
Ask HN: What am I missing about the protests? - hejja
English is not my first language, honestly I am trying to understand here.<p>I am confused why there are racial justice protests over George Floyd. Please hear me out.<p>yes his death was wrongful, and yes he was black, but I don&#x27;t see anything that implies these factors were connected.<p>The officer did not have a history of racism.<p>In fact, it seems like a statistical certainty that these two factors would eventually collide and it would be caught on video.<p>So really I am starting to feel like I&#x27;m missing something - that this event is just confirmation bias on a massive scale combined with other external factors (virus masks, economic unrest).<p>I post this here because we are logical people and this is where I am with my logic right now, and I&#x27;d love to have my mind changed because I&#x27;m feeling crazy that I don&#x27;t get it.
======
Someone
Firstly, this is n=1, but many previous times something like this happened,
the victim was black, too.

Also, “the officer didn’t have a history of racism” is debatable.
[https://apnews.com/69beaad97dcea2dce6c2184e0f5b5e4e](https://apnews.com/69beaad97dcea2dce6c2184e0f5b5e4e):
“What she is certain of is how aggressive Officer Derek Chauvin became when
the club hosted events that drew a mainly black clientele, responding to
fights by taking out his mace and spraying the crowd, a tactic she told him
was unjustified “overkill.””*

That the police doesn’t have a record about this can be explained by
institutional racism in the USA police force. People believing that there is
can easily take yet another n=1 case as a trigger for protest.

I can’t blame them in a country where nobody who sees the Amy Cooper video
thinks it is satire (again n=1, but part of a pattern), but many would if the
skin colors were reversed.

------
aww_dang
People feel like it is happening to them all the time. Police stops for being
'suspicious looking', while walking on their own street. Friends who were shot
by police, bad experiences, racist remarks spoken with impunity by policemen.
The sound of car doors locking as you cross the street. Security guards
following you around the shopping center. Security guards who reach for their
mace when you try to talk to them. The list goes on. People are fed up and
frustrated.

Confirmation bias, absolutely. Every situation starts to take on racial
connotations. Going through situations wondering if it is all in your head
isn't fun either.

The lockdowns absolutely have something to do with it. When you are young and
rambunctious you absolutely want to engage in hooliganism. Get a group of
people like that together and they feed off eachother. Throw in
rationalizations about racial justice, add on heaps of frustration and combine
that with unemployment, bordem caused by months of lockdown...

Let's talk about the white guilt too. White saviors are out there projecting
their own guilt onto others, blaming society etc. They can turn that guilt
into heroism in their minds.

Then there is the general political hatred and divisive atmosphere. The whole
thing is basically a perfect storm. To assume that no one would manipulate
these forces for political gain seems like a huge leap.

Add all of these emotional factors together with a history of documented
police abuse. Do protesters need a reason? Does it matter if it is entirely
rational?

This is the situation we find ourselves in. The proposed solution is more
political bickering and blaming. Extra points if you can guess where that will
lead.

~~~
hejja
I really appreciate your response. It was thought provoking.

in fact it all makes sense.

but does rationality matter? in the context of society.. i think it has to.
because what does its absence imply?

chaos?

blind idealism? aka radicalism...

if we are starting at "silence is violence" i am afraid to see where it ends

~~~
aww_dang
People sharing their emotions and looking to explore that in the public space
could be rational. However not all of the conclusions and outcomes will be
rational when there are powerful emotions at play. Political players seeking
to benefit from these powerful emotions in election cycle doesn't seem
irrational.

To rephrase that question, is it reasonable to expect strictly rational
outcomes in an emotionally charged scenario? Appeal to emotion is an informal
logical fallacy. Perhaps the expectation of a strictly logical behavior is
overly idealistic?

If the larger society can empathize with these grievances and emotions, that
is a benefit. Anytime we have more compassion we all benefit. In that regard
it doesn't matter if the emotions follow a logical course.

Naturally, I share your concerns on how this will pan out. That said, my
impression is that the media consistently over sensationalizes anything with
political implications. The loudest voices are often the most extreme. This
makes for better content, more clicks and views.

------
sparkie
> English is not my first language, honestly I am trying to understand here.

You're doing better than many English natives, who can't use their own
language correctly. Some of the key misuses in this event are referring to
"looters", "vandals", "arsonists" and other criminals as "protestors".
Protestors protest, they don't invade, pilfer and destroy other people's
private property.

A left-wing media is complicit in continuing these kinds of misuses of English
to stir up people driven by emotion rather than logic. By failing to separate
peaceful protest from violent crime, they've helped to drum up a wave of
violence spreading over many US cities.

The people calling for this behaviour to spread are absolute hypocrites,
because they will call for destruction and chaos under the excuse of "historic
racism," but will never direct people to their own homes or businesses or
provide them the box of matches to set it ablaze. It's OK apparently, to
destroy _other people 's_ private property, but not my own.

Of course, racism has nothing to do with the violence and theft. There are two
groups engaged in the crime: one is simply petty thieves who want a quick
reward and are taking advantage of the situation to do it. The other is white
"liberals" who feel they can use the opportunity to bring about a socialist
revolution. I quote liberals because they only self-title this way but do not
behave like a liberal (another case where correct use English is being
dismantled: people believe that if they self-identify as something, it must be
true, even if reality and action prove otherwise).

To be clear, what happened to George Floyd was a disgrace and the officer in
question should be brought to swift justice. The emotionally driven mob seem
to believe that if you are against the destruction of private property then
you mustn't care about what happened to Floyd and other cases like his (which
are absolutely not exclusive to blacks). They are unable to use logic
correctly and will attempt to shame anybody calling for an end to the wave of
crime spreading through American cities, labelling them as racist or whatever
fits their narrative.

It's pretty clear that the protesting should be peaceful only, and should be
about police violence, without the racial narrative. Police violence happens
to people of every creed. It's kinda funny that these protestors will call for
an end to injustice handed down by the State, but then go home and return to
calling for a bigger State - the socialist state.

The root of the problem here is that the State does not work for the
individual, it works for the State. The police are not there to protect you,
they are there to protect the State. The worst-offender for misuse of English
is the term "we" to try and convince people that the State is, or includes
them, as individuals. Take note every time you see terms like "we", "ours",
"we should", etc. in news print. Who are they really referring to when they
use these terms? Are they talking about themselves, or are they talking about
you? It is very important! If you can't understand the basic language, how are
you ever going to make sense of reality?

~~~
hejja
nicely reasoned perspective.

language is important, we must take care of our words, certainly, but they can
fail us too.

if there is 1 looter and 99 peaceful protestors, is it a peaceful protest or a
riot?

no doubt this is delicate so it scares me when I hear that "if you're not
vocalizing your support you're taking the side of the oppressor."

so this warfare is not just happening on the streets, it's polarizing
everyone's ideologies to irreconcilable levels.

I really don't like any of this.

