#tbh the second ask seemed weirld pro 'copaganda'? is that just me? like I've insulted procedurals?

[magicmoon65]

Why didn’t the backlash against “copaganda” happen so loudly when the Ferguson incident happened in 2014? And what about all the other scandals that happened before George Floyd?

I... don't know? I'm not a social analyst, I wasn't particularly involved in BLM, I can't tell you why Geoge Floyd has a bigger reaction than other deaths. All I can do, and is what I did, is observe that it did happen.

I did not try to say that this was the first death that mattered, that this was the first death that deserved an uproar.

To answer your question, since my theory is that George Floyd's death led to the change in copaganda perception, why didn't Ferguson? Because there weren't riots in response to it at nearly the level that Floyd's got. That is my theory.

I also got this ask, not sure if it's the same person:

I’m sorry but, by your logic about George Floyd single-handedly prompting a backlash against “copaganda”, R. Kelly should have started a backlash against r&b multiple times over

This is... a very weird corralary? Why are you bringing this up? Why is this at all relevant?

First of all. I know very little about R. Kelly or R&B. I am not going to pretend to in order to prove why this is or isn't a good metaphor. To me it seems very random, and I'm sure if I looked I could find a corollary that reflected exactly my logic just like you found an example that (I'm assuming) doesn't.

I really don't get how this is such difficult logic. Like maybe they have nothing to do with each other, but give me a legit alternative. But I'm failing to see why it doesn't make sense.

Let's talk logic, then. Which of these points do you disagree with or not follow?

A). OP's observationof a once niche idea: media with police as sympathetic characters =Copaganda

B.) OP's: point A became more commonly beleived after 2020

C.) After Geoge Floyd's death, there were BLM protests and riots in response

D.) C occurred in 2020

E.) these protests and riots were on a larger scale than previous ones

F.) The police responded to C with extreme measures, not new tactics but witnessed by many who had not been previously aware of these tactics

G.) E and F led to more Americans being aware of Black social issues, aware of the corruption of the police, aware of the extent to which Black people are targeted, the horrors of the prison system, and aware of alternatives to the current system

H.) Point G could have led to Point B

If you respond, please indicate the letter or letter that you fail to understand or follow. If you cannot, or attempt to get me to discuss something other than the logical expression above, than I don't want to hear it, as you would be a) pulling me into a conversation I don't have the energy, knowledge, desire, or place for; b) trying to make me look bad for some reason, and/or c) enagaging in various argumentative fallacies.

Also... do me one favor before having any conversation with me about this again. If I feel like you haven't attempted to honestly discuss in a mature and respectful way, I really don't want to continue.

Ask yourself these questions: am I trying to find a reason magicmoon65 is wrong, or am I honestly attempting to understand what she said? Do I think that magicmoon65's comment is actively harmful to others? Do I have an alternative explanation that I can share in a reasonable way, or do I simply think that she's wrong and need to prove it is so? Is continuing this argument worth my time and energy? Am I trying to change magicmoon65's mind or simply attempt to expose her or call her out in some way?

Here's the thing: I don't mind rewording things that may have been confusing. I know that sometimes my brain goes in a different direction than others. And I'm willing to try to better communicate because I think it's really important.

But these asks seem aggressive and accusatory, not looking to clarify. I've attempted to explain my logic. I suspect that you interpreted what I said to be speaking on how Floyd's death casued the riots. I can't really speak on why that happened. But it did. I'm not talking about why. I'm talking about the fact that it happened, and what that has to do with people's views on copaganda.

#tbh the second ask seemed weirld pro 'copaganda'? is that just me? like I've insulted procedurals? #okay so example of a way to legit critique my logic #'I disagree with E. other deaths had larger or equal scale responses.' #now if this is true? then yeah. my logic no longer holds and my theory is incorrect #but if every point is true it seems like a logical theory to me #or 'E and F didn't lead to G. other things led to G.' again. that legit pokes holes in my logic #show me how my logic is wrong using the logic I actually used #NOT by using some imaginary logic that is easier for you to argue with