Comments by "RiC David" (@RiC_David) on "Trump Defenders Excuse Violence On CNN - 2 of 2" video.

  1. +Pat Nicoll Much as I wouldn't like to support Hillary, supporting Hillary would still be preferable to Trump being president. I'm over here in England so it's not my call but, you know, I still belong to planet Earth and give a shit about that scumbag being leader of anything.
    1
  2. +Blast men [copied and pasted from my post seconds ago] I guess the last point would be the childish pathetic cop-out "Oh yeah well what about [something different that I feel I stand a better chance of defending]? I see grown adults do this every day - can't defend the murdering of unarmed citizens? Try to change the discussion into "There are black Americans elsewhere who are doing bad things" because to you, that's what the argument is about - it's black vs white. -- Is anybody defending violence at "a rap concert"? Nope. Is anyone saying "only white Republicans can be violent"? Nope. Rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, you attempt to switch the topic to something else where the people at fault are black (and you write your own narrative about the voting habits of hypothetical strangers in your head). To you, this is "blacks vs whites" isn't it? It's "Republicans vs Democrats" to you isn't it?. You see your tribe under attack (in your dumbed down tribal perspective) and so you try to land an attack on who you perceive to be "our tribe" because to you that's an eye for an eye. Myself, Jimmy, and anybody else involved will happily discuss violence at "a rap concert" when you actually address the actual topic at hand rather than cowardly trying to change the discussion. You actually expect us to address your new discussion point without you addressing the one he spent 9 minutes discussing. Would you accept this from even a child? "Jonny, did you see the man steal something from the office?" "What about when other people steal coins from church collection?" Pathetic.
    1
  3. Outside of the disgraceful mainstream media, here's how this thrives: 1) Polarised two tribe system. People come in two types according to this system, liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing. These political leanings are encouraged to be worn as identities - not "I'm in favour of tighter gun control" but "I'm a liberal". Personal identities become group identities and so it becomes "our guys vs their guys". Someone who might not otherwise defend a racist thug at a Trump rally is thus inclined to say "I'm sick of all this anti-Trump stuff, why isn't there more condemnation of liberals?" even if the answer is "Because it's not happening at liberal rallies". 2) Labels are stereotypes, stereotypes are self confirming - once you believe in it, you'll see proof of it because there are examples of literally everything out there. Why is this relevant? Here are some popular labels: "PC/political correctness/politically correct" "SJW/social justice warriors" "regressive left" Watching this video and feel like you're under attack because Jimmy is the enemy tribe to you? Just pick one of the above labels and apply liberally. Magic. "TYT are regressive leftists" <---who needs rebuttals when you have labels? 3) Every separate news story/incident is strung into one ongoing narrative by the observer. A story about a 12 year old being shot dead in two seconds for playing with a toy gun should not be polarising. If you're someone whose ongoing narrative is a hyperbole laden "These blacks blame police for everything, everything's racism and it's never their fault" then when you hear of this tragic story, you'll likely go about trying to find a way to defend it. You wouldn't do that if you weren't of the tribal mindset and you wouldn't do that if you took the incident as its own story and judged it on those merits. I guess the last point would be the childish pathetic cop-out "Oh yeah well what about [something different that I feel I stand a better chance of defending]? I see grown adults do this every day - can't defend the murdering of unarmed citizens? Try to change the discussion into "There are black Americans elsewhere who are doing bad things" because to you, that's what the argument is about - it's black vs white. Stick to the topic in contention, identify when people are writing an internal narrative to connect separate incidents, identify when labels/stereotypes are being used to dismiss the speaker rather than their message, avoid the "our tribe vs their tribe". Our opponents should be people who are dishonest and/or spreading falsehoods - that's a personal characteristic, not a group identity.
    1