OT - Making Sense of Tragedy

[Monster]

I think i understand a little better why Brees has apologized for his comments at least twice now. He is going to be working for NBC after his playing career is over. Why is that important? The media (mainstream) and those who ascend to high profile roles in entertainment or the movies, are controlled by a small group of very powerful people. These people control a vast majority of what you hear and see over the airwaves, so they have enormous influence on the narrative. If you've paid any attention at all to the mainstream news media, you know it is very biased to the left. And the vast majority of celebrities echo the same themes.

The reason is the power brokers control who gains celebrity status. If you can't be controlled, good luck getting a recording contract or landing a prominent role in a movie or TV show. So what's been created is an industry where virtually everyone is on the same team. Now of course there are exceptions, but by and large this is true. People who gain all of their news through mainstream sources are also being controlled. It's very important we get our news from a variety of outlets, otherwise you're just not getting the whole picture. I hope more and more people arrive at this "aha" moment, the sooner the better.

Now back to Brees. His conservative viewpoints certainly would not mesh with the narrative that the mainstream media perpetuates every day, especially not NBC. The Brees who made those comments conflicts directly, making his future employment with the network a problem. Do I think Brees did a 180 on his own values and point of view overnight? No I do not. I believe he received more than a gentle nudge from a variety of sources, some of whom will be signing his future paychecks. This should scare you a little bit.

You hit the nail on the head. Public outrage and media pressure not only made Drew Brees apologize when he didn't need to, but now he's promoting a false narrative. The herd wins again.

I don't blame him. He has a family to provide for. I blame those that contribute to this groupthink-or-die mentality. Independent thought is growing frowned upon, especially by so-called "freethinkers", in a nation that used to promote exactly that.

These posts absolutely bring out some good points but they are also written with such level of certainty about Brees as a person that I find it a bit uncomfortable. Why? It reads (Not suggesting this was intended) like person Y did something I didn't agree with and I found all the evidence to explain it from my perspective. We all do this to one extent or another at times. I'm someone who tends to be more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt. That obviously doesn't work all the time either. Why having different perspectives (I truly value both of yours and Cool's post brought out some absolutely valid considerations) is great because I think having differences provides balance. It doesn't seem like to me we are a truly free And free thinking nation if we can't have our own perspectives on whether kneeling during the national anthem is acceptable or not...on BOTH sides.

I'd be curious to hear what media outlets people have found that provide fair coverage . I think it's absolutely difficult to do that especially depending on the topic. For example when it comes to sports Coverage I think the Athletic is a pretty good platform but not all the contributors are top quality or seem to be as genuine in their work. Media should get a load of criticism that they get BUT I also think there is some difficulty in providing information that is not considered enough. I hardly ever watch local news but it struck me Last week watching nearly an hour of live coverage of early morning protests and some riotous behavior how exactly was the local guy taking through all this with likely no sleep going to navigate his way through what he was reporting completely fair and unbiased? Media is based on people. I don't want to let any media off the hook here but I think we should all be going in knowing we have to find the truth for ourselves not be fed it to us. This seems different than what the school systems tend to do. Does anyone else have a different experience in that regard?

[Monster]

One thing that has occurred to me just now is I appreciate everyone contributing here wants everyone on this planet to be treated fairly. People are also genuinely looking for truth. This has all led to some good information and sharing of perspectives. That's my view and thanks for letting me share with all of you.

For me personally this thread has helped me process and learn in a way that I find VERY meaningful. Thank you to everyone for being willing to contribute and have conversations.

[apollotsg [enjin:6592798]]

Ok, I think I have a different perspective than many of you. I am not going to pretend I am woke, but I've been doing a lot more listening lately - and I realize now that while I thought I have been a good listener, I had not been.

First: The media and the internet are broken all the way around and frankly I don't know what will solve it. Biased news from every degree on the spectrum is available now and extremes of our society are finding a voice.

There are a couple of pure information sources out there but I disagree with all of you in regards to the value of raw information. For example, in the IC they consider information that has been collected to be just that, raw information. An analyst takes that information and adds context to the information and create what they sometimes call an intelligence mosaic. Without context the meaning and value of raw information cannot be made, things like societal issues are immensely complex and can't be understood by fragmented information. This is where bias breaks the information we receive. This is where extremists have evolved and adapted to the new information age and it has changed the playing field outright. By creating their own mosaic of information, they can paint their cause as just all the while hiding or skirting their underlying goals.


Extremism: Technology, privacy laws and practices, along with new concepts in leadership and marketing to the fringes have all played a significant part in the growing problem we have in extremism. While the media and politicians have been pointing to Islamic fundamentalism and Antifa/far-left groups for terrorism, it's the far right that has been growing, starting in the previous administration. Within the IC they have seen the switch and the current perceived threat globally is the growth of far-right extremism.


Not seeing racism or the broken system.

Let's start with the system that has been rigged from the get-go and both parties have been doing it. Laws are passed specifically targeting minorities and criminalizing or creating grossly imbalanced laws. For instance, in one example of this let's examine our countries laws towards drugs:

Alcohol was outlawed, this impacted white people and was short-lived despite scientific evidence pointing to its negative impact in every way.

Pot, specifically outlawed to target the Hispanic and black populations, grossly impacting them disproportionally than white people...until it became cool with white people and it has rapidly been decriminalized.

Cocaine, this is where it gets a little crazy. The CIA used the contras coke to make crack and setup and protected the trafficking of crack into the black communities in California. Let me say that again, a government organization designed a classified operation to move a highly addictive drug into a specific minority community at price points targeting the poorest within the community and flooding the market.

They simultaneously passed laws with highly disproportionately sentencing between crack and cocaine, the white person version of the drug.

This along with new laws and the "war on drugs" resulted in increased policing, increased militarization of the police, and the portrayal of black people on the news culminated in a group of people who are targeted with biased laws and policing tactics. One in three black men in America will be incarcerated. 1 in 3, does that sound right to anyone? Or are you chalking it up to they are savages inherently, see that is what the white supremacists have said from day one - that is literally their message.

If you keep saying shit like "golly fucking gee whiz, they all be killing each other and breaking our laws" you just might not be a student of history. The next time you feel like those words forming on your lips, consider picking up virtually any history book and look at what happens in every culture when a group is singled out and targeted by another. Every period. every culture. every race. This should make you feel embarrassed that you see the problem but you blame them for it - This is that point where you become "woke" - you have the epiphany that white people who are afraid of black people have shaped their world in America to fit their racist needs, and it's subtle despite being in front of our faces the entire time.

I personally have made excuses, I have ignored those that say inappropriate shit, I have always thought the "do my part" was just not being a racist and then things would get better - I was wrong. It's not getting better, this is why shit is burning, because WE were not listening when Kaepernick took a knee - many of you are still not listening.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Oh, boy. I couldn't respectfully disagree more with a post than the one above, but I'm not even sure where to start with breaking it down. Disagreeing all over the place as I reread it.

[bleedspeed]

Criminals are not victims. Is it bad to hold people accountable?

[thedoper]

Imagine a man, we will call him Dennis or Denny for short. Denny loved to cook, though he wasnt very good at it. He thought he could offer a good price for a meal and started a restaurant. Becuause the prices were good and he made the business decision to stay open 24 hours, people liked his restaurant and it grew and grew. Now Denny made another business decision. He didn't want to serve blacks in his restaurants unless they paid first. Maybe this was because he was a racist, or maybe it was because he felt more comfortable serving whites. Im quite certain that left to our own devices, there would be a whole lot of all white Denny's restuarants in our society.

Systemic racism doesnt necessarily have to be about evil intention, but there are safeguards embbeded in our constitution, bill of rights, and more broadly human rights laws that have a higher principle than our inherently bad behavior. The good news is that laws in our society were designed in a good way for all people in comparison to much of the world (even though the people that made them intended them for white males only). I think any society with our racial population dynamics will have problems with racism, its simple logic. I do think there is good news. The law has forced our society to move to more equity, even a quick charge of murder for this officer showed progress in the right direction. I'm not sure we will get to a point of racial equity, but on the positive side I do think there is a framework for social in the USA that can be celebrated in the midst of human mistakes. I ultimately think that this is what is not being said on either side. There shouldnt be black and white, our society is definitely racist, and we shouldnt defund the police.

[TAFKASP]

They simultaneously passed laws with highly disproportionately sentencing between crack and cocaine, the white person version of the drug.

I don't have time to respond to everything, but the above portion is complete bunk. The harsh laws on crack were spearheaded by black community leaders because of the drug's destructive impact on their communities. Further, if you look at the sentencing guidelines for crack and meth you'll see they're effectively the same, yet meth has primarily been used in the white community.

Just because crack is derived from cocaine doesn't mean they have the same impact upon their users, thus the penalties aren't the same. Crack and Meth are a much better example that is never used because they don't support the desired narrative.

There are unquestionably problems in how issues of race are handled in this country but the above is not one of them.

[thedoper]

I think the more major stark racial disparity in sentencing is white collar sentencing vs street crime. This is inherently an issue and judges and lawmakers have been trying to make excuses for it for a long time.

[TAFKASP]

I think the more major stark racial disparity in sentencing is white collar sentencing vs street crime. This is inherently an issue and judges and lawmakers have been trying to make excuses for it for a long time.

This is once again an apples to oranges comparison. The correct question IMO is if sentencing of white and non-white white-collar crimes is the same, and again white and non-white street crime. If we look at the reporting the past week in regards to the looting, vandalism, and arson you'll see a lot of people suggesting that because it's just property and is replaceable that means it's not as bad as a violent crime. If that logic applies to those situations should it not also apply to white-collar crime?

The question/problem isn't if these different crimes are inequitably written, they're not due to their being written without concern for the race of the criminal. The question is are they enforced/applied equally across race, religion, sexuality, or any other differences. In other words, is justice blind?

[AbeVigodaLive]

Criminals are not victims. Is it bad to hold people accountable?

Huh? Can you explain this statement.