Just one of MANY stories why BLM protests are so much less risky than, e.g., Trump rallies.
When it was widely rebuked as hypocritical bullshit, they even came up with a crazy way of explaining it away: Now racism was a "public health crisis", all of a sudden. See the google trends: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r...
Just like how January 6 was an insurrection worthy of months of security state theatrics and proclamations that "white supremacy" is the biggest threat to the USA domestically, whereas an entire summer of burning buildings and riots was "mostly peaceful protests".
This is why nobody trusts authority and the media anymore--they have given up on even a pretense of seeming trustworthy.
Those are factual claims about the protests being less risky than the rallies. They’re either true or false. There’s nothing hypocritical here where anyone is saying it’s okay to attend one event and not the other because of the purpose of the event. It’s literally claiming that one event is outdoors and attendees tend to follow health guidelines, while the other event is indoors and attendees tend to not follow health guidelines. Is the claim false? Perhaps, and anyone is free to argue that. But this is nothing close to an example of the situation previously described.
> It’s literally claiming that one event is outdoors and attendees tend to follow health guidelines
Yes - and it’s not true - there is plenty of footage of protesters not following health guidelines, and indeed plenty of discussion of how the protests may have precipitated a covid spike.
The fact that other similar events were not permitted proves the hypocrisy in the public health guidance regardless of the outcome.
If you don’t think there is any political bias in public health policy, that’s fine, but it seems like we are in disagreement about that.
> If you don’t think there is any political bias in public health policy, that’s fine, but it seems like we are in disagreement about that.
This is a significant altering of the goal posts. But anyway, you seem convinced it's all part of some huge partisan battle where you're sure that your side is the good side and everything is stacked against your side. I'm not part of this battle.
> This is a significant altering of the goal posts.
Not really - it’s a matter of degree. When there is too much bias displayed, it stops being public health and is discredited.
> you seem convinced it's all part of some huge partisan battle where you're sure that your side is the good side and everything is stacked against your side.
This seems like pure imagination on your part. I suggest you reread the thread. You’ll see no evidence anything partisan from me.
I simply think that public health officials have undermined trust by politicizing the issues or otherwise distorted their message. I.e. they have ‘discredited’ the field as the other poster said.
> I'm not part of this battle.
Are you sure? You are the only one reading this conversation and seeing a ‘battle’.
