Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
My main issue with Walcott is that he's grandstanding, and not being careful with his wording. He piggy-backed on an article titled "Black man shot by police" and used the term anti-racist. Sure he may be referring to the bigger picture, but he doesn't know the whole picture. We don't know this man's history or what set him off, it's all speculation at this point. And the cops sure as hell didn't have any background information when they had to decide to use lethal force. Walcott is coming across as an attention whore more than a concerned councilor, if mental health is truly his concern then push for reform during council meetings where it might actually make a difference. Don't tag an inflammatory headlined article on Twitter just to grab some likes
|
I’d argue he was very careful with his wording, because he didn’t accuse anybody of anything. You’re being considerably less careful with your wording than he is, and you don’t know his motivations any more than he knows the whole picture, so at a certain point you have to ask yourself what you’re actually upset about. Because you obviously have no real problem with the way he’s carrying himself if you’re fine acting the same way without a second thought.
And if you want to say politicians, especially municipal ones, should be held to a higher standard than you or me and shouldn’t be able to speak their mind, or that a Black man shouldn’t be able to speak about an incident involving the death of another Black man by police that triggers him, then I disagree totally.
What’s the real issue?