Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Right, but at the risk of appearing to defend a position I don't hold, there are only two possibilities here.
First, you're suggesting that that is going to be the position taken by posters who said similar things about other cases in which the police have shot people. If so, your caricature of them is unfair by your own admission, because you acknowledge that the two situations are very different.
Second, you're satirizing a position that you don't think anyone actually holds. In which case, what is the purpose of the satire?
EDIT: on immediate reflection I don't know why I typed that, because although I think it's right, I honestly don't care.
|
I'm satirizing the focus on the typical narratives (criminal history, the over-dependence on police statements which are often proven wrong, and the slippery slope argument) which stop people from critically analyzing each situation by the situation itself, by applying that to a 13-year-old boy with autism, which should be patently ridiculous and obvious satire.
Of course the situations are wildly different and no well-adjusted human being would seriously apply this ridiculousness to this situation, but the typical narrative is an equally silly distraction that is applied without thought again and again. People have a difficult time seeing how criminal history has no bearing in many (not all) of these shootings, but it has become a joke for how widely and casually it's depended on, given how irrelevant of a subject it usually is.