherently victim.  In their eyes there is no way to change it because whites can only be white.  That this idea is itself inherently racist is apparently something the are unable to comprehend. So in every interaction between Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Biden is oppressing Obama.
This also applies to relations between the sexes.  The simple fact that JayZ is male means Beyonce is his victim and always will be.  And as best I can tell, the people who think this way, despite all their demands for social justice,  do not think it can ever change.  Even a white leftist activist is oppressing the people he wants to help by trying to help them.  And of course the affluent oppress the poor, straights oppress gays, etc.
So for those protesters,  the police officer unjustly oppressed Michael Brown because he(the officer) was white and Brown was not...and the concert audience, to the degree it wad composed of whites and affluents, was equally racist, simply by being white.  And the actual facts of the case have no impact on that.

[Rinaldo]

I think part of the problem is the ideological framework imposed by the American Left on these situations.  It is accepted dogma that whites inherently victimize minorities simply by being white... and that minorities are inherently victim.  In their eyes there is no way to change it because whites can only be white.  That this idea is itself inherently racist is apparently something the are unable to comprehend. So in every interaction between Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Biden is oppressing Obama.
This also applies to relations between the sexes.  The simple fact that JayZ is male means Beyonce is his victim and always will be.  And as best I can tell, the people who think this way, despite all their demands for social justice,  do not think it can ever change.  Even a white leftist activist is oppressing the people he wants to help by trying to help them.  And of course the affluent oppress the poor, straights oppress gays, etc.
So for those protesters,  the police officer unjustly oppressed Michael Brown because he(the officer) was white and Brown was not...and the concert audience, to the degree it wad composed of whites and affluents, was equally racist, simply by being white.  And the actual facts of the case have no impact on that.

Oh boy.

[Ken B]

It appears, tentatively since the autopsies have not yet been released, that the physical facts support the cop's version. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/

Again the one thing we know is false is the oft-repeated claim he was shot in the back.

[ibanezmonster]

It appears, tentatively since the autopsies have not yet been released, that the physical facts support the cop's version. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/

Again the one thing we know is false is the oft-repeated claim he was shot in the back.

People are going to say the cop shot him in the hand to make it look like there was a struggle. Although that's a possibility, that's not really very likely.

[Ken B]

More reports:

In interviews with The Washington Post, sources said blood spatter evidence shows that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but analysis of the evidence did not reveal how fast Brown was moving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

[jochanaan]

Interesting that this is only coming out now.  I wonder who had intimidated these "witnesses" into staying silent--or who coerced them to say what they just said...

[Ken B]

Interesting that this is only coming out now.  I wonder who had intimidated these "witnesses" into staying silent--or who coerced them to say what they just said...

Ideology trumps all.

I have complained about people deciding facts don't matter. Now without knowing their names, or anything about them, or what they actually said, you impugn them as "witnesses" who are lying.

This isn't only coming out now. There have been reports of conflicting eyewitness testimony from the start. Here is a video, where a witness who certainly sounds black, says Brown was shot when he turned and came towards the officer. Start at about 6:30 for this unidentified witness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKKWBNSqtS0&bpctr=1414085684
Is he right, is he reliable? I don't know. But you don't know either. The only thing we know for sure is he said this way back on August 9, not "now".

Here is a report from the NYT mid August on conflicting witness testimony

Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed....

These are conflicting reports, they refer to multiple witnesses on each side of the difference, and they came out in August, not "now". http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0

[Rinaldo]

OK, let's try a larger font, might work this time.

I think much of the protesting involves things we do know about in terms of how various aspects of the investigation, and the response to the protests, have been handled.  Things like the body laying for hours, no detailed crime scene report made, the county's (and the prosecutor's) history of problems involving race and policing, etc.  I don't expect us all to agree on these points, but I think that to reduce it to the question of what actually happened during the shooting is to misunderstand the complex causes of the anger here.

[Ken B]

OK, let's try a larger font, might work this time.

That justifies calling witnesses you know nothing about liars? It justifies false statements? It justifies inflaming the situation?

If you think the best way to deal with "complex causes of the anger here" is to obscure or ignore the truth of what happened then you have abandoned sensible argument.

[Ken B]

Maybe I should yell too. Because it's mature and convincing.

The grand jury will return soon. The officer will or will not be charged. We see many reports of threatened or hinted-at violence if he is not charged. There could well be riots. The facts should absolutely be the most important factor here. Whatever underlying problems there are in Ferguson, and no-one who saw the cops wandering around with pointed rifles and military gear can doubt there are many, the idea that riots because a man was not indicted would be justified no matter what the evidence shows he did or did not do, is  appalling.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Doucement, chers confrères. 

In regard to the protests, it's worth noting that several recent articles from St. Louis papers point toward a growing negative reaction to these demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise (the latter are clearly tainting the former).  The attempted arson of a much-beloved RR station, now ice cream parlor, proved pivotal.  What's certain is that the protests have begun to negatively affect the attitudes of people who were initially sympathetic and further entrenched those who were unsympathetic. If protests are to be more than a psychological/social relief valve with the intent of influencing public opinion, that power has diminished considerably.  Meanwhile, some good things are happening in this community in terms of job promotion and educational opportunities.  And an "I Love Ferguson" store is opening.    It does appear that some good will emerge from this sad event after all. 

[Rinaldo]

If you think the best way to deal with "complex causes of the anger here" is to obscure or ignore the truth of what happened

Who said that? Not me.