Entry 283: What I Would Like To Write On Facebook

My last entry turned out to be sadly topical.  The big news stories this week were the death of Freddie Gray, the protests in Baltimore, and the criminal charges brought against the arresting police officers.  In all the analysis I've heard on the matter, this is about something bigger than a single death (tragic as it is), it's about a systemic mistreatment of black kids in the inner city by law enforcement and the mutual mistrust that breeds.  And when you look below the surface, it's not difficult to spot a major cause of this ill: The Drug War.  In fact, the Baltimore Sun just put out an article with the not-so-subtle headline: "The drug war killed Freddie Gray."

Whenever a big politically-charged event happens, especially one that is racial by nature, you can expect to see some stupid things on your Facebook feed.  I tend to block the posts of my really stupid "friends" (I rarely outright unfriend people), but some still get through.  I read the posts, but I almost never reply.  I almost never engage because -- what's the point?  Do you really want to argue about racial disparities in the criminal justice system with a former high school classmate you haven't seen in 20 years using chatspeak and emojis?  I don't.  So even when I really want to say something, I typically fight the urge.

But on my own blog with a readership barely in the double digits, it's a different story.  I don't feel the need to refrain from speaking my mind.  So below are five posts from my recent Facebook feed, along with what I would have said if I thought arguing on Facebook actually accomplished anything.  All posts are anonymous to protect the guilty.

Post 1.

So shouldn't white people be rioting?

Response.  Let's start with the most obvious retort.  White people are 72% of the U.S. population; African-Americans, 13%.  If whites and blacks are killed by police at an equal rate, and 414 white people are killed, then that would imply 75 black people should be killed.  Now, you might not have been able to derive this number yourself (it would require an understanding of a complex math topic known as "fractions"), but now that I've told it to you, you can surely deduce that 75 is a much smaller number than 233.

Next, let's talk about American history, particular these racist institutions called "slavery" and "Jim Crow Law" and their residual effects that still persist to this day, and why trying to equate blacks and whi- ... Actually, you know what, let's not get into this.  Being that you thought it a good idea to post this nonsense on your Facebook page, I can see most of it is going to go right over your head anyway.  Instead, I'll just answer your question: No, white people shouldn't be rioting.  College basketball season is over and the Stanley Cup Finals are still a few weeks away.

Post 2.  

The picture the media won't show, so I will.  BLACK people protecting the POLICE.

Response.  Okay, I get it.  You're a conservative republican who therefore must reflexively defend the police, but you want everybody to know you're not racist.  Every time you criticize Obama, you temper it will a praise of somebody like Jason Riley, and you are totally sympatico with blacks like Billy Cosby (minus the whole drugging and raping women thing).  That's cool.  But I have a question for you: If the media isn't showing this picture, then why can I find it at CNN and on Fox News*, two of the biggest news outlets in the US?  (Although, I use the word "news" tentatively in both of these cases.  With CNN it's more like force-fed sensationalism, and with Fox News it's farcical anti-liberal gibberish.)

In general, why is it that whenever somebody posts a picture online claiming that it's something we won't see in the media, nine times out of ten, I've already seen it somewhere in the media?  To be fair, this happens on both sides of the political aisle.  I swear I saw more articles about the improper coverage of the protests (only focusing on the violence, not talking about the systemic problems, using the word "thug," etc.) than I saw articles that were actually improperly covering the protests.  The thing is, there really is no "the media" anymore.  There is lots of media -- and they are covering literally everything.  So let's all stop with the media isn't showing us this or that business.

*I copied the wrong link in for Fox, and now I can't find the right one, but I swear I had a screen shot of this picture being shown on a Fox News TV show.

Advertisement.

Response.  I thought the deal with Facebook was we get to use their free service and they get to collect a bunch of demographic data on everybody.  We have to endure ads too?  And what have I been doing online that makes Meet Single Moms a suggested post for me?  Maybe I need to cut back on the MILF porn.  And speaking of porn, is it just a coincidence that the woman in the photo looks an awful lot like adult film star Katie Morgan, or was that the intention of the ad maker?  (I only know Ms. Morgan because she was once on the Adam Carolla Show, honest.)   What's up with this ad, and why is it popping up in my Facebook feed?

Post 3.

Response.  ^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  FINALLY somebdy says what were all thinking.  If you dont want ur spine busted dont carry a legal pocket knife on ur person.  And if you dont want to be shot in the back in cold blood dont try to amble away from a officer at 2 mph.  And whatever you do dont make EYECONTACT with a police. If you do thats on YOU!!

Post 4.

[Shared from a site "Ron Paul Revolution" or something like that.] 

Response 4.  And we know these people are getting free housing and welfare checks how?  

Look, obviously looting and rioting are not solutions to anything, but should we look at why people loot and riot, should we look at society's role in it, or should we just chalk it all up to a bunch of freeloading criminals who made poor life decisions?  If you're a Ron Paul-ite, you choose the latter.  It's just another reason why I've grown to loathe libertarianism -- it's a total cop out.  If you believe society is (or should be) composed of a discrete set of individuals and you reject the idea of society -- of a greater good -- then there is no reason to address societal problems.  Instead of looking at the history of theft and violence against blacks in America and trying to figure out the role that plays in the struggle of many African-Americans today, one can just say -- black people have to make better decisions and raise their families better -- and be done with it.  Maybe that's why it's called libertarianism, it "liberates" you from having to deal with any real societal problems.  

And in this case the real problem is a legacy of white supremacy that has created systemic inequalities between blacks and whites in almost all facets of life.  That's not something a libertarian would ever say because the solution to this problem would entail: a) admitting racism and white privilege are real things, b) an active role of the government (gasp!) in creating and administering new progressive policy, c) a sizable redistribution of wealth (double gasp!).  Also, it would mean that being a white person and telling black people that the problem is that they're doing life wrong -- which is essentially Rand Paul's message -- is a colossally dickheaded move. 

Post 5.

Most black people are not criminals.

Most white people are not racists.

Most police officers are good people doing a difficult job.

LIKE IF YOU AGREE.

This is all true.  It is also completely irrelevant.  We can't fix systemic racism by being good people and singing Kumbayuh together.  If we could, it would be over by now.  Posting this is about as useful as putting a "Mean People Suck" bumper sticker on your car.  But of all the posts this is the only one with which I do in fact agree, so let's end here on a somewhat positive note.

Until next time ...