Bad Boys II

[GMDino]

(06-22-2020, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is the problem, though. The majority of this country is too lazy to do their own research. Any social movement that occurs needs to take this into account for their messaging. If the majority of the populous is not spoon fed easily digestible (i.e. short and in plain language) messaging that accurately describes the movement, then it will fall flat. Using the "defund the police" tagline is too easily misconstrued and is terrible messaging.

I agree that all it takes is for someone to make a very small effort to understand the position of the movement and their goals. I lament the inability for people to do this sort of research all the time. But my idealist viewpoint has to make way for the pragmatic side where I know that it is futility to think that will work out.

To the bold...yep.  I work with a bunch of them.  And they say dumb things and I explain it and they understand it and then they say the same dumb thing again because "the don't care" what it means...they know what they think it means.

Those people (and I don't know if they are a majority or not) won't be swayed by a better catchphrase, IMHO, anyway.

For example if the signs read "FUND MENTAL HEALTH" someone could get behind that without knowing it means taking funds from police programs but when they found that out they'd hear "DEFUND THE POLICE" anyway.

But more specifically on this board there is access to the information.  Often shared in response to an uninformed post.  So there has to be two separate discussions:  The one event bfine is hooked on because it supports his misguided thoughts about what the movement "really" is or we can talk about the concepts and ideas within the movement as a whole.

I can deal with the random internet denizen who doesn't want to find the information but when it is posted directly to someone, repeatedly, and they just keep going back to a misguided point it is being willfully ignorant.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is the problem, though. The majority of this country is too lazy to do their own research. Any social movement that occurs needs to take this into account for their messaging. If the majority of the populous is not spoon fed easily digestible (i.e. short and in plain language) messaging that accurately describes the movement, then it will fall flat. Using the "defund the police" tagline is too easily misconstrued and is terrible messaging.

I agree that all it takes is for someone to make a very small effort to understand the position of the movement and their goals. I lament the inability for people to do this sort of research all the time. But my idealist viewpoint has to make way for the pragmatic side where I know that it is futility to think that will work out.

Is it laziness? It’s really weird to put the onus on the people that are being spoken to and not the ones doing the speaking. If I’m a clear thinking person and I misunderstand your message, that’s on you, not a result of my laziness.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2020, 09:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Is it laziness?  It’s really weird to put the onus on the people that are being spoken to and not the ones doing the speaking. If I’m a clear thinking person and I misunderstand your message, that’s on you, not a result of my laziness.

The ones doing the speaking are explaining.  But you have to find where the information is.

I could give a completely explanatory speech on the subject but if it gets reduced to a headline and a couple soundbites on the local news you have to go find the entire transcript to hear what I said in order to understand it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2020, 09:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Is it laziness? It’s really weird to put the onus on the people that are being spoken to and not the ones doing the speaking. If I’m a clear thinking person and I misunderstand your message, that’s on you, not a result of my laziness.

You mistake this for me saying it is all the fault of the receivers of the message that they misunderstand it. While yes, I do see it as laziness to not put in effort to do research, it is the fault of the senders of a message to make sure their message is clear. Communication occurs in both directions, and both sides are to blame for a misunderstanding like this.

[fredtoast]

(06-22-2020, 09:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Is it laziness?  It’s really weird to put the onus on the people that are being spoken to and not the ones doing the speaking. If I’m a clear thinking person and I misunderstand your message, that’s on you, not a result of my laziness.

I have made multiple posts both here and on facebook about how it is stupid to call it "defunding the police".  I completely understand why people are confused.

But some people refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it is explained to them.  They don't even want to have an honest conversation about the issue.

So it is okay to be confused by the term butit is not okay to claim ignorance even when the issue has been explaned.

The crowd in Minneapolis wanted to get rid of the current police force and start over, but they do not claim that there will be zero law enforcement officers undre the new plan.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 10:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have made multiple posts both here and on facebook about how it is stupid to call it "defunding the police".  I completely understand why people are confused.

But some people refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it is explained to them.  They don't even want to have an honest conversation about the issue.

So it is okay to be confused by the term butit is not okay to claim ignorance even when the issue has been explaned.

The crowd in Minneapolis wanted to get rid of the current police force and start over, but they do not claim that there will be zero law enforcement officers undre the new plan.

Yeah I mean I understand what it means now, but I thought the same thing earlier as a lot of other people.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 10:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mistake this for me saying it is all the fault of the receivers of the message that they misunderstand it. While yes, I do see it as laziness to not put in effort to do research, it is the fault of the senders of a message to make sure their message is clear. Communication occurs in both directions, and both sides are to blame for a misunderstanding like this.

No it's 100% on the message giver.  There are hundreds of movements.  I'm not investigating what they all really mean.  If I happen to figure it out along the way like I did by reading posts here then great, and if I don't, then the message giver failed if they are in fact trying to get me to their cause. Not because I'm lazy.

[fredtoast]

(06-22-2020, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No it's 100% on the message giver.  There are hundreds of movements.  I'm not investigating what they all really mean.  If I happen to figure it out along the way like I did by reading posts here then great, and if I don't, then the message giver failed if they are in fact trying to get me to their cause. Not because I'm lazy.

People who support groups based only on their name but with no idea what they actually do get duped into backing a lot of really stupid shit.

I never support ANY group until I know what they are really up to.  Some of the worst groups out there have "liberty" or "freedom" in their names.

And what about the Anti-fascist movement (Antifa).  You are against fascism aren't you?  So you supporting Antifa?

[Dill]

(06-22-2020, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No it's 100% on the message giver.  There are hundreds of movements.  I'm not investigating what they all really mean.  If I happen to figure it out along the way like I did by reading posts here then great, and if I don't, then the message giver failed if they are in fact trying to get me to their cause. Not because I'm lazy.

Hmmm. There may be "hundreds of movements."  But "defund the police" emerged from a wave of nationwide protests of police killing. It's been the daily subject of every legitimate news source and Fox for weeks now.

That argues for greater attention to that one, out of all those other movements, as it is now connected to the future of the country on many levels.

In this case, there are in fact a lot of "message givers" and not all of them are failing their primary responsibility to explain, including the explainers on this MB.

At this point, when the importance of the movement is obvious to millions of Americans, and there ARE people here and on the news explaining what the movement "really" means, then it is no longer 100% on the message giver.

One reason I say this is because it is now in the interest of those opposing the movement to distort it, to disinform. They look for any bad or incomplete messaging and present that as the essence of the movement (Tucker Carlson is maybe the best at this.)

Another reason is that, yes, there are lazy voters out there who go with soundbites or their first impression. Some don't want defund the police to mean anything but "no police at all" because they prefer strawman arguments. A few go to ridiculous extremes like quoting one dictionary definition of "defund" and arguing the movement therefore HAS to be about removing all police funding, regardless of what those representing the movement say.  It's in the dictionary.

[*Nately120*]

Saying defund the police does throw detractors a hanging curve.  Still, we've had generations to tweak and diplomatically explain pro choice and pro death penalty stances and those issues still boil down to "you support murder" to detractors.  

The main issue I see is just our inability to avoid the temptation to shop for conclusions that fit our desired "reality."  There isn't much motivation to consider that people that disagree with you are anything but insane extremists.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2020, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No it's 100% on the message giver.  There are hundreds of movements.  I'm not investigating what they all really mean.  If I happen to figure it out along the way like I did by reading posts here then great, and if I don't, then the message giver failed if they are in fact trying to get me to their cause. Not because I'm lazy.

Yeah...no. Hate to tell you, but that's definitely not the case. When there is a breakdown in communication it is virtually never one-sided.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 10:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: People who support groups based only on their name but with no idea what they actually do get duped into backing a lot of really stupid shit.

I never support ANY group until I know what they are really up to.  Some of the worst groups out there have "liberty" or "freedom" in their names.

And what about the Anti-fascist movement (Antifa).  You are against fascism aren't you?  So you supporting Antifa?

  I'm not talking about supporting anyone.  I didn't say it's not your job to investigate a group you may want to support, I said it's not your job to figure out what a group stands for, that's their job.  So if I see "defund police" and I think it means eliminate police departments and think "that's stupid" and move along.  Now if I see Antifa, and think, hmmm anti-fascist sounds like a good thing, then I will look more into them.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 11:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah...no. Hate to tell you, but that's definitely not the case. When there is a breakdown in communication it is virtually never one-sided.

Of course it's one sided.  You have something you want me to know.  It's your job to inform me of what it is, and if it sounds like something i'm not interested in, then it's not incumbent upon me to go and try to change my mind, so what you name yourself is very important.  If half the country thinks you mean something different, then you did a piss poor job, and it's nobody else's fault or a result of laziness when they write you off.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2020, 12:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   I'm not talking about supporting anyone.  I didn't say it's not your job to investigate a group you may want to support, I said it's not your job to figure out what a group stands for, that's their job.  So if I see "defund police" and I think it means eliminate police departments and think "that's stupid" and move along.  Now if I see Antifa, and think, hmmm anti-fascist sounds like a good thing, then I will look more into them.  

In that instance then you (universal "you" throughout) should stop talking about it.

If you go off that initial "thought" and then don't do any more research then you shouldn't talk about it at all.

If you DO talk about it, if you respond with "I think that's stupid" and someone explains it to you then it is on you to either understand or refute the information.

Failure to do so is remaining willfully ignorant based on one thought to one phrase one time.

This thread is an example of that. Someone says one thing happened one time, someone else explains what happened around that and that one, misunderstood incident isn't the meaning behind the entire movement but that someone keeps going back and ignoring any other information other than what "they believe".

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 01:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: In that instance then you (universal "you" throughout) should stop talking about it.

If you go off that initial "thought" and then don't do any more research then you shouldn't talk about it at all.

If you DO talk about it, if you respond with "I think that's stupid" and someone explains it to you then it is on you to either understand or refute the information.

Failure to do so is remaining willfully ignorant based on one thought to one phrase one time.

I know you said universal, but I can say I for one didn't talk about it. I was just like, Whatever.  Won't happen.  And I don't argue that there aren't disingenuous people involved also.  

[GMDino]

(06-22-2020, 01:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I know you said universal, but I can say I for one didn't talk about it. I was just like, Whatever.  Won't happen.  And I don't argue that there aren't disingenuous people involved also.  

Right, if you (personally) just ignore the conversation because you made up your mind so be it.

It's those who have made up their mind because of their first thought one time who interject what they "think" about the movement and then argue with people who try to explain it to them.

If you (universal) are not going to be open to any outside information because of the very first thought you had then you are just wasting everyone's time.

And for the life of me I don't know who would post on a message board and then just say "nuh-uh" every time they have a thought challenged.  I get more outside information here then people who agree with me.  Sometimes I learn I am wrong, sometimes I learn that other people have an odd idea of what is "true".  But it is the EXCHANGE of ideas that I like no matter what my initial thought was on on some subject.

[fredtoast]

(06-22-2020, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's one sided.  You have something you want me to know.  It's your job to inform me of what it is, and if it sounds like something i'm not interested in, then it's not incumbent upon me to go and try to change my mind, so what you name yourself is very important.  If half the country thinks you mean something different, then you did a piss poor job, and it's nobody else's fault or a result of laziness when they write you off.

I agree that the label "defunding the police" is problematic, but it is ridiculous for people to still oppose it after they are told what it really means.

Right now half the country has their fingers in their ears saying "NEENER NEENER NEENER. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT." But for some reason that exact same crowd found some reason to oppose "ANTI-FASCISM".



Never seen so many people so PROUD of their "selective" ignorance.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2020, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Right, if you (personally) just ignore the conversation because you made up your mind so be it.

It's those who have made up their mind because of their first thought one time who interject what they "think" about the movement and then argue with people who try to explain it to them.

If you (universal) are not going to be open to any outside information because of the very first thought you had then you are just wasting everyone's time.

And for the life of me I don't know who would post on a message board and then just say "nuh-uh" every time they have a thought challenged.  I get more outside information here then people who agree with me.  Sometimes I learn I am wrong, sometimes I learn that other people have an odd idea of what is "true".  But it is the EXCHANGE of ideas that I like no matter what my initial thought was on on some subject.

And to add to this:  That's why I don't take disagreements personally either here or on any other social media platform.  It is okay to disagree!  Really!  And sometimes it's okay to be wrong as long as I can admit that and learn from that.

My wife doesn't understand how I can have a loud, heated conversation about things and then just go about my life.  She takes every disagreement personally...like the person doesn't like HER not just her ideas.  I don't care if someone doesn't like ME because I am not arguing against the person I have arguing about their ideas.

And, again, maybe I am more unique than I think in that approach.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2020, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree that the label "defunding the police" is problematic, but it is ridiculous for people to still oppose it after they are told what it really means.

Right now half the country has their fingers in their ears saying "NEENER NEENER NEENER. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT." But for some reason that exact same crowd found some reason to oppose "ANTI-FASCISM".



Never seen so many people so PROUD of their "selective" ignorance.

I agree. I know what it means now because I read it here. I’ve even corrected a few people.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2020, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's one sided.  You have something you want me to know.  It's your job to inform me of what it is, and if it sounds like something i'm not interested in, then it's not incumbent upon me to go and try to change my mind, so what you name yourself is very important.  If half the country thinks you mean something different, then you did a piss poor job, and it's nobody else's fault or a result of laziness when they write you off.

(06-22-2020, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree that the label "defunding the police" is problematic, but it is ridiculous for people to still oppose it after they are told what it really means.

Right now half the country has their fingers in their ears saying "NEENER NEENER NEENER. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT." But for some reason that exact same crowd found some reason to oppose "ANTI-FASCISM".



Never seen so many people so PROUD of their "selective" ignorance.

(06-22-2020, 01:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree. I know what it means now because I read it here. I’ve even corrected a few people.

Here's how it goes with the "defund the police" situation. People hear it and their opinions cause them to say "hell ya!", "let me hear more", or "back the blue!" The first and last group shut down after they hear the phrase and any further discussion on what it actually means is ineffective. This is where there can be progress on the side of the receiver. If we can step away from that knee-jerk reaction and continue to listen, we can hear more. Just like those who came up with the headline made a choice, you can make a choice to not shut off after hearing it.