This article feels a hell of a lot like concern trolling. I don't know about you, but seeing a video about something never gives context and I'm well aware of that when I see a video. But that's...
This article feels a hell of a lot like concern trolling.
I don't know about you, but seeing a video about something never gives context and I'm well aware of that when I see a video. But that's what the supporting articles, interviews, and additional videos are all about. The idea that we need to consider more than we are shown is pretty darn obvious nowadays, with actually fake (not trump fake) news on Facebook making huge headlines for our most recent election, garnering journal articles to examine who posted it and why, and launching investigations into vote manipulation.
This article, however, doesn't seem to focus on the fact that there are multiple bad actors in this situation. Instead, it tries to diffuse blame from the Covington students and adults by making the situation seem more difficult to navigate.
I don't know about you, but the last time a group of individuals was insulting me from the sidelines in some sort of protest my immediate response was not to come up to them in a group and start shit. It certainly isn't to then redirect that shit at a neutral third party that comes in to try and diffuse what's going on... and it never would involve me acting like a racist asshole.
This behavior is not excusable. The context does not matter. Society works in abstracts and we should be highlighting what the native american man did. We should be highlighting that the other groups acted in bad faith. We should be highlighting what we ideally want to see and not excusing what we don't.
The article takes this specific instance to make a point that is relatively true, in the general. But in this specific instance, the longer video did do something decisive: it undermined the...
The article takes this specific instance to make a point that is relatively true, in the general. But in this specific instance, the longer video did do something decisive: it undermined the narrative that the first, shorter video created. This matters. The kids weren't bad apples attacking an old man. They were asshats amidst other asshats. They should be held accountable for their behavior, but that accountability is now of a different order than before. In its theorizing, it felt like the article dismissed this crucial element.
The situation is muddy. But it is certainly apprehensible, when we abandon picking sides or trying to assign blame to just one group.
This article feels a hell of a lot like concern trolling.
I don't know about you, but seeing a video about something never gives context and I'm well aware of that when I see a video. But that's what the supporting articles, interviews, and additional videos are all about. The idea that we need to consider more than we are shown is pretty darn obvious nowadays, with actually fake (not trump fake) news on Facebook making huge headlines for our most recent election, garnering journal articles to examine who posted it and why, and launching investigations into vote manipulation.
This article, however, doesn't seem to focus on the fact that there are multiple bad actors in this situation. Instead, it tries to diffuse blame from the Covington students and adults by making the situation seem more difficult to navigate.
I don't know about you, but the last time a group of individuals was insulting me from the sidelines in some sort of protest my immediate response was not to come up to them in a group and start shit. It certainly isn't to then redirect that shit at a neutral third party that comes in to try and diffuse what's going on... and it never would involve me acting like a racist asshole.
This behavior is not excusable. The context does not matter. Society works in abstracts and we should be highlighting what the native american man did. We should be highlighting that the other groups acted in bad faith. We should be highlighting what we ideally want to see and not excusing what we don't.
The article takes this specific instance to make a point that is relatively true, in the general. But in this specific instance, the longer video did do something decisive: it undermined the narrative that the first, shorter video created. This matters. The kids weren't bad apples attacking an old man. They were asshats amidst other asshats. They should be held accountable for their behavior, but that accountability is now of a different order than before. In its theorizing, it felt like the article dismissed this crucial element.
The situation is muddy. But it is certainly apprehensible, when we abandon picking sides or trying to assign blame to just one group.