Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,402 posts)
5. We had this discussion.
Fri Jun 19, 2015, 09:55 AM
Jun 2015

Brinsley.

It was clearly determined that the inflammatory speech that preceded Brinsley's hateful actions could not possibly have anything to do with what he did, whatever he himself may have said. Instead, mental illness was to blame.

It's a handy conclusion when it's a defensive argument and there's a cause to be protected; it's not when it's not defensive and in making it there's a cause to be advanced.

I agree to a large extent with the OP. I thought the defense of Brinsley was wrong-headed and self-serving.

Then again, I also find that some arguments made are a bit wrong. Take the "it wasn't race, it was an assault on Xianity." If that argument is sincerely made, I think it's a good thing: Then what's really important wasn't skin color but religion, and that helps obscure the racial divisions separating us and encouraging the hatred. And that's the real problem, people who insist on dividing and subdividing and making the divisions paramount while what unites us is trivial or less important. I'll take reasonable unity without victory over exultant victory without unity any day.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New York Times Commenter ...»Reply #5