The world really does seem quite upside down lately, Steve. The mob mentality you have so aptly described harks back to the days when any African American could be lynched because it was “suspected” that the perpetrator of some crime had too much melanin. Trouble is that well reasoned essays like yours aren’t able to quell the mass hysteria too many human beings are susceptible to. But do keep writing. Some of us are reading and paying attention.
Speaking of "they" stereotypes and assumptions. The homes next door are rentals. New people are moving in on the East side. I was out putting trash in the bin and my new neighbor was out, saw me and walked over to introduce himself and shake my hand. I'm old, he's young and he said if I ever need help with anything to knock on his door. I'm certain he meant it.
I told my wife that I met the new neighbor and he walked over to meet me. Her reply was, "He's black isn't he. White people don't care about anybody." Wow, but she was right.
You might think that strange but in 35 years there has only been one other family where we frequently talked and knew each other's names. I don't need to tell you the rest.
A "they" view based upon her experience. She doesn't have a likely to be good or bad view, just neighborly and indifferent expectation She doesn't watch the news or read social media opinions. And what I just wrote may be unlike anything you've read on the Internet where everything is "they bad."
"White people don't care about anybody." Wow, but she was right."
I'd argue that you are evidence that she wasn't right. I know many other white people who are also evidence that she's not right.
Many people make assumptions about groups. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Making assumptions doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is very rarely helpful.
And the next step I talk about in the article, blaming people for the actions of others in their group, is never helpful.
I really worry about where this embrace of collectivising people is taking us. It's not even conscious in many cases anymore. I'm sure it didn't used to be this common.
She was right in her guess that our new neighbor is a black man based upon her limited experience. Obviously, I don't believe that white people don't care about people. I'm white and she knows that I do care about people. I would think that you would know that about me by now.
It was an example of how people form large opinions based upon their own limited experience. Lest you forget, she is not white and that opinion is not so different from what many black people think. The big flaw is that it is easy to find people who don't care about others. It was not disagreement with your article, it was confirmation.
"I would think that you would know that about me by now."
Yes, as I said, I think you are evidence that she's not right that white people don't care about anybody.
She's your wife, I'm sure she knows that this statement doesn't apply to all white people because she married a white man who obviously DOES care about other people.
And while it's obviously true that SOME white people don't care about others, this is true of people of all skin tones. That's why I don't think it's a useful or meaningful point to make.
Just as, while it's true that SOME black people make generalisations like these about white people, I'd argue quite strongly that the opposite has been far more true throughout American history to far more devastating effect.
The point, and I'm pretty sure you agree with this, is that this "everyone in group X is the same" mentality is always wrong and counterproductive to any efforts at improving society.
Leftists project. They always, only, ever project.
Treating every member of a demographic interchangeably has been the bedrock of left-wing politics for generations. It's the entirety of Marx. It is very plainly the rationale behind the widespread calls for the murder of non-Leftists that have been normal in left-wing conversation for longer than we've been alive. Millions of closeted right-wing people encounter this sentiment regularly, in person.
The extraordinary dishonesty required to be left-wing is beyond the rest of us, but as skilled as you all are at lying to yourselves, you're not fooling the rest of us for a second.
Current events have pushed me hard toward free speech absolutism and eliminating hate speech laws in a world where hate is just disagreement.
I saw many and I do mean many laugh emojis and comment strings full of joy about Charlie Kirk's assassination and he disserved its. There were also, of course murdering him was wrong followed by a list of things that made him vile in their opinion. A thinly veiled he deserved it. Yes, I know that the "left" is not a monolith, but it was widespread enough to find it to be distasteful.
Let them speak because they identify themselves and there is no good reason to think that all lefties are like that. While common decency dictates if you have nothing good to say about the dead, say nothing, I have left-wing friends who chose to say nothing so "they all" does not apply.
The whatabouts are flying as usual. "Kimmel joked about Tucker getting canned." Like nobody knew he trash talks the political right. More unnecessary partisan bilge.
I didn't watch the Charlie Kirk funeral but the blurbs that came my way unasked for were just as disappointing as trash talking the dead. I've never heard political discussion at a funeral. Christian stuff at the funeral of a Christian is to be expected. Politics don't belong but Trump and company showed up so that's what they got.
In these highly charged times sometimes we need a break; read a book, play some music, do something that will not expose you to "news." My wife does not read or view news. Her world is a better place without it. People have a right to speak, but also a right to not listen.
If I misunderstood, (for which I apologize, if necessary) I believe I could be forgiven for doing so since this essay is all over the proverbial place. You *seem to start out by saying demonizing entire swaths of people over the actions of some is never ok. Then you *seem to pivot to “but Donald Trump” (and other, equally unhinged talking heads) do xyz, so demonizing entire swaths of people who disavow the political assassination of Kirk and who, thus, must be racist/bigot/fascist/Nazi (yawn) adjacent (or must, at least, support those individuals’ lunacies) is ok in this case.
I can feel the emotion in this piece (seems many other commenters can, too) and it’s perfectly understandable. Anyone who doesn’t feel anger and fear and frustration and deflation after what happened to Kirk (and all the peripheral hullabaloo and backlash) neither comprehend free speech nor deserve it. But I contend any anger directed at those who LITERALLY celebrated Kirk’s assassination (it was certainly not a fringe or small portion of insane leftists) is more than justified strictly on the basis of the motivation by Robinson. Furthermore, our anger is rooted in YEARS of baseless cancellations and other forms of speech suppression (including compelled speech such as using incorrect pronouns and language which is, undeniably, meant to erase the representation of women from discourse) as well as intimidation which has had such as chilling effect that it caused many to self-censor in work places, online, and other public spaces.
My point is, you appear to misunderstand the gravity of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. No matter your opinion of the man or what he stood for, (as a pro-choice, atheist, I could not have disagreed more with his position on virtually everything) this must be a pivotal moment in America because it strikes at the heart of our nation’s substantive beauty. Instead of your typically rational and measured assessment, you gave us more “us vs. them BS. Wake up.
"If I misunderstood, (for which I apologize, if necessary) I believe I could be forgiven for doing so since this essay is all over the proverbial place. ."
😅 I'm sorry you had trouble following. I thought the point I was making was very simple.
Yes, demonising entire groups of people over the actions of some is never okay. I then went on to talk about how a bunch of dishonest opportunists are not only demonising an entire group of people for the actions of ONE, but are being absolute hypocrites even in their criticisms of the people who were, absolutely wrongly, joking about and celebrating Kirk's murder.
I never, at any point, even hinted at the idea that demonising people who disavow Kirk's assassination is okay. This is truly bizarre projection on your part.
In fact, I point out that these divisions are almost entirely illusory, and whether we consider ourselves on the left or right, most of us have the same concerns and would be much better off uniting instead of dividing over these stupid labels.
And speaking of these stupid labels and divisions, who is the "our" in "our anger" here? I, and many, many people on the left, have been writing condemning the cancellations you're talking about for years. I'm just as angry about them as anybody on the right. My career has been directly affected by the hysteria about trans people and race and how you're allowed, in some circles, to talk about it.
Again, the problem here is that you've been duped into thinking of these as "left vs right" issues when they're not. People of principle opposed cancel culture regardless of other political affiliations. And people WITHOUT principles only objected because it wasn't "their side" doing most of the cancelling.
Again, now that Trump is in power, many of those same people are suddenly happy to get people fired from their jobs for speech THEY find offensive. The only "them vs us" people who stand by their principles consistently and people who don't. Trump, for clarity's sake, is one of the people who doesn't.
You spent 26 paragraphs (not to mention the vile title of this piece) attempting to prove right-leaning politicians are using Kirk’s death to demonize the words and actions of the left, give a handful of examples of leftist politicians who supposedly rebuked Kirk’s assassination (none of whom were able to do so without injecting qualifiers which, I contend, nullify their rebukes) attempt to illustrate how the right are for free speech in words, not deeds…in the worst affront to free speech “since the McCarthy era”…despite revelations about real, proven and successful speech censorship by government officials on the left meddling in and directing suppression and removal of specific people’s accounts on social media for four years…repeat unfounded accusations in an attempt to align Trump with Hitler and Nazis…and then have the gall to think a single sentence…”this isn’t about politics”…absolves you from doing the very thing you’re accusing those on the right of doing. And I’M the one having trouble following? Sure, Jan.
"attempt to illustrate how the right are for free speech in words, not deeds…in the worst affront to free speech “since the McCarthy era”…despite revelations"
Jesus, what are you talking about? How are you not seeing that it is you, not me who is guilty of the collectivisation you're accusing me of?!
Not once, not a single time, do I accuse "the right" of anything! Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. I accuse specific people, Trump, Vance, of hypocrisy over this issue and then I explain the hypocrisy.
I accuse specific people, Alex Jones, Jesse Watters, of politicising Kirk's death and then lay out the collectivising tactics they're using to do so.
I point out the flip-flopping on values like free speech and opposition to cancel culture from people like LibsofTikTok and @jackunheard, and point out how they've done that.
It is you whose brain has been so overwhelmed by this right/left binary that you cannot help seeing these inarguable facts about specific people as an indictment of the entire political right.
And yes, there is real proven suppression of speech by people on the right and the left. Trump's administration issued just as many takedown requests to social media as Biden's, it's just that the Twitter Files focused entirely on the left because, and it may shock you to learn this, Elon Musk is not an entirely honest and unbiased broker.
When people on the left were cancelling people and policing speech, I unequivocally condemned it. I spent a lot of time specifically criticising those people on the left. Now that the people on the right are doing it, I unequivocally condemn it and crtiticise those people too.
As I say in the article, I'm over this whole left/right thing at this point. There are so many hypocrites and morons on both sides that it doesn't mean anything to say you're on the left or the right.
Instead, I'm interested in whether you can be consistent in your criticisms, whether you can uphold your values, even for people you disagree with. I'm interested in being on the "side" of the people who can. Even if they disagree with me about economics or big vs small government.
You use a lot of “they”s in an article about using “they”.
I get the emotion of how you perceive what’s going on.
From my perspective it’s just about the cultural divide in the country.
The left hates Donald Trump and frames Charlie Kirk as an antagonist. Simple because he doesn’t represent the value of the left. Including commonly referring to Trump as hitler.
The right hates Zohran Mamdani and thinks Jimmy Kimmel should be suspended for implying that Kirk’s killer was from the right.
Are the left and right wrong? Yes and no.
They have different cultural perspectives defining moral values. The left wants Trump to empathize with their values in talking about political violence.
The bottom line is that the country can’t have the behemoth federal government when the values of each side are so different. The answer is to move most of what the federal government defines to the states. Moving the decision on abortion to the states was the right answer. Letting different states legalize pot is the right answer. Having different state policies on vaccines is the right answer. Repealing the 16th amendment would be ideal!
Platitudes about political violence is always wrong is meaningless!
"You use a lot of “they”s in an article about using “they”."
Haha, I knew this criticism was coming, and I was 99% sure it would be from you. Yes, using "they" is hard to avoid when you're talking about groups of people. But unlike the people I'm criticising, I think I was extremely clear about the "they" I was talking about, no?
Not the political right in general, but the political commentators who have chosen to demonise the entire political left to spread division amongst their audiences. I'm talking about their words and actions, not their political leanings.
Yes, partisan bias was evident in the article, but the bottom line pertained to are our politics driven by our consistently acted on values or do we bring up values when they suit our good standing in a political tribe. I'm for x, except when it's inconvenient. That is valid and can be aimed at both tribes.
Your question is obviously too vague to answer. That's why I asked why you ask.
What do you mean, "What was George Floyd all about?"
To whom? To me personally? To the country in general? To the BLM movement? To the Democrats? Do you mean his death, or the movement that sprang up around it? If you want an answer and not a talking point, you're going to have to think about what you're trying to say.
Oh, ok. Im talking about how the democrats reacted to Saint George Floyd. How they lost their minds. How they destroyed property in the middle of a pandemic. That’s what I was implying.
Okay, so again, what's your point? When you ask what it was "all about," what are you trying to get at?
I've written several articles criticising the looting and cancelling and tribalism around George Floyd's death. In fact, I've never had anything to say about the politicisation of his death except condemnation.
So what's the issue? That I criticise it whether it's being done by the left or the right?
The world really does seem quite upside down lately, Steve. The mob mentality you have so aptly described harks back to the days when any African American could be lynched because it was “suspected” that the perpetrator of some crime had too much melanin. Trouble is that well reasoned essays like yours aren’t able to quell the mass hysteria too many human beings are susceptible to. But do keep writing. Some of us are reading and paying attention.
The "they did such and such" comments struck me as off the wall, too. No one person should ever be compared to a monolithic "other."
Speaking of "they" stereotypes and assumptions. The homes next door are rentals. New people are moving in on the East side. I was out putting trash in the bin and my new neighbor was out, saw me and walked over to introduce himself and shake my hand. I'm old, he's young and he said if I ever need help with anything to knock on his door. I'm certain he meant it.
I told my wife that I met the new neighbor and he walked over to meet me. Her reply was, "He's black isn't he. White people don't care about anybody." Wow, but she was right.
You might think that strange but in 35 years there has only been one other family where we frequently talked and knew each other's names. I don't need to tell you the rest.
A "they" view based upon her experience. She doesn't have a likely to be good or bad view, just neighborly and indifferent expectation She doesn't watch the news or read social media opinions. And what I just wrote may be unlike anything you've read on the Internet where everything is "they bad."
"White people don't care about anybody." Wow, but she was right."
I'd argue that you are evidence that she wasn't right. I know many other white people who are also evidence that she's not right.
Many people make assumptions about groups. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Making assumptions doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is very rarely helpful.
And the next step I talk about in the article, blaming people for the actions of others in their group, is never helpful.
I really worry about where this embrace of collectivising people is taking us. It's not even conscious in many cases anymore. I'm sure it didn't used to be this common.
She was right in her guess that our new neighbor is a black man based upon her limited experience. Obviously, I don't believe that white people don't care about people. I'm white and she knows that I do care about people. I would think that you would know that about me by now.
It was an example of how people form large opinions based upon their own limited experience. Lest you forget, she is not white and that opinion is not so different from what many black people think. The big flaw is that it is easy to find people who don't care about others. It was not disagreement with your article, it was confirmation.
"I would think that you would know that about me by now."
Yes, as I said, I think you are evidence that she's not right that white people don't care about anybody.
She's your wife, I'm sure she knows that this statement doesn't apply to all white people because she married a white man who obviously DOES care about other people.
And while it's obviously true that SOME white people don't care about others, this is true of people of all skin tones. That's why I don't think it's a useful or meaningful point to make.
Just as, while it's true that SOME black people make generalisations like these about white people, I'd argue quite strongly that the opposite has been far more true throughout American history to far more devastating effect.
The point, and I'm pretty sure you agree with this, is that this "everyone in group X is the same" mentality is always wrong and counterproductive to any efforts at improving society.
Let's give her a hyperbole pass because she would agree with that too.
The correct part of what she said was a matter of odds based upon her experience. Odds are not always, the not so thing.
Wow! You've topped yourself!
head nod of total agreement
Leftists project. They always, only, ever project.
Treating every member of a demographic interchangeably has been the bedrock of left-wing politics for generations. It's the entirety of Marx. It is very plainly the rationale behind the widespread calls for the murder of non-Leftists that have been normal in left-wing conversation for longer than we've been alive. Millions of closeted right-wing people encounter this sentiment regularly, in person.
The extraordinary dishonesty required to be left-wing is beyond the rest of us, but as skilled as you all are at lying to yourselves, you're not fooling the rest of us for a second.
"Leftists project. They always, only, ever project."
I'm just going to let the intense irony and lack of self-awareness here stand without further comment.
---
Edited to add, I just saw that your Substack is called: "Principles vs Tribes." Holy crap!😅
Current events have pushed me hard toward free speech absolutism and eliminating hate speech laws in a world where hate is just disagreement.
I saw many and I do mean many laugh emojis and comment strings full of joy about Charlie Kirk's assassination and he disserved its. There were also, of course murdering him was wrong followed by a list of things that made him vile in their opinion. A thinly veiled he deserved it. Yes, I know that the "left" is not a monolith, but it was widespread enough to find it to be distasteful.
Let them speak because they identify themselves and there is no good reason to think that all lefties are like that. While common decency dictates if you have nothing good to say about the dead, say nothing, I have left-wing friends who chose to say nothing so "they all" does not apply.
The whatabouts are flying as usual. "Kimmel joked about Tucker getting canned." Like nobody knew he trash talks the political right. More unnecessary partisan bilge.
I didn't watch the Charlie Kirk funeral but the blurbs that came my way unasked for were just as disappointing as trash talking the dead. I've never heard political discussion at a funeral. Christian stuff at the funeral of a Christian is to be expected. Politics don't belong but Trump and company showed up so that's what they got.
In these highly charged times sometimes we need a break; read a book, play some music, do something that will not expose you to "news." My wife does not read or view news. Her world is a better place without it. People have a right to speak, but also a right to not listen.
Wow! This is the epitome of DARVO. Wake up, Steve.
And here's and example of Double DARVO, where someone uses the concept of DARVO in order to DARVO.
What do you think I need to wake up to? Use your words.
If I misunderstood, (for which I apologize, if necessary) I believe I could be forgiven for doing so since this essay is all over the proverbial place. You *seem to start out by saying demonizing entire swaths of people over the actions of some is never ok. Then you *seem to pivot to “but Donald Trump” (and other, equally unhinged talking heads) do xyz, so demonizing entire swaths of people who disavow the political assassination of Kirk and who, thus, must be racist/bigot/fascist/Nazi (yawn) adjacent (or must, at least, support those individuals’ lunacies) is ok in this case.
I can feel the emotion in this piece (seems many other commenters can, too) and it’s perfectly understandable. Anyone who doesn’t feel anger and fear and frustration and deflation after what happened to Kirk (and all the peripheral hullabaloo and backlash) neither comprehend free speech nor deserve it. But I contend any anger directed at those who LITERALLY celebrated Kirk’s assassination (it was certainly not a fringe or small portion of insane leftists) is more than justified strictly on the basis of the motivation by Robinson. Furthermore, our anger is rooted in YEARS of baseless cancellations and other forms of speech suppression (including compelled speech such as using incorrect pronouns and language which is, undeniably, meant to erase the representation of women from discourse) as well as intimidation which has had such as chilling effect that it caused many to self-censor in work places, online, and other public spaces.
My point is, you appear to misunderstand the gravity of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. No matter your opinion of the man or what he stood for, (as a pro-choice, atheist, I could not have disagreed more with his position on virtually everything) this must be a pivotal moment in America because it strikes at the heart of our nation’s substantive beauty. Instead of your typically rational and measured assessment, you gave us more “us vs. them BS. Wake up.
"If I misunderstood, (for which I apologize, if necessary) I believe I could be forgiven for doing so since this essay is all over the proverbial place. ."
😅 I'm sorry you had trouble following. I thought the point I was making was very simple.
Yes, demonising entire groups of people over the actions of some is never okay. I then went on to talk about how a bunch of dishonest opportunists are not only demonising an entire group of people for the actions of ONE, but are being absolute hypocrites even in their criticisms of the people who were, absolutely wrongly, joking about and celebrating Kirk's murder.
I never, at any point, even hinted at the idea that demonising people who disavow Kirk's assassination is okay. This is truly bizarre projection on your part.
In fact, I point out that these divisions are almost entirely illusory, and whether we consider ourselves on the left or right, most of us have the same concerns and would be much better off uniting instead of dividing over these stupid labels.
And speaking of these stupid labels and divisions, who is the "our" in "our anger" here? I, and many, many people on the left, have been writing condemning the cancellations you're talking about for years. I'm just as angry about them as anybody on the right. My career has been directly affected by the hysteria about trans people and race and how you're allowed, in some circles, to talk about it.
Again, the problem here is that you've been duped into thinking of these as "left vs right" issues when they're not. People of principle opposed cancel culture regardless of other political affiliations. And people WITHOUT principles only objected because it wasn't "their side" doing most of the cancelling.
Again, now that Trump is in power, many of those same people are suddenly happy to get people fired from their jobs for speech THEY find offensive. The only "them vs us" people who stand by their principles consistently and people who don't. Trump, for clarity's sake, is one of the people who doesn't.
You spent 26 paragraphs (not to mention the vile title of this piece) attempting to prove right-leaning politicians are using Kirk’s death to demonize the words and actions of the left, give a handful of examples of leftist politicians who supposedly rebuked Kirk’s assassination (none of whom were able to do so without injecting qualifiers which, I contend, nullify their rebukes) attempt to illustrate how the right are for free speech in words, not deeds…in the worst affront to free speech “since the McCarthy era”…despite revelations about real, proven and successful speech censorship by government officials on the left meddling in and directing suppression and removal of specific people’s accounts on social media for four years…repeat unfounded accusations in an attempt to align Trump with Hitler and Nazis…and then have the gall to think a single sentence…”this isn’t about politics”…absolves you from doing the very thing you’re accusing those on the right of doing. And I’M the one having trouble following? Sure, Jan.
"attempt to illustrate how the right are for free speech in words, not deeds…in the worst affront to free speech “since the McCarthy era”…despite revelations"
Jesus, what are you talking about? How are you not seeing that it is you, not me who is guilty of the collectivisation you're accusing me of?!
Not once, not a single time, do I accuse "the right" of anything! Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. I accuse specific people, Trump, Vance, of hypocrisy over this issue and then I explain the hypocrisy.
I accuse specific people, Alex Jones, Jesse Watters, of politicising Kirk's death and then lay out the collectivising tactics they're using to do so.
I point out the flip-flopping on values like free speech and opposition to cancel culture from people like LibsofTikTok and @jackunheard, and point out how they've done that.
It is you whose brain has been so overwhelmed by this right/left binary that you cannot help seeing these inarguable facts about specific people as an indictment of the entire political right.
And yes, there is real proven suppression of speech by people on the right and the left. Trump's administration issued just as many takedown requests to social media as Biden's, it's just that the Twitter Files focused entirely on the left because, and it may shock you to learn this, Elon Musk is not an entirely honest and unbiased broker.
When people on the left were cancelling people and policing speech, I unequivocally condemned it. I spent a lot of time specifically criticising those people on the left. Now that the people on the right are doing it, I unequivocally condemn it and crtiticise those people too.
As I say in the article, I'm over this whole left/right thing at this point. There are so many hypocrites and morons on both sides that it doesn't mean anything to say you're on the left or the right.
Instead, I'm interested in whether you can be consistent in your criticisms, whether you can uphold your values, even for people you disagree with. I'm interested in being on the "side" of the people who can. Even if they disagree with me about economics or big vs small government.
At least we’re talking.
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5521897-google-admits-biden-pressure/amp/
“Trump's administration issued just as many takedown requests to social media as Biden's”
Huh???? Prove it.
Wow! Thats not the same as what Biden’s FBI and DOJ did AT ALL. Is it? I mean, not even a weird flex…it’s no flex.
https://www.thefire.org/news/yes-you-should-be-worried-about-fbis-relationship-twitter#:~:text=The%20Twitter%20Files%20show%20the,containing%20purported%20election%2Drelated%20misinformation.
You use a lot of “they”s in an article about using “they”.
I get the emotion of how you perceive what’s going on.
From my perspective it’s just about the cultural divide in the country.
The left hates Donald Trump and frames Charlie Kirk as an antagonist. Simple because he doesn’t represent the value of the left. Including commonly referring to Trump as hitler.
The right hates Zohran Mamdani and thinks Jimmy Kimmel should be suspended for implying that Kirk’s killer was from the right.
Are the left and right wrong? Yes and no.
They have different cultural perspectives defining moral values. The left wants Trump to empathize with their values in talking about political violence.
The bottom line is that the country can’t have the behemoth federal government when the values of each side are so different. The answer is to move most of what the federal government defines to the states. Moving the decision on abortion to the states was the right answer. Letting different states legalize pot is the right answer. Having different state policies on vaccines is the right answer. Repealing the 16th amendment would be ideal!
Platitudes about political violence is always wrong is meaningless!
"You use a lot of “they”s in an article about using “they”."
Haha, I knew this criticism was coming, and I was 99% sure it would be from you. Yes, using "they" is hard to avoid when you're talking about groups of people. But unlike the people I'm criticising, I think I was extremely clear about the "they" I was talking about, no?
Not the political right in general, but the political commentators who have chosen to demonise the entire political left to spread division amongst their audiences. I'm talking about their words and actions, not their political leanings.
Yes, partisan bias was evident in the article, but the bottom line pertained to are our politics driven by our consistently acted on values or do we bring up values when they suit our good standing in a political tribe. I'm for x, except when it's inconvenient. That is valid and can be aimed at both tribes.
What was George Floyd all about??
Why do you ask?
Why can’t you just answer the question? You just answered my question with a question?
Your question is obviously too vague to answer. That's why I asked why you ask.
What do you mean, "What was George Floyd all about?"
To whom? To me personally? To the country in general? To the BLM movement? To the Democrats? Do you mean his death, or the movement that sprang up around it? If you want an answer and not a talking point, you're going to have to think about what you're trying to say.
Oh, ok. Im talking about how the democrats reacted to Saint George Floyd. How they lost their minds. How they destroyed property in the middle of a pandemic. That’s what I was implying.
I think you know what I meant.
Okay, so again, what's your point? When you ask what it was "all about," what are you trying to get at?
I've written several articles criticising the looting and cancelling and tribalism around George Floyd's death. In fact, I've never had anything to say about the politicisation of his death except condemnation.
So what's the issue? That I criticise it whether it's being done by the left or the right?