SpiralStairs wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
IMU wrote:
You're clueless. What Pence did is exactly attempting to derail or stifle the protest by 'officially' declaring it disrespectful and saying he (the system) won't give it the time of day.
Ah, now the goalposts are shifting. Where in "leaves the game with an attempt to thwart our efforts" is Reid decidedly not talking about the act of Pence leaving the game? Reid clearly said that Pence leaving the game is oppression of him and his message. Your attempts to pretend that isn't what he was saying are getting ever more colorful.
And no, Pence calling the protests "disrespectful" is not oppressive. It's stupid, but it isn't oppressive.
Other than proving IMU wrong (which is admittedly satisfying), what do you gain from pointing out that Pence leaving a football game isn't literally oppressive?
Football guy says wrong thing! Film at 11.
I think it is important to keep outlandish things like what Reid said in check, because letting people fly off at the handle and say whatever they want without a reality check (here it is lacking out of fear of being labeled an oppressor or worse, as IMU has shown time and again that leftists literally will call you a Nazi for not agreeing with them wholeheartedly) will result in the intended recipients of the message becoming disheartened and frustrated with All The Things That Are Wrong, and shut down instead of listening, or acting, or both.
The misconception is that people seem to think that overstating a problem will entice people to act in opposition to whatever the baseline, real, problem is. The justification is that "well, if people think the executive branch is actively oppressing Eric Reid's message, then more people will act", just like the justification for still using the 1 in 5 statistic is "well, if people think that rape is so widespread on college campuses, they will be more likely to act", the final caveat for both being "so who cares if what is said by [Reid or faulty statistics] is actually accurate".
I don't think that's necessarily true, because at some point, people will either think, because of overstatement and overreaction like Reid's, that the problem (whatever it is) is so widespread there's no chance or point in trying to fight it, or the overreactions will become so galling that even Most People will be able to see them as bullshit, and react negatively to such a brazen attempt to bullshit and control them by someone outside of their ideological comfort zone.
I just don't think it is helpful, in any respect, to be so hyperbolic about these things, and I think such hyperbole is actually detrimental to practical efforts to exact substantive change.