You will be shocked by the fact that you do not have this right, but I’m sure your dishonest framing will be a great relief for the millions of Americans now being victimized by growing crime rates.
What happened with the police brutality movement was a lot like what happened with MeToo. It started with a good effort to expose some people doing very bad things, but then it was in a constant search for more villains to the point where the targets went way beyond that.
Police officers aren't quitting across the country because of the Chauvin verdict. They are quitting because they saw the narrative go from "we must hold bad police officers accountable" to "all police officers are bad".
They saw efforts throughout the country to unjustifiably cut already tight budgets making their jobs more difficult and they saw regular protests rise up and cops being targeted even after legitimate and justified uses of force.
Just as an example: They saw the top NBA player in the world put a target on a police officer's back after he saved a young African American girl from being stabbed. Now they are almost forced to hesitate in life-death situations.
In portland, you had almost a year's worth of nightly riots and even police stations set on fire, but political leaders wouldn't let them take action or protect them. Instead, they saw public officials consistently demonize them.
So after all that, you didn't get rid of the bad cops that use excessive force. You had a lot of good cops say that the job probably isn't worth it. They can go work somewhere else for similar pay without the risks and demonization.
I can't blame them, but the consequences are that the neighborhoods that need them most are left with surging crime and no one to properly address it.
In fact, the rotten apples were more likely to stay because they like having that power to abuse.
and I say all of that as someone who thinks police brutality and abuse are real issues that are being insufficiently addressed,* who thinks police unions tend to protect the worst officers, that body cameras are a necessity, & that we need more accountability.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He did this by pointing to places that had huge vaccine rollouts still having cases grow for the first few weeks/month.
Thing is that those growing cases weren't among people getting vaccinated, but he ignored that fact (not opinion!) to keep his conspiracy going.
Even someone w/ just common sense would say if vaccines (that don't have the virus btw) were causing cases, then more shots should = more cases. Instead, as vaccine rollout ramped up, cases fell drastically. He never bothered to address that & just kept repeating his claim.
So purely by statistics, at least some of that 200M were likely to die within a month of getting a shot. Esp. since we focused shots early on the elderly.
VAERS system gets a lot of questionable info/reports, but since this is an unprecedented campaign with UAE vaccines...
Health officials are required to check if people who died were recently vaccinated. That doesn't usually happen. If some random person had a heart attack in 2019, no one would ask if he just got a flu vaccine 3 weeks earlier. That's why it's a shift from previous data.
1) Vaccines are safe and effective. People that keep spreading misinformation suggesting otherwise are bad.
2) WH shouldn't be dictating for social media companies to censor speech. Even bad speech.
If they want to provide good info that can be shared to counter? Great.
3) Fact that vaccines are safe and very effective means that those that are vaccinated don't need to spend their time freaking out about the unvaccinated. Better that more people get vaccinated & will reduce risk further, but it shouldn't hinder vaccinated from moving forward.
4) The truth is there is hesitancy on vaccines across the political spectrum. On the right, it is being fueled by bad actors making it seem like vaccination is something being pushed by the left. But you also have hesitancy among minority groups & elite liberals on the left.
The "CRT" debate is backwards because you have people arguing over solutions, but a large segment of the left and the press keep insisting the problem doesn't exist. You have to start by getting more people to acknowledge the problem, then we can debate specific solutions.
You have a response that has become pure gaslighting. It's people simultaneously arguing this (the normalization and promotion of neoracist ideas) isn't happening, but also it's a good thing if it is happening and only bigots could oppose it.
You have a whole movement normalizing and mainstreaming toxic and bigoted ideas in all aspects of society, including education. Those of us who object to those harmful views must counter them. That includes schools, where parents have a responsibility to protect their kids.
This is obviously a lie. There has not been one proposed law that would ban anyone from teaching this Douglass speech. The fact that this person would lie about what is actually happening like this doesn't exactly inspire trust in their fitness to teach anyone about anything.
So @saribethrose tried to respond to a factual assertion with an opinion piece also lying about what is happening & what people are concerned about, then she blocked me. Again, if these people can't be trusted to discuss issues honestly, they can't be trusted to teach your kids.
People are objecting to neoracist propaganda being taught to kids.
Left, knowing they can't defend the substance of those ideas to the public/parents, has reacted by 1) arguing we aren't defining that propaganda correctly (CRT) 2) lying about what is being objected to