Dallas police officers gunned down

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Dallas police officers gunned down

*

Issues Pages: 
mark_alfred
lagatta

It is hard to say anything. I think it goes without saying that we don't want anyone shot, whatever our criticisms of the police and the role of the police force. Yes, he was a military veteran, and obviously a very good shot. Beyond that, for the moment it is all speculation. I don't know if anything will make the US abolish the right of private citizens to own military-type weapons. Otherwise, since he had no criminal record, there would have been no reason to deny him the "right" to buy such weapons.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Dallas: Five Police Officers Shot Dead; Obama Condemns "Vicious, Calculated and Despicable Attack"

quote:

President Obama’s speaking in Warsaw earlier this morning as news about the Dallas shooting unfolded. Former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh sparked controversy by declaring a war against President Obama and Black Lives Matter activists. Around 9:00 P.M. last night, Walsh tweeted "3 Dallas Cops killed. 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you." He later deleted the tweet. This comes as many commentators are inaccurately claiming there has been a rise in violence against police officers under the Obama administration. In reality, the opposite is true. During the first seven years of Obama’s presidency, an average of 54 officers were shot and killed. That’s less than the average of officers killed each year under George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford. In fact, the safest two years for police officers over the last century were during the Obama presidency; the years 2013 and 2015, which also coincided with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The POTUS commented from Warsaw where he was meeting with other NATO leaders to beat the war drums. Yes it is all connected.

lagatta

One way it is connected is the ECONOMIC importance of the military-industrial complex in the US; so many towns depend on so-called defence industries and for so many young people, especially from rural areas with little opportunity and for poor and racialised youth. That means a LOT of people with such training.

If I were to go bezerk, I'd be more likely to shoot myself in the foot than anything else...

6079_Smith_W

I know they were trying to help, but a headline declaring this is "Not a Black Lives Matter Attack" isn't too well thought out, since it feeds into the paranoia of something which has never happened.

https://mic.com/articles/148136/dallas-police-shooting-started-as-a-peac...

bekayne
Paladin1

This type of thing will only give the police justification (in their minds) to ramp up the level of agression they react with- as if it's not deadly enough already.

 

I've read there was someone at the scene who was "open-carrying" an AR15 rifle.  I bet he regretted that afterwards.

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

This type of thing will only give the police justification (in their minds) to ramp up the level of agression they react with- as if it's not deadly enough already.

Typical victim blaming. As if the murderous racist police of the U.S. need a pretext to murder more. 

Paladin1

lol

lagatta

Moreover it isn't only the police. There are a lot of white supremacists who have been advocating the same thing in social media.

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:

This type of thing will only give the police justification (in their minds) to ramp up the level of agression they react with- as if it's not deadly enough already.

I've read there was someone at the scene who was "open-carrying" an AR15 rifle.  I bet he regretted that afterwards.

This does raise an interesting point. That is, is 'open carry' okay for whites, but not blacks. If a state has an open carry law, does that not allow any gun owner to visibly carry that gun? So why would this guy 'regret it afterwards'? I suspect he would regret it because it made him a target for the police, and in fact he was identified as a perpetrator when he wasn't.

But it sure raises the issue. If you were a cop in an open carry state, how would you know beforehand whether the guy with the visible pistol or rifle is okay, or not okay? Apparently, so far the criteria is skin colour.

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

This type of thing will only give the police justification (in their minds) to ramp up the level of agression they react with- as if it's not deadly enough already.

I've read there was someone at the scene who was "open-carrying" an AR15 rifle.  I bet he regretted that afterwards.

This does raise an interesting point. That is, is 'open carry' okay for whites, but not blacks. If a state has an open carry law, does that not allow any gun owner to visibly carry that gun? So why would this guy 'regret it afterwards'? I suspect he would regret it because it made him a target for the police, and in fact he was identified as a perpetrator when he wasn't.

But it sure raises the issue. If you were a cop in an open carry state, how would you know beforehand whether the guy with the visible pistol or rifle is okay, or not okay? Apparently, so far the criteria is skin colour.

 

Basically from what I've seen whites who are approached by police while open carrying long rifles are treated drastically different than black americans.

Hey buddy nice rifle, what kinda optic is that?   verses Put yout fucking hands up don't move!

 

When I said he regretted it afterwards I meant 11 cops were just shot and he was carrying a rifle so police probably pounced on him.

Pondering

I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed, anywhere, that the Dallas police executed the suspect that wouldn't surrender. They used a bomb carrying robot to murder him. No one was at risk at that point. The robot could have been sent in with knock-out gas.

I'm shocked police had a bomb. Talk about miltarization. This is no different than sending in a drone to kill someone. Has this ever been done before in the United States or any developed country for that matter? This sets a precedence for drones as well as robots.

Police are talking about what he said to them including that he had planted bombs all over the city. Had he done so wouldn't it have been better to take him alive?

Is this the new normal? If a suspect refuses to surrender he can be murdered?

 

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed, anywhere, that the Dallas police executed the suspect that wouldn't surrender. 

I noticed.

This is a society where human life is lower than zero. A society of brutal murderers. No one gives a shit when people are killed.

I truly hope that this society will come to a swift and painless end.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed, anywhere, that the Dallas police executed the suspect that wouldn't surrender. They used a bomb carrying robot to murder him. No one was at risk at that point. The robot could have been sent in with knock-out gas.

 

Or the robot could have shot the gun out of the suspects hands. Or even just wait until he got hungery and surrendered.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The robot could have been sent in with knock-out gas.

Knock-out gas.

Quote:
Police are talking about what he said to them including that he had planted bombs all over the city. Had he done so wouldn't it have been better to take him alive?

So Kiefer Sutherland could torture the locations out of him?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

More.

Quote:
Authorities in Tennessee say a man who opened fire on a highway in Tennessee targeted police officers and others because he was troubled by incidents involving black people and law enforcement officers.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation says in a news release that initial conversations with the suspect, identified as Lakeem Keon Scott revealed he was troubled by incidents across the U.S. The TBI says the suspect is black; the shooting victims are all white.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Has this ever been done before in the United States or any developed country for that matter?

Yes.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The robot could have been sent in with knock-out gas.

Knock-out gas.

Quote:
Police are talking about what he said to them including that he had planted bombs all over the city. Had he done so wouldn't it have been better to take him alive?

So Kiefer Sutherland could torture the locations out of him?

Or maybe a family member or mental health professional could have coaxed the information out of him. My point was, the police are saying all this stuff about him to justify the execution. He confessed, no need for a trial. If anything it was justification for taking him alive not for executing him.

Cute on the knock-out gas but are you suggesting the only way to incapacitate him was execution? Wouldn't even tear gas have incapacitated him? I'm no chemist but I am certain there are other means they could have used to render him unable to fight back.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Has this ever been done before in the United States or any developed country for that matter?

Yes.

Wow, what a shocker, but the article is interesting in how it points out that times have changed. It is impacting the balance of power. I do not in any way condone the shooting of the Dallas police officers but this is an example of people fighting back, not starting a war as some politician stated. The class war against workers and the poor never stopped and for black people that war has been physical for decades. There can be no organized opposition in the sense of an army so the disenfranchized use terrorism. How ironic is it that at least some of these men were trained by the US military.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

 

Cute on the knock-out gas but are you suggesting the only way to incapacitate him was execution? Wouldn't even tear gas have incapacitated him? I'm no chemist but I am certain there are other means they could have used to render him unable to fight back.

 

But why though?  He murdered 5 officers already and tried to murder some 6 more. It's a safe bet that he's not looking to surrender and will probably do his best to go down shooting or take as many more as he can.  Also he could easily pick up a gas mask or resperator negating the knock out gas.   Is it worth it to risk more lives trying to subdue this guy?

 

Russians tried knock out gas a few years ago with disasterous results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Casualties

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

I do not in any way condone the shooting of the Dallas police officers but this is an example of people fighting back, not starting a war as some politician stated.

It is not "people fighting back" any more than Timothy McVeigh was. That politician was trying to paint it as that by calling it a war. And the people who actually are fighting back are being blamed for it.

It is one person being pushed so far that he lashes out and murders people. I don't think anyone who really wants a solution thinks of this as something that will help make that happen.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

Cute on the knock-out gas but are you suggesting the only way to incapacitate him was execution? Wouldn't even tear gas have incapacitated him? I'm no chemist but I am certain there are other means they could have used to render him unable to fight back.

But why though?  He murdered 5 officers already and tried to murder some 6 more. It's a safe bet that he's not looking to surrender and will probably do his best to go down shooting or take as many more as he can.  Also he could easily pick up a gas mask or resperator negating the knock out gas.   Is it worth it to risk more lives trying to subdue this guy?

Russians tried knock out gas a few years ago with disasterous results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Casualties

He didn't have any hostages or they would have been blown up with him. He was contained. He was not in a position to shoot anyone. As unionist mentioned they could have just waited him out. Eventually hunger, thirst and exhaustion would have into play. There was no immediate danger to anyone and he had no possibility of escape. Extrajudicial execution was in no way required to protect lives.

Russia had no choice. There were hostages. Blowing up the hostages along with the terrorists would not have worked better than knock-out gas.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
As unionist mentioned they could have just waited him out.

I don't recall making that point - but I agree. Thing is, cops in the U.S. kill first - makes it easier to lie later. It's their way.

Now that I think of it... do we know yet how many of the Orlando victims were killed or injured by police gunfire? Are the media even asking that question?

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

Cute on the knock-out gas but are you suggesting the only way to incapacitate him was execution? Wouldn't even tear gas have incapacitated him? I'm no chemist but I am certain there are other means they could have used to render him unable to fight back.

But why though?  He murdered 5 officers already and tried to murder some 6 more. It's a safe bet that he's not looking to surrender and will probably do his best to go down shooting or take as many more as he can.  Also he could easily pick up a gas mask or resperator negating the knock out gas.   Is it worth it to risk more lives trying to subdue this guy?

Russians tried knock out gas a few years ago with disasterous results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Casualties

He didn't have any hostages or they would have been blown up with him. He was contained. He was not in a position to shoot anyone. As unionist mentioned they could have just waited him out. Eventually hunger, thirst and exhaustion would have into play. There was no immediate danger to anyone and he had no possibility of escape. Extrajudicial execution was in no way required to protect lives.

Russia had no choice. There were hostages. Blowing up the hostages along with the terrorists would not have worked better than knock-out gas.

 

He had a rifle (which already shot 11 people) and ammunition. He surely was in a position to shoot more people. He could have came out shooting at any time and take out another officer or two. Just because someone is holed up in a building doesn't mean they're out of the fight.  

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This was inevitable. Things have been at a breaking point for a while now. Policing needs to be reformed.

BTW,where was all that national grief for the 2 young men who were murdered in the first place?

I have to say that I knew America was going to lose their shit the moment a black man became President. Boy,did I underestimate the reaction.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do not in any way condone the shooting of the Dallas police officers but this is an example of people fighting back, not starting a war as some politician stated.

It is not "people fighting back" any more than Timothy McVeigh was. That politician was trying to paint it as that by calling it a war. And the people who actually are fighting back are being blamed for it.

It is one person being pushed so far that he lashes out and murders people. I don't think anyone who really wants a solution thinks of this as something that will help make that happen.

It wasn't one person it was an organized well-prepared and trained team. So well trained that they didn't need months to scope out the area. At least some of those men had high level military training. Snipers aren't grunts. They were trained to see everyone on the other side as enemies armed or not, and taught to shoot on suspicion without guilt. Drones are openly used to kill SUSPECTED terrorists along with everyone in the vicinity, including children and babies who are obviously innocent. Soldiers are taught that this is justifiable on the basis of self-defence and if innocent people get killed that is unavoidable collateral damage not murder.

The police as an organization have been identified, certainly by those men, as the enemy of innocent black people whom they kill indiscriminately including children.

This was no mentally ill person mired in madness induced paranoia. There are countless black people who have served in the military as a means of escaping poverty many of whom return to the states only to fall back into poverty. although these men certainly weren't poor. They were trained to kill people that were no threat to them personally or to the US.

It should be no surprise that they view police as the equivalent of enemy soldiers or worse, government sanctioned terrorists. It doesn't matter that they personally were not guilty of a specific crime. Collectively police are an occupying force. They are killing blacks at traffic stops. Even neighbourhood watch whites can kill innocent blacks though if the reverse were to occur there is no doubt the black person would have spent the rest of his life behind bars if not executed. Imagine if a black person challenged a white teenager walking home from a candy store and killed him.

The incarceration of and killing of black people by law inforcement cannot be minimized into individual innocent mistakes based on reasonable fear, or outliers not representative of police in general.

It will likely only make things worse but I would be shocked if this is the end of it. A few decades ago no one would ever imagine someone going into a school and killing children yet it is common now in the states. If not there then a shopping centre, or workplace, or theatre, is available. Other people will copy the tactic. There will be more extrajudicial executions of police. It might even become more popular than killing random people because it's harder and will garner more fame. Random shooters are a dime a dozen now, their names soon forgotten, no longer written down in history.

Not calling it a war is not going to make any difference one way or another. Police are being armed with military weapons. Sending in a robot to kill the enemy is a military tactic. These are acts of war and occupation not peacetime community policing.

If the indiscriminant killing of black people continues there will be more attacks on police. There will be people who decide to martyr themselves and blow themselves up in a police station or at a police event. I have no doubt there are people fantasizing over how cool it would be to kill more police at the funeral. It won't go beyond that for most, and security is going to be unbelievably tight. It's police who will have snipers in place. But it is going to happen again and again. This is a turning point for reasons beyond the use of a robot. 

Maybe someday people will read about how the American empire used the impoverishment of black communities to raise an army for invading other countries and how those soldiers came back and led to the fall of the American Empire both as law enforcement and as rebels.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

He had a rifle (which already shot 11 people) and ammunition. He surely was in a position to shoot more people. He could have came out shooting at any time and take out another officer or two. Just because someone is holed up in a building doesn't mean they're out of the fight.  

He didn't shoot all eleven people by himself. He had no superpowers. There would have been no negotiations if they thought he might come out shooting any moment, and if he had I am certain there were snipers everywhere imaginable to take him down before he even had a chance to take a breath. Police were in a position to ensure that none of them were in a vulnerable position if the gunman had tried to shoot his way out.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Snipers aren't grunts.

I can't speak to the skillset of the evidently non-existent members of "the team", but as for Johnson, his military specialty was masonry and carpentry.

Now, if he'd holed-up in that parking garage and started building a wall then we could fairly say "the military trained him to do this".

6079_Smith_W

They have only confirmed one shooter, though that is immaterial.

McVeigh was organized. Doesn't change the fact he murdered innocent people, same as what happened here.

Calling people like this martyrs and rebels like it is a good thing is no different that than Joe Walsh's "This is War".

This is not a good thing, and it is no solution except in the minds of people who glorify violence. The only thing it is going to do is generate more hatred and violence and death and undo the work of those who are trying to end that deadly cycle.

Webgear

Pondering wrote:

Snipers aren't grunts.

Sorry, but you could not be anymore wrong. Snipers are infantrymen with specialized training in reconnaissance and marksmanship.

Sniping is just a type of military tactic, anyone can conduct this type of activity with limited training and practice.

 

6079_Smith_W

What did Black Lives Matter say in response to the shooting?

Quote:

Black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it. Yesterday’s attack was the result of the actions of a lone gunman. To assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible. We continue our efforts to bring about a better world for all of us.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/the-black-lives-matter-network-advocates-for...

Who is rushing to grab their guns following this?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-calls-establishment-m...

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
He didn't shoot all eleven people by himself. He had no superpowers.

Recent events suggest you can shoot even more than 11 people all by yourself, if you have a gun.

Quote:
There would have been no negotiations if they thought he might come out shooting any moment

Why would there be negotiations if he couldn't?  What, specifically, wouild have been his bargaining chip to keep police at bay for three hours?

If he was in no position to start shooting, but police still kept their distance for three hours then perhaps you're wrong and he DID have superpowers. 

 

mark_alfred

Quote:

Russia had no choice. There were hostages. Blowing up the hostages along with the terrorists would not have worked better than knock-out gas.

Russia had the choice of continuing negotiations.  No one had been killed, and when the gas began to be pumped into the building, both the terrorists and the hostages were mortified.  Hostage Anna Andrianova called a radio station during the ordeal saying, "It seems to us that the Russians have started something. Please, give us a chance. If you can do anything, please do! ... I don't know which gas it is. But I see [the Chechens'] reactions. They don't want our deaths, and our officials want none of us to leave alive!"  The victims died due to the gas from the Russians, not due to anything from the Chechens.

Long negotiations were attempted with Johnson, but failed.

Quote:
Dallas police killed Johnson with a robot-delivered bomb after hours of overnight negotiations in a parking garage had failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dallas-shooting-suspect-johnson-1.3670524 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I liked this article and think the author hit the mark.

Quote:

In the same way bombing foreign countries year after year makes America less safe and creates more terrorists who hate us, unjustly killing US citizens year after year with no accountability will eventually make police less safe as a group as well.

Some will equate understanding the rage of the Dallas shooter as sympathy, but a failure tounderstand the cause will only ensure the violence will continue. I abhor violence in all its forms, whether directed at citizens or cops. It is simply not a solution to our problems, whether deployed by the state, our military, or private citizens.

The solution to stopping terrorism abroad is the same solution to stopping terrorism domestically (whether by the state or by citizens), as Noam Chomsky says, "Stop participating in it."

Stop bombing people and invading foreign countries and we'll start to have fewer terrorists. Stop unjustly killing US citizens year after year and we won't have people snapping with so much boiled-over rage that they finally succumb to the same level and philosophy as their enemies: using guns to murder innocent people.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/5-police-officers-in-dallas-are-d...

 

Paladin1

Just for conversation sake the rifle used in the shooting wasn't an AR15 nor was it even something that could be considered an assault rifle.

The shooter used an SKS rifle which is a relic of WW2 designed in 1943. It's the predecessor to the AK47, which sounds bad, but it's more akin to a hunting rifle.   It has a non-removeable 10 round magazine with a heavy wood stock that doesn't have a pistol grip or any high speed attachments.  The bullet is almost 3 times as heavy as the bullets police use in their AR15 rifles. These run for around $199 at Canadian tire. They're pretty cheap and shitty.

I think they're saying he also used a pistol too.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

They have only confirmed one shooter, though that is immaterial.

McVeigh was organized. Doesn't change the fact he murdered innocent people, same as what happened here.

Calling people like this martyrs and rebels like it is a good thing is no different that than Joe Walsh's "This is War".

This is not a good thing, and it is no solution except in the minds of people who glorify violence. The only thing it is going to do is generate more hatred and violence and death and undo the work of those who are trying to end that deadly cycle.

 

Great post Smith.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Here's some information I got; please take it for what it's worth. I'm just relaying it to you here for your consideration. 

I talked with a friend of mine who is deputy for Bell County and he got with some of the officers he knew up in Dallas. They basically told him the guy didn't want to surrender and in the end it looked like he was going to go down shooting. The decision to use the robot was influenced by the fact the Dallas police department had already taken so many casualties from this guy and they didn't want to risk anymore lives on an assault (by them) or a last stand firefight (by him). There was also a fear of IEDs on him. So they used the robot to end it...

 

6079_Smith_W

http://globalnews.ca/news/2813815/regina-police-investigating-officers-c...

Read the comments. About the only good thing in that story is that the Regina Police do take action when their officers allegedly ( since there hasn't been clear identification yet)  make inflammatory and hateful statements.

As for the running dialogue equating complaining about being murdered with terrorism, it is unbelieveable how stupid people are.

 

 

Paladin1

People love to hate each other. 

Even logging into Rabble I clicked on a blog from the home page  [ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2016/07/if-all-lives-matter-why... ]

Pretty brutal comments on there.

6079_Smith_W

@ mark_alfred

Not to pull that thread over here, but just as we should take BLM's criticism at face value, I wouldn't assume that because some object to what they did that they aren't open to civil disobedience.

Personally I give them a pass because I expect the nature of the concern - people of colour being murdered on a daily basis - trumps them burning up a lot of good will because of their hijacking.

But I also recognise that some are probably rightly offended at them doing this publicly, and under false pretenses. The implication is that they did not trust the organization that honoured them with a spot at the front of the parade  and felt they had to do this through deception, and by putting them in a position where they had no choice but to comply.

If we are going to say that people who object to that tactic aren't open to civil disobedience, then we should also - while underscoring support for the group and its concerns, of course - not ignore what actually DID happen.

This was not the same as the NDP's tactics in the house.

 

mark_alfred

Re:  post #43

Oh of course there are differences in the examples I brought up.  Also, since I'm from Toronto, what I notice about people's attitudes toward civil disobedience (and strikes) is reflective of the area here, and not necessarily Canada.  Anyway, it's a digression from the topic of the thread.

Unionist

So, even this thread is going to be turned into an oh-so-sweet attack on Black Lives Matter Toronto, and how "some" are "probably rightly offended" by their lack of social graces.

We saw the same kind of handwringing here when Brigette DePape silently held up a "Stop Harper" sign in the Senate. Disrespectful of our democratic institutions, you know. Imagine a teenager using her trusted position as a page to make her own statement in public.

The Dallas police, on the other hand, were only doing their job. 

Thanks for your perceptive observation, mark_alfred. Too many Canadians get upset when their privileged routine is disrupted. Like Montréal motorists coaxed by the media to complain about massive student demos in 2012 adding minutes to their morning commute.

But the times are changing. Youth and students, people of colour, Indigenous people, workers, LGBTQ folk, women everywhere - are rejecting the deceptive "comfort zone" which really only provides comfort for the wealthy and powerful. They are standing up (or sometimes, sitting down!), and we won't rest until we change the world. Let the teeth-gnashers and hand-wringers do their damnedest.

quizzical

Paladin1 wrote:
People love to hate each other. 

Even logging into Rabble I clicked on a blog from the home page  [ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2016/07/if-all-lives-matter-why... ]

Pretty brutal comments on there.

response comments?

the blog article imv is truth.

i was left thinking if the police in Russia, NKorea, Cuba or China were executing people on the street what the western media would be saying. it wouldn't be the refrain we're hearing.

 

 

mark_alfred

Re:  post 41

Yeah, I've seen very aggressive attitudes in a lot of places that presumably are progressive regarding BLM-TO's Pride action.  The reaction reminds me of how people reacted over the procedural workplace action the NDP took regarding protesting the Lib's ways and means motion for the right to die legislation.  Canada, I think (and including those who are at least moderately left-leaning), is not very open to the idea of civil disobedience, or even stuff like legal strikes. 

6079_Smith_W

quizzical wrote:

response comments?

the blog article imv is truth.

I agree. I think it is a great article, though I think he sells Ibbitson short.

All that other editorial points out is that this is an issue with a lot of conflicting values, and that it is important to recognize that.

And yes, bad responses, but not as bad as some of the racist and hateful and completely irrational ones I have seen.

 

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
But the times are changing. Youth and students, people of colour, Indigenous people, workers, LGBTQ folk, women everywhere - are rejecting the deceptive "comfort zone" which really only provides comfort for the wealthy and powerful. They are standing up (or sometimes, sitting down!), and we won't rest until we change the world. Let the teeth-gnashers and hand-wringers do their damnedest.

mom wrote something in the same tone about resistance to change on fb the other day.

 

6079_Smith_W

So anyone who questions any part of this, from the dishonesty of the tactic to the effectiveness of the demand, is just a teeth-gnasher and hand-wringer who doesn't believe in civil disobedience?

Look Unionist, if accusations like that are going to be made they deserve an answer. How is that an attack?

We are supposed to stand up and bang the drum and change the world except when it involves questioning our own actions, or denouncing people in our own camp who might think differently. Then it is not welcome.

 

 

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
quizzical wrote:
response comments?

the blog article imv is truth.

I agree. I think it is a great article, though I think he sells Ibbitson short.

All that other editorial points out is that this is an issue with a lot of conflicting values, and that it is important to recognize that.

And yes, bad responses, but not as bad as some of the racist and hateful and completely irrational ones I have seen.

here at rabble?

i only read a few of the blogs and never comments.

 

Pages