We are talking about men here, and men tend to be a lot more right wing than women regardless of race and regardless of whether they vote Democrat or Republican.
Threads like this tell me that this protest movement is a worthwhile one and will ultimately be successful.
You would think the footage and/or details of some of the worst incidents would be enough, but no it seems we actually needed famous athletes to draw attention to the issue.
And how will it be successful? are police just going to say, “Well darn, NFL players feel strongly about this, I guess I won’t shoot innocent black men anymore.”?
No; the same way anything changes – public pressure.
If enough people think change needs to come, eventually politicians have to support that change. And threads like this are one of the early signs in that shift in public opinion happening. And yes, people saying “Oh those over-entitled NFL players” or “Talk about cops after you’ve solved black on black crime” or whatever, are *also *the early signs, because this kind of conversation always starts with trying to handwave it and not listen. But the conversation has started now.
And what changes would be made to reduce police brutality?
I’d say the most important features are causes that identify and explain a lack of fundamental fairness and the need to correct the situation. Look at our own revolution. What was the argument for it? That the Crown wasn’t treating us fairly in terms of taxation. Look at the civil rights movements - any of them. Look at anti-imperialist movements, socialism, communism. Look at revolutions in many countries. What’s the argument? That people aren’t being treated fairly, that the social contract has not been honored. I’ve described it before: humans have what I term a ‘fairness meter’. People have the built-in ability to detect when they aren’t being treated fairly. It’s just a matter of when they recognize it and whom they decide to blame and what action they take as a response.
Once people identify the cause, the next step is much harder. You have to get other people to recognize the unfairness that you see, and quite often, movements need the support of people who aren’t necessarily injured by the lack of fairness. It’s one thing to recognize that people aren’t being treated fairly, but how do we get people with no skin in the game to recognize the problem and join the struggle? I think this is where a lot of movements (like Occupy) go south.
The conduct of Martin Luther King Jr, SNCC, and others made the civil rights movement an attractive one to join. They dressed up in nice clothes and advocated non-violent resistance. They made the oppressors with water hoses look like the bad guys. Every time they were beaten, every time they were water hosed, they gained sympathy, because they were viewed as decent people who were being unjustly harmed. More importantly, like the Founding Fathers in their struggle against the Crown, they were a revolution with strong intellectual roots, which brings up the last ingredient of successful movements.
Revolutionaries may sometimes choose the right cause, but they won’t succeed on passions alone. A movement requires concrete thought and planning, and they have to be prepared to make changes that they advocate work with minimal disruption, whether we’re talking about integrating an apartheid society or bringing medicare for all or something else. Movements require not just a lot of people but a lot of the right people to organize and execute what they’re doing.
I think Colin Kaepernick’s taking a knee and the vigorous responses to it exemplifies what I’m talking about. Kaepernick isn’t really doing a lot of trash talking. He’s not going on profane television or social media rants. He just made a symbolic gesture and then people started turning on the water hose, so to speak. And every time they turn it on, whether it’s the Bay Area police departments who threaten to stop doing security detail at 49ers games, Donald Trump, or angry people on social media, they just make themselves look worse and they make Kaepernick look like a gentle giant. Contrast this to, say, the rap group NWA who produced the song ‘F— the Police’. It got attention in the underground rap community but that’s where it remained forever. There was no way to gain a mainstream audience, and there never will be with that kind of hostile message. Most people - even black people - appreciate good cops. They just want something done about the bad ones.
I think the main 3 are: improved officer training, prosecutions for clear displays of misconduct (yes, I know in theory that’s already supposedly the case…), and public figures not being afraid to support victims in egregious cases. You don’t need to be “anti-cop” to say this officer’s behaviour in this instance was unacceptable, and that trickles down to change the culture within the force.
In fairness, there are also plenty of rap songs that respectfully point out failings, 911 is a joke comes to mind.
It’s just not a good medium for getting out a message like that; there’s a high correlation between people who think black people have few if any legitimate grievances and people who don’t care to listen to rap music and think it’s “just talking”.
What conversation?
The one about police violence towards black people? That has been going on for several years now. If anything, that conversation has been superceded by Trump making the protest disrespecting the flag.
The one about Trump being a dick? That conversation is already over. The circle jerks are complete and it’s moved on to circle jerking about Trump being a dick to Puerto Rico.
Firstly, if that conversation has happened, what was the result? Has there been any change yet? If not, and people still feel strongly about this issue, then it makes sense for them to protest, no?
But more importantly, your point is self-refuting. If everyone is familiar with this debate then trump wouldn’t be able to say it’s just about disrespecting the flag: we’d all already be familiar with the real debate.
If trump was just some private citizen then we’d all ignore the fact that he’s a dick, same as we have for the last few decades. But as president, there are real consequences. Yes we need to point out every time he’s wrong, delusional or treats a segment of the population unfairly.
The OP is on point for pretty much all the points listed. But I think the biggest factor is simply 1) persistence across a broad spectrum and 2) impose consequences for disagreement. Pretty much anything is achievable if the voice is persistent enough across a wide swath of media and soundwaves. The Overton Window can be moved anywhere.
Take gay marriage, for instance. Fifty years ago, probably unthinkable; today it’s mainstream. It was a combination of two things: 1) The pro-SSM message was persistently pushed for a long time, and 2) society gradually imposed stiffer and stiffer penalties and consequences on people who spoke up against SSM.
The second part didn’t bring SSM about though, it’s just revenge after the war has been won.
Interesting how you assume petty, vindictive motives for the enforcement of equal rights.
Imposing stiffer penalties for speaking out against SSM is not part of any civil rights enforcement I know of. But in any case, that came after SSM was accepted, not before. Punishing people with a different viewpoint has never been a hallmark of a successful movement, although it is a hallmark of victorius social movements post-victory, just as it’s a hallmark of victorious armies.
Protests are effective if they simply garner the public support and ultimately enact change.
Kneeling for the anthem doesn’t accomplish either.
Give it time.
How long do you think it took other civil rights causes (suffrage, end of jim crow, gay rights) to get a majority of public support?
…can you point out what exactly are the penalties for “speaking out against SSM?”
What on earth are you going on about now?
You’ve all but conceded that none of your conditions in the OP are meaningful in any way. And now you are claiming that people suffer penalties and are punished for “speaking out against SSM.” That is a pretty extraordinary claim. Any cites or proof or examples?
Actually that’s what Velocity said, but he’s right. Brandon Eich?