|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH.
Let's say that Jimmy always walks through the door in the morning, and Gloria sits by the door every day. Let's just say that Jimmy could use other doors, while Gloria cannot move.
Day 1: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes
Day 2: Same deal
Day 3: Same deal
Day 4: Same deal
Day 20: Gloria finally has had it, and confronts Jimmy about him tripping on her. He apologizes profusely and says that he will do everything he can to stop it in the future.
Day 21: Jimmy walks through the door and apologizes again. Gloria asks why he cannot take another door, and Jimmy says that the other one is a two minute walk from his car; it's inconvenient. However, he really is sorry about tripping on her!
Day 22: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes
Day 23: Same deal
Day 24: Same deal
Day 100: Gloria finally has it and punches Jimmy in the face. Everyone around her comments how violent she is, and how she can barely control her temper, and how with actions like that, it's no wonder Jimmy accidentally tripped on her.
Blaming Black people for their own oppression is color-blind racist. It tries to say we live in an even world, where Jimmy is just trying to walk through the door on Day 100; it ignores the 99 days before when he refused to change his behavior even when it negatively effected Gloria.
Rough analogy, hoping it gets the point across somewhat.
|
I'm really annoyed at most of the things I read all over the internet right now about the "Baltimore Riots". Now before I start I'm not saying that the rioting doesn't deserve to be talk about, it's definitely part of the whole ordeal and it deserves some attention. However, it's all we hear about. It's all everybody talks about. The national guard is there because of the riots. That is what is happening.
I think it's pretty fucking sad that we live in a culture where damn near everybody thinks they're cool because they know that the mass media have become masters in swaying the popular opinion, they show us parts of the story, they go for sensationalism before veracity and anything else. And yet the people consistently show that they themselves are consumers of this trend, they themselves reward it, and fuck in some cases, they themselves participate in it. Go on Imgur and see those fucking clowns talking about the Baltimore riots, everyone is outraged except the few oddball comments that refer to the social and political crisis that those riots emerged from. Those are few and far between. They want their fucking upvotes those damn vultures. It doesn't take too long to realize that mass medias are the way they are for a good reason, it's not just that they want ad revenue and they need numbers, but it's because they're a mirror of the society they sell to.
I recognize that all this is fairly elementary, but fuck is it frustrating. It's frustrating that this stupid idiot would wear a tshirt that says "black power" during the riot and the looting of a convenience store, undermining the entire movement. It's frustrating that people collectively are so god damn attached to their bullshit meaningless news that the big picture is lost on them.
What is happening in Baltimore, according to almost everyone? Riots and looting, and the national guard is involved in trying to keep the peace. Why? One black kid was killed by police again. And world war one started because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. Spoonfeed those plebs that shit they won't know the god damn difference.
|
On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation.
I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist.
|
On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist.
It's not seeing the rioting as negative that makes the actions racist, it's spending so much more time and effort posting/reporting on the rioting rather than the systemic injustice that makes the actions racist.
As an example fox news had live shots on the street and they kept telling them to pan away from the people praying and onto the people taking stuff out of stores. They say things like "where are the black leaders" and then when they try to show/tell them what they are doing and where they are, they literally ignore them and go back to their bullshit narrative.
At one point they asked someone "Why are you so angry" to which he replied "I am not angry..." to which right after he finished talking the 'reporter' said "Everyone is angry"
|
On April 28 2015 13:06 YoureFired wrote:Let's say that Jimmy always walks through the door in the morning, and Gloria sits by the door every day. Let's just say that Jimmy could use other doors, while Gloria cannot move. Day 1: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 2: Same deal Day 3: Same deal Day 4: Same deal Day 20: Gloria finally has had it, and confronts Jimmy about him tripping on her. He apologizes profusely and says that he will do everything he can to stop it in the future. Day 21: Jimmy walks through the door and apologizes again. Gloria asks why he cannot take another door, and Jimmy says that the other one is a two minute walk from his car; it's inconvenient. However, he really is sorry about tripping on her! Day 22: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 23: Same deal Day 24: Same deal Day 100: Gloria finally has it and punches Jimmy in the face. Everyone around her comments how violent she is, and how she can barely control her temper, and how with actions like that, it's no wonder Jimmy accidentally tripped on her. Blaming Black people for their own oppression is color-blind racist. It tries to say we live in an even world, where Jimmy is just trying to walk through the door on Day 100; it ignores the 99 days before when he refused to change his behavior even when it negatively effected Gloria. Rough analogy, hoping it gets the point across somewhat.
The problem with the analogy is that the purpose of tripping over Gloria is not to deter her from punching him (or anyone). The reason that anti-police riots are so damaging to the message is that this specific action is the exact kind of action that people want police to deter. It undermines the point of the protest to the core because the message is "police are treating us unfairly" but then the violence indicates that no, they are treating you fairly because you cannot be trusted to act in accordance with the law.
That is why, in these contexts, the riot consumes the context, because by rioting you are committing an action that indicates that the police were correct in treating you differently from the start.
|
On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist.
Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question).
However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself.
|
On April 28 2015 13:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:06 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. Let's say that Jimmy always walks through the door in the morning, and Gloria sits by the door every day. Let's just say that Jimmy could use other doors, while Gloria cannot move. Day 1: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 2: Same deal Day 3: Same deal Day 4: Same deal Day 20: Gloria finally has had it, and confronts Jimmy about him tripping on her. He apologizes profusely and says that he will do everything he can to stop it in the future. Day 21: Jimmy walks through the door and apologizes again. Gloria asks why he cannot take another door, and Jimmy says that the other one is a two minute walk from his car; it's inconvenient. However, he really is sorry about tripping on her! Day 22: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 23: Same deal Day 24: Same deal Day 100: Gloria finally has it and punches Jimmy in the face. Everyone around her comments how violent she is, and how she can barely control her temper, and how with actions like that, it's no wonder Jimmy accidentally tripped on her. Blaming Black people for their own oppression is color-blind racist. It tries to say we live in an even world, where Jimmy is just trying to walk through the door on Day 100; it ignores the 99 days before when he refused to change his behavior even when it negatively effected Gloria. Rough analogy, hoping it gets the point across somewhat. The problem with the analogy is that the purpose of tripping over Gloria is not to deter her from punching him (or anyone). The reason that anti-police riots are so damaging to the message is that this specific action is the exact kind of action that people want police to deter. It undermines the point of the protest to the core because the message is "police are treating us unfairly" but then the violence indicates that no, they are treating you fairly because you cannot be trusted to act in accordance with the law. That is why, in these contexts, the riot consumes the context, because by rioting you are committing an action that indicates that the police were correct in treating you differently from the start.
This is a fair point, but I would argue that people seek the justification for Black people's oppression (the riots) rather than critically examining the situation. IE the protests are going fine in most instances, but as soon as a riot starts the media is on it like a firestorm.
|
On April 28 2015 13:20 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist. Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question). However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself.
Why can't both be true though? Why can't rioting be seen as detrimental to Black rights as well as the underlying systematic racism?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting and you mean that its not that they can't both be true but that its shitty that they're reporting on the one without the context of the other?
|
On April 28 2015 13:23 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist. Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question). However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself. Why can't both be true though? Why can't rioting be seen as detrimental to Black rights as well as the underlying systematic racism? Maybe I'm misinterpreting and you mean that its not that they can't both be true but that its shitty that they're reporting on the one without the context of the other?
Has anyone here or elsewhere of any substance ever suggested that riots aren't detrimental? I just don't get where stuff like that comes from.
|
On April 28 2015 13:23 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist. Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question). However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself. Why can't both be true though? Why can't rioting be seen as detrimental to Black rights as well as the underlying systematic racism? Maybe I'm misinterpreting and you mean that its not that they can't both be true but that its shitty that they're reporting on the one without the context of the other?
Well he does say it's about the narrative. There are people who don't give a flying fuck about equality or black rights but they'll barge in and say "riots are hurting black rights", once again not because they give a fuck about black rights, but because the only time they're concerned about the issue at all is when there's rioting. Now that is not okay!
But the 300-some other days of the year are fine. You'll never hear them being concerned about inequality.
So while it's fine to speak of the riots as a setback for black rights in terms of strategy and political gains in the public arena, it's also a cheesy way to score points as a dick and a pundit who doesn't actually care.
|
On April 28 2015 13:23 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist. Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question). However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself. Why can't both be true though? Why can't rioting be seen as detrimental to Black rights as well as the underlying systematic racism? Maybe I'm misinterpreting and you mean that its not that they can't both be true but that its shitty that they're reporting on the one without the context of the other?
They're both true! However, as GH said, the media (esp FOX but also CNN) focus on the riots rather than anything about the racism and institutional/structural discrimination that caused them.
|
On April 28 2015 13:22 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 28 2015 13:06 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. Let's say that Jimmy always walks through the door in the morning, and Gloria sits by the door every day. Let's just say that Jimmy could use other doors, while Gloria cannot move. Day 1: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 2: Same deal Day 3: Same deal Day 4: Same deal Day 20: Gloria finally has had it, and confronts Jimmy about him tripping on her. He apologizes profusely and says that he will do everything he can to stop it in the future. Day 21: Jimmy walks through the door and apologizes again. Gloria asks why he cannot take another door, and Jimmy says that the other one is a two minute walk from his car; it's inconvenient. However, he really is sorry about tripping on her! Day 22: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 23: Same deal Day 24: Same deal Day 100: Gloria finally has it and punches Jimmy in the face. Everyone around her comments how violent she is, and how she can barely control her temper, and how with actions like that, it's no wonder Jimmy accidentally tripped on her. Blaming Black people for their own oppression is color-blind racist. It tries to say we live in an even world, where Jimmy is just trying to walk through the door on Day 100; it ignores the 99 days before when he refused to change his behavior even when it negatively effected Gloria. Rough analogy, hoping it gets the point across somewhat. The problem with the analogy is that the purpose of tripping over Gloria is not to deter her from punching him (or anyone). The reason that anti-police riots are so damaging to the message is that this specific action is the exact kind of action that people want police to deter. It undermines the point of the protest to the core because the message is "police are treating us unfairly" but then the violence indicates that no, they are treating you fairly because you cannot be trusted to act in accordance with the law. That is why, in these contexts, the riot consumes the context, because by rioting you are committing an action that indicates that the police were correct in treating you differently from the start. This is a fair point, but I would argue that people seek the justification for Black people's oppression (the riots) rather than critically examining the situation. IE the protests are going fine in most instances, but as soon as a riot starts the media is on it like a firestorm.
Rioting hurts the political message, no blacks themselves
|
If it bleeds it leads; that's a media truism that's quite old.
Media exists in part to make money, so of course it's going to focus on things that people will watch. A lot fewer people are interested in long policy debates and complicated analysis. Do you watch c-span?
To my eye, the media looks at both issues, though of course relatively speaking a lot of attention is paid to the riot right now, of course that's because it's happening right now. The question will be what's the mix of news coverage in a week, a month, a year.
|
On April 28 2015 13:30 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:22 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 13:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 28 2015 13:06 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. Let's say that Jimmy always walks through the door in the morning, and Gloria sits by the door every day. Let's just say that Jimmy could use other doors, while Gloria cannot move. Day 1: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 2: Same deal Day 3: Same deal Day 4: Same deal Day 20: Gloria finally has had it, and confronts Jimmy about him tripping on her. He apologizes profusely and says that he will do everything he can to stop it in the future. Day 21: Jimmy walks through the door and apologizes again. Gloria asks why he cannot take another door, and Jimmy says that the other one is a two minute walk from his car; it's inconvenient. However, he really is sorry about tripping on her! Day 22: Jimmy accidentally trips over Gloria and apologizes Day 23: Same deal Day 24: Same deal Day 100: Gloria finally has it and punches Jimmy in the face. Everyone around her comments how violent she is, and how she can barely control her temper, and how with actions like that, it's no wonder Jimmy accidentally tripped on her. Blaming Black people for their own oppression is color-blind racist. It tries to say we live in an even world, where Jimmy is just trying to walk through the door on Day 100; it ignores the 99 days before when he refused to change his behavior even when it negatively effected Gloria. Rough analogy, hoping it gets the point across somewhat. The problem with the analogy is that the purpose of tripping over Gloria is not to deter her from punching him (or anyone). The reason that anti-police riots are so damaging to the message is that this specific action is the exact kind of action that people want police to deter. It undermines the point of the protest to the core because the message is "police are treating us unfairly" but then the violence indicates that no, they are treating you fairly because you cannot be trusted to act in accordance with the law. That is why, in these contexts, the riot consumes the context, because by rioting you are committing an action that indicates that the police were correct in treating you differently from the start. This is a fair point, but I would argue that people seek the justification for Black people's oppression (the riots) rather than critically examining the situation. IE the protests are going fine in most instances, but as soon as a riot starts the media is on it like a firestorm. Rioting hurts the political message, no blacks themselves
Undermining a political message which has the potential to make the lives of black people better in the US does hurt the blacks themselves fairly directly.
|
On April 28 2015 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:04 heliusx wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. Yeah, I figured as much. Honestly I don't think you can. I can't explain it in a way that someone like you would accept no. I don't think anyone could. It's certainly not because you are right though.
There's no need to throw insults around, after all you can't even explain your position.
|
I do not believe rioting will change anything in a capitalist system unless protesters are reserve owners, strong foundations, army, lobbies and lodges. Rest are a flash in the pan.
|
On April 28 2015 13:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 13:04 heliusx wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. Yeah, I figured as much. Honestly I don't think you can. I can't explain it in a way that someone like you would accept no. I don't think anyone could. It's certainly not because you are right though. There's no need to throw insults around, after all you can't even explain your position.
Not insulting you. I'm just saying I can't explain it to you in a way you would accept. Fired tried, tell me why that explanation isn't satisfactory to you?
On April 28 2015 13:32 zlefin wrote:
If it bleeds it leads; that's a media truism that's quite old.
Media exists in part to make money, so of course it's going to focus on things that people will watch. A lot fewer people are interested in long policy debates and complicated analysis. Do you watch c-span?
To my eye, the media looks at both issues, though of course relatively speaking a lot of attention is paid to the riot right now, of course that's because it's happening right now. The question will be what's the mix of news coverage in a week, a month, a year.
I guess people could accept that explanation if they want but that truism isn't much of an explanation for how/what people choose to post about in relation to issues like this.
|
On April 28 2015 13:28 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 13:23 Zambrah wrote:On April 28 2015 13:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 13:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. I mean like I'm mostly on your side on this issue, but I don't see how seeing the rioting as a negative for their message makes me racist. Having the view that rioting makes Black political movements look bad isn't necessarily racist (sorry if I made it seem broader; I'm fired up so PM me if you ever have a question). However, pushing the narrative that "riots hurt Black rights" rather than "racism hurts Black rights", which is what xDaunt, the media and colorblind advocates do, is racist. It focuses on the reaction to oppression rather than the oppression itself. Why can't both be true though? Why can't rioting be seen as detrimental to Black rights as well as the underlying systematic racism? Maybe I'm misinterpreting and you mean that its not that they can't both be true but that its shitty that they're reporting on the one without the context of the other? They're both true! However, as GH said, the media (esp FOX but also CNN) focus on the riots rather than anything about the racism and institutional/structural discrimination that caused them.
Of course people focus on riots. Its not just American media, the frontpage of le monde http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2015/04/27/baltimore-nouveaux-affrontements-apres-les-funerailles-d-un-jeune-noir_4623749_3222.html has coverage of the Baltimore riots without an in depth evaluation of the civil rights problems.
I don't really take seriously a media criticism of that sort.
|
The only thing rioting does is reinforce cultural stereotypes and minimize the movement at large. It's tragic, really. To see people wearing "No Justice, No Peace" shirts in the middle of a civil rights assembly, a mere fifty years after one of our nation's greatest heroes literally wrote the book on how to protest, in which nonviolence is paramount.
I wish I had something more profound to say, but I don't. I'm really dissatisfied with the state of my country, and I need to stop trying to express myself after midnight because I struggle to find the right words. I'll let someone else do it for me:
I agree with your point that the principle of peaceful, non-violent protest and the observance of the rule of law is of utmost importance in any society. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela and all great opposition leaders throughout history have always preached this precept. Further, it is critical that in any democracy, investigation must be completed and due process must be honored before any government or police members are judged responsible.
That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.
The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importances of any kids’ game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ballgame irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans.
source
|
My local media in Quebec also is focused on the riots. Same with CBC. The Journal de Montréal is mostly concerned about a baseball game being cancelled...?
Anyway fuck this I'm going to sleep and hopefully these collective cockadoodles blow over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
