(06-07-2020, 07:49 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(06-07-2020, 07:24 PM)Last42min Wrote: So, she titles her video, "I do not support George Floyd," where she says she doesn't see him as a martyr for blacks. That's the context. You rephrase it "She opposes George Floyd." Not even remotely the same thing.  Fundamentally changes her position. Why are you such a disingenuous person? Get better, grifter.

Okay. I see what you're saying. You're saying that she could be neutral towards George Floyd. Neither support nor oppose.
But in my experience, and in my reading of history, neutrality usually means you remain uninvolved and avoid provocative action towards either side. 
If she sincerely "does not support", but also "does not oppose," she probably would have avoided making a video at all. 
If she thinks we're making too big of a deal of George Floyd's death, or if she is skeptical of people who try to mix other issues that had nothing to do with his death into the discussion, she might have made a video with a calmer tone trying to deescalate this whole thing.
She opposes him though.  That's why she made the provocative video, with the provocative title. That's why she filled up her video with factoids about his arrest record from 13 years ago, as if they matter.

Here's an idea. Watch the video. Or don't. But don't make a comment about it or her without first trying to understand her point. She was clear about her position on Floyd. He didn't deserve death. The cop should be punished. Floyd isn't a hero. He doesn't deserve to be memorialized and made a representative of the black community. That's her opinion. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it wasn't poorly framed. Only an idiot could watch it come away with the gobbledygook your suggesting. Grifters gonna grift.

---