>For starters, the meme is demonstrably incorrect.
I'll bet you that black people in general in Ferguson, Mo. would tell you that they are better off now then they were before the protests. Since there was also rioting and looting and vandalism and violence, there are also probably people who believe that the rioting and looting and vandalism and violence are what's responsible for their improved status. It may well be that the rest of the country became more conservative after watching it; that would be a shame, and I'm still not convinced about that, either.
>I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice.
What injustice? You saw where some vandals in Oakland vandalized some stuff? We as a society mistreat a group of people until they take to the streets in protest, and when a few of them get too rowdy, people such as yourself get uptight about that (the protest, not the decades of injustice). Also, note the ease with which agents provocateurs can derail any social justice protest/movement merely because people such as yourself can't/won't distinguish between the two.
>Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required?
That kind of wit might be why people tell you to get over yourself.
>That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?
Let me cut to the quick: I believe it it possible to be dissatisfied with both racism and riots. I also believe it is possible to be dissatisfied with racism without being morally obliged to support or encourage riots. Perhaps you differ.
I'll bet you that black people in general in Ferguson, Mo. would tell you that they are better off now then they were before the protests. Since there was also rioting and looting and vandalism and violence, there are also probably people who believe that the rioting and looting and vandalism and violence are what's responsible for their improved status. It may well be that the rest of the country became more conservative after watching it; that would be a shame, and I'm still not convinced about that, either.
>I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice.
What injustice? You saw where some vandals in Oakland vandalized some stuff? We as a society mistreat a group of people until they take to the streets in protest, and when a few of them get too rowdy, people such as yourself get uptight about that (the protest, not the decades of injustice). Also, note the ease with which agents provocateurs can derail any social justice protest/movement merely because people such as yourself can't/won't distinguish between the two.
>Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required?
That kind of wit might be why people tell you to get over yourself.
>That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?
Probably not if you want to be taken seriously.