Bethany has her usual "How To See More Clearly" post on current events, in this case, how people feel about the NFL protests and the fallout. Key phrase
As is often seen with contentious issues, there is a 10 point swing when changing the wording.
Here's how I see it: I'm against kitten torture, but if an anti-kitten-torture activist took the knee during my daughter's wedding vows, making sure to get the action into the wedding video (OK, I don't have a daughter and wouldn't videotape a wedding, but you get my point), one of my first thoughts beyond annoyance would be, "What the heck is the connection supposed to be between my daughter's marriage and the deplorable custom of kitten torture? What insulting point are you trying to make here? Why are you hijacking a valuable public ceremony to make a superfluous statement about opposition to something no one likes anyway?"
Obviously you can't count me among the ranks of enthusiastic supports of police brutality. I still take umbrage at the idea that the U.S. is such a shining example of the source of police brutality culture that it's meaningful to protest the National Anthem in order to virtue-signal your startling opposition to maiming innocent people. ("If you respect the flag, you must want police to beat up people of color!") So of course for me the issue is about patriotism as well as opposition to a police state.
The only people who object to anti-police-brutality statements are those who doubt it happens as often as is sometimes charged, or that it means quite what it is said to mean. Equating that kind of skepticism with blind jingoistic patriotism, then attacking a symbol of patriotism to make one's "point" more stinging, and frankly to give deliberate offense because you're in a bad mood about it, is just rubbish.
Texan99 - thanks, I've been thinking along the same lines since I read Bethany's post. I understand the concept she's presenting but I think I'm objecting to the way it's presented. I don't think it's that question wording necessarily changes people's views as much as a different wording prompts them to answer a different question. This is inherent in framing the question in such a way as to force a 'yes' or 'no' answer. It's perfectly valid for people to accept the players have a right to make their views known in some way on game day but still object to the specific action of kneeling rather than standing during the Anthem. The problem is more when people conflate the answer to one question with another, or attempt to compare results that are apples and horses.
Alternative key sentence: "This backs up my general theory that most people are only half paying attention most of the time anyway."
ReplyDeleteIf it fits the usual patterns, you can slot in the information and go about your business.
Here's how I see it: I'm against kitten torture, but if an anti-kitten-torture activist took the knee during my daughter's wedding vows, making sure to get the action into the wedding video (OK, I don't have a daughter and wouldn't videotape a wedding, but you get my point), one of my first thoughts beyond annoyance would be, "What the heck is the connection supposed to be between my daughter's marriage and the deplorable custom of kitten torture? What insulting point are you trying to make here? Why are you hijacking a valuable public ceremony to make a superfluous statement about opposition to something no one likes anyway?"
ReplyDeleteObviously you can't count me among the ranks of enthusiastic supports of police brutality. I still take umbrage at the idea that the U.S. is such a shining example of the source of police brutality culture that it's meaningful to protest the National Anthem in order to virtue-signal your startling opposition to maiming innocent people. ("If you respect the flag, you must want police to beat up people of color!") So of course for me the issue is about patriotism as well as opposition to a police state.
The only people who object to anti-police-brutality statements are those who doubt it happens as often as is sometimes charged, or that it means quite what it is said to mean. Equating that kind of skepticism with blind jingoistic patriotism, then attacking a symbol of patriotism to make one's "point" more stinging, and frankly to give deliberate offense because you're in a bad mood about it, is just rubbish.
Texan99 - thanks, I've been thinking along the same lines since I read Bethany's post. I understand the concept she's presenting but I think I'm objecting to the way it's presented. I don't think it's that question wording necessarily changes people's views as much as a different wording prompts them to answer a different question. This is inherent in framing the question in such a way as to force a 'yes' or 'no' answer. It's perfectly valid for people to accept the players have a right to make their views known in some way on game day but still object to the specific action of kneeling rather than standing during the Anthem. The problem is more when people conflate the answer to one question with another, or attempt to compare results that are apples and horses.
ReplyDelete