>Racial bias in policing is real, is due to a number of factors, and is an enormously complicated subject (one that I tried to explore in a long Bulwark article a year ago). But it does not manifest itself in cops coddling white mass shooters while callously gunning down unarmed black people—if only because you could…
>Racial bias in policing is real, is due to a number of factors, and is an enormously complicated subject (one that I tried to explore in a long Bulwark article a year ago). But it does not manifest itself in cops coddling white mass shooters while callously gunning down unarmed black people—if only because you could easily find examples of the reverse.
Actually, it does. Have you forgotten that after Charleston cops arrested Dylann Roof, they took him out for Burger King before taking him to jail?
And the two posts you cited from the Left as being off-base, from Old Woman Seeking Justice and Quasim Rashid, were exactly right. I too thought yesterday of the contrast between Buffalo police knocking down 75-year-old BLM protester Martin Gugino and calmly walking past him, and their response yesterday.
This is the second week in a row that you have shown an amazing obtuseness. Last week, you wondered why anyone should foresee a general attack on unenumerated privacy rights in the Constitution on the basis of the Alito draft, and today, you deny that white cops coddle white shooters, which is simply astonishing.
As I observed last week, it is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Sykes has made a very bad mistake in assigning the Sunday morning newsletter to you. I have read the Bulwark for 3 years now but an seriously wondering if I will continue my subscription.
I'm a new subscriber who has already cancelled once because of things I've read here that deeply offend me. Cathy Young became rather uncomfortable after my comment, but when I wrote it I was furious at the smug racism I encountered in her newsletter. I'm very close to cancelling a second and final time.
There are some critical issues treated here that elicit strong feelings across the board. On behalf of the Bulwark, I want to say that I believe the publisher and writers are attempting to make a good faith effort to address their topics in a way that is at least explicable to everyone from Never-Trump conservatives, of which I am one, to Democrats who may not agree with them on everything but can find some merit in their positions. I have pointedly questioned several of the writers on individual issues and am exasperated by what Cathy Young has done the past two Sundays, but I really believe, again, that they are making a good faith effort. Everyone has to decide for himself or herself if that effort is sufficient. I myself may or may not continue reading, but I have found a lot of value here over the past 3 years or so.
I agree. The Bulwark is making a Noble Effort to keep the monsters from overtaking our Government, and another Nobel Effort to open an effective forum for Americans of all political POVs to attempt to find solutions, and to try (in spite of our disagreements) to actually communicate with restraint and civility, as we wade through the muck raining down on us all, politically, environmentally, and medically. The world has never been here before... and if we are to survive at all, we only have each other to rely on. But oh yeah... it's a mess and I sometimes am enraged by what I read here. But only sometimes. And on balance, this is a really great community!
It’s the devotion to “both-sides” that’s starting to rankle me on the Bulwark. I’m noticing it more now that a Democrat is in the White House. The conservative former judge Michael Luttig was on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, and he says this November’s election is make-or-break for our democracy. He doesn’t engage in “both-sides” at all, because he completely understands we are in the fight of our lives, with regard to our country, and there’s no time to waste with pretending the two sides are both guilty as we march towards the guillotine.
I'm right there with you, G.G. It's almost unconscious with them I think. They've spent decades trying to destroy the Left, and it led to tRump, and now they're embarrassed, but old habits are hard to break. I also think it's possible they are so sick of the violent anti-Americanism that has grown out of their own party that they're flailing about searching for a distraction, so pile on the Dems for not being "better". It's bizarre to me.
I hope more people scroll down this far to read this. Thanks, Michael Huggins. Awesomely researched and stated. 👍🏽 (except for the insults... I really hope we can all find more articulate ways to disagree without ad hominem.)
Thank you. My understanding of ad hominem is when personal comment is *substituted* for argument. I don't believe that's what I'm doing here. I have actually read Ms. Young's columns on and off for a couple of years, linked to them, and quoted them. But her performance last Sunday and today are simply shocking, to me, in their obtuseness. It is beginning to look as if she is simply in over her head. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
Ms. Young, you wrote:
>Racial bias in policing is real, is due to a number of factors, and is an enormously complicated subject (one that I tried to explore in a long Bulwark article a year ago). But it does not manifest itself in cops coddling white mass shooters while callously gunning down unarmed black people—if only because you could easily find examples of the reverse.
Actually, it does. Have you forgotten that after Charleston cops arrested Dylann Roof, they took him out for Burger King before taking him to jail?
And the two posts you cited from the Left as being off-base, from Old Woman Seeking Justice and Quasim Rashid, were exactly right. I too thought yesterday of the contrast between Buffalo police knocking down 75-year-old BLM protester Martin Gugino and calmly walking past him, and their response yesterday.
This is the second week in a row that you have shown an amazing obtuseness. Last week, you wondered why anyone should foresee a general attack on unenumerated privacy rights in the Constitution on the basis of the Alito draft, and today, you deny that white cops coddle white shooters, which is simply astonishing.
As I observed last week, it is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Sykes has made a very bad mistake in assigning the Sunday morning newsletter to you. I have read the Bulwark for 3 years now but an seriously wondering if I will continue my subscription.
I'm a new subscriber who has already cancelled once because of things I've read here that deeply offend me. Cathy Young became rather uncomfortable after my comment, but when I wrote it I was furious at the smug racism I encountered in her newsletter. I'm very close to cancelling a second and final time.
There are some critical issues treated here that elicit strong feelings across the board. On behalf of the Bulwark, I want to say that I believe the publisher and writers are attempting to make a good faith effort to address their topics in a way that is at least explicable to everyone from Never-Trump conservatives, of which I am one, to Democrats who may not agree with them on everything but can find some merit in their positions. I have pointedly questioned several of the writers on individual issues and am exasperated by what Cathy Young has done the past two Sundays, but I really believe, again, that they are making a good faith effort. Everyone has to decide for himself or herself if that effort is sufficient. I myself may or may not continue reading, but I have found a lot of value here over the past 3 years or so.
I agree. The Bulwark is making a Noble Effort to keep the monsters from overtaking our Government, and another Nobel Effort to open an effective forum for Americans of all political POVs to attempt to find solutions, and to try (in spite of our disagreements) to actually communicate with restraint and civility, as we wade through the muck raining down on us all, politically, environmentally, and medically. The world has never been here before... and if we are to survive at all, we only have each other to rely on. But oh yeah... it's a mess and I sometimes am enraged by what I read here. But only sometimes. And on balance, this is a really great community!
It’s the devotion to “both-sides” that’s starting to rankle me on the Bulwark. I’m noticing it more now that a Democrat is in the White House. The conservative former judge Michael Luttig was on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, and he says this November’s election is make-or-break for our democracy. He doesn’t engage in “both-sides” at all, because he completely understands we are in the fight of our lives, with regard to our country, and there’s no time to waste with pretending the two sides are both guilty as we march towards the guillotine.
I'm right there with you, G.G. It's almost unconscious with them I think. They've spent decades trying to destroy the Left, and it led to tRump, and now they're embarrassed, but old habits are hard to break. I also think it's possible they are so sick of the violent anti-Americanism that has grown out of their own party that they're flailing about searching for a distraction, so pile on the Dems for not being "better". It's bizarre to me.
Thank God for people like Michael Luttig!!!!
Can we clone him?
I hope more people scroll down this far to read this. Thanks, Michael Huggins. Awesomely researched and stated. 👍🏽 (except for the insults... I really hope we can all find more articulate ways to disagree without ad hominem.)
Thank you. My understanding of ad hominem is when personal comment is *substituted* for argument. I don't believe that's what I'm doing here. I have actually read Ms. Young's columns on and off for a couple of years, linked to them, and quoted them. But her performance last Sunday and today are simply shocking, to me, in their obtuseness. It is beginning to look as if she is simply in over her head. Anyway, thanks for commenting.