*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, July 9th, 2016 8:11am PDT - promote requested by WeedandWeirdness.

Wonderfully spoken, poignant and on-point.

1

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by newtboy.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-Guns-Are-Not-Protection

Jim Jefferies - Guns Are Not Protection has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

a guess based on very little information:

he was shooting at an abstract, at a proxy for the system and source of a pervasive and ubiquitous fear, at the protectors of the very thing that is causing a lot of the suffering and senseless death within his community. it was clearly an act of desperation and the really sad part is no one will ever consider any of that and no one will ever be able to say any of that in public and so this act of desperation becomes another piece of the narrative of apologetics to maintain the status quo. a reciprocal of the bullshit "bad apples" argument that gets repeated ad nauseam.

while this op ed is thoughtful and considered, it isn't thoughtful enough, imo. but no one is allowed to consider the motivation for this act of desperation to be legitimate.

..Because it's NOT.

There is NEVER a legitimate reason for a mass shooting of ANYONE.

Seriously, I'm not entirely sure if you're defending the guy who shot at 11 cops, killing at least 4. But it sure as hell sounds like it.

However, lets take the word "Cops" outta there. The guy who shot 11, killing at least 4. Doesn't matter what the hell is wrong with you. Murder is NEVER the damn solution.

this is exactly why there will be no learning or awareness gained from this tragedy. you are either "defending a "terrorist"" [not your words, but it is a prevailing part of the public narrative] or you're towing the party line and making sure nothing changes.

i'm not defending the killing of anyone but i am trying to understand why. i'm trying to consider the context and internal logic that drove someone to do this. this made sense to him and we should try to understand why. and honestly, this type of desperate, damaging, and explosive reaction isn't surprising to me considering recent events, the coverage and public reaction to those events, and the categorical inaction that follows.

it is possible to empathize without endorsing the actions.

I'm totally with you on the need to understand the motives that drove him to this desperate and indefensible action.
I don't think trying to understand what happened is condoning it, but I do think it's a necessary step in trying to keep it from repeating.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that he had some bad encounters with police. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that he felt abused by a nation that he served in war but wouldn't stand with him (or those like him) when police abuse them. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he thought his community was under attack from the police, and that belief was reinforced daily on the news. It's only a guess, but I would guess he didn't have a great life, so didn't have much to lose in this suicide attack (he couldn't think he would survive).

I also don't think it's a stretch to believe this won't be the last time this happens if the current division between police and citizens continues to grow. One can only hope that this terroristic act will foster empathy in both directions...for, and from police, or I fear we're doomed to see an escalation of this kind of thing.

As a society, we disagree, and sometimes condone mass shootings.

War is considered a legitimate reason for mass shooting of anyone designated the enemy.
Self defense is also a legitimate reason for mass shooting a group that's attacking you.

As for murder NEVER being the solution, it depends on your specific definition of murder. Homicide IS sometimes the best solution. "Murder", rarely, but there are rare times when it may be the best possible solution to a problem, terrible as it may be.

The only true absolute is "there are no absolutes"....which paradoxically makes that statement untrue by virtue of it's own veracity and vice versa. ;-)

Is it really such a good idea to respond to this shit by giving the murderer that kind of attention? I can't help feeling that if the only time the media attempts to get inside the head of a black man is when said black man kills a bunch of cops, then you're probably asking for more shootings. I think you give the victims attention - you do your best to show them as human beings whose life was ended by a senseless act of malice. I mean, there was a whole fucking protest dedicated to explaining the reasons for that malice, maybe start by examining why _they_ were out on the streets that night.

? What kind of attention do you mean?
The protest was likely a glimpse into his head. Explaining why they were on the streets is getting inside the heads of black men, and also explaining why one black man decided enough was enough and took indefensible actions in a misguided attempt to 'defend' his community.
If you ignore what causes these shootings in order to not give shooters attention, you guarantee more of them.
That he needed to explain why someone might feel constantly under attack by police IS the problem, the explanation is not the problem.

understanding the motivations of someone who commits violent acts is paramount to preventing them. that "attention" doesn't justify the actions. avoiding any analysis of why they did what they did is to guarantee it will happen again. this method is par for course, especially in the US, and simply ignores the problem and usually exacerbates them. 9/11 being probably the biggest example of this.

I thought he was going to go all negative and just wax nostalgic....but he surprised me.

Calling the Lieutenant Governor a fool was awesome.

and he is right shooting the cops back isn't the answer...but I am afraid it will be until another answer steps forward.

upvote