I'm a fan of your work (not only a subscriber but also purchased Flyover Football) so I want to be clear this is a response in good-faith. I appreciate this post because I agree with some but found this passage particularly troubling: "In reality, this was an equally partisan statement. In these comments Rivera is attempting to downplay any wrongdoing associated with the George Floyd protests while re-elevating the evil of the Jan. 6 attack."
The reason I find it troubling is because it looks like you're trying to **bothsides** this whereas I respectfully disagree. Black and white protestors asking for black people to not be extra-judicially murdered by police during the George Floyd protests, and domestic white terrorists attempting to overthrow free and fair elections and undermine the core of American democracy because of the previous President's lies, are not the same IMO. Would be interested in your reasoning behind Rivera's statement being equally partisan if you get a chance? And equally partisan of what exactly? American democracy I presume? Thanks!
I think that Rivera was trying to describe the violence at a lot of those protests in particular, where businesses were burned to the ground and/or looted. My sense of the partisanship in the statement was to ignore the tragedies and violence which occurred during the George Floyd protests.
Feels like Rivera is trying to say, "well the violence at the capital was bad but so was the violence at these protests." I think it's fair to say, "the violence at the capital seems to have been more of the point of the event" but for a lot of looters and rioters in the George Floyd protests, the violence was also the point. Like when the Minnesota police precinct was burned to the ground.
In both statements, the person making the statement wants to ignore the excesses and evil that took place on their preferred side.
Thanks for the feedback and clarification. I agree with your interpretation of what Del Rio was trying to say; however, came away with a different takeaway from Rivera. Rivera wasn't ignoring the excesses and evil from the protests; it just wasn't applicable because the BLM side wasn't entirely culpable. Much of the looting, rioting, and violence was perpetuated by right wing provocateurs and rogue police themselves. Specifically, the Minnesota police precinct that burned down.
Seems like Rivera did the patriotic thing by educating himself on the context of Del Rio's false equivalence of a failed violent and deadly coup attempt by domestic terrorists on our nation's capital based on a President's lies vs. the mostly peaceful protests stemming from deadly police oppression toward black people from the George Floyd "riots". It's unfortunate Del Rio refuses to do the same. The more nonpartisan our community leaders are, the better.
I'm a fan of your work (not only a subscriber but also purchased Flyover Football) so I want to be clear this is a response in good-faith. I appreciate this post because I agree with some but found this passage particularly troubling: "In reality, this was an equally partisan statement. In these comments Rivera is attempting to downplay any wrongdoing associated with the George Floyd protests while re-elevating the evil of the Jan. 6 attack."
The reason I find it troubling is because it looks like you're trying to **bothsides** this whereas I respectfully disagree. Black and white protestors asking for black people to not be extra-judicially murdered by police during the George Floyd protests, and domestic white terrorists attempting to overthrow free and fair elections and undermine the core of American democracy because of the previous President's lies, are not the same IMO. Would be interested in your reasoning behind Rivera's statement being equally partisan if you get a chance? And equally partisan of what exactly? American democracy I presume? Thanks!
I think that Rivera was trying to describe the violence at a lot of those protests in particular, where businesses were burned to the ground and/or looted. My sense of the partisanship in the statement was to ignore the tragedies and violence which occurred during the George Floyd protests.
Feels like Rivera is trying to say, "well the violence at the capital was bad but so was the violence at these protests." I think it's fair to say, "the violence at the capital seems to have been more of the point of the event" but for a lot of looters and rioters in the George Floyd protests, the violence was also the point. Like when the Minnesota police precinct was burned to the ground.
In both statements, the person making the statement wants to ignore the excesses and evil that took place on their preferred side.
Confused them. Should read that the offending coach (the coordinator) was trying to describe the violence at those protests, not Rivera.
Thanks for the feedback and clarification. I agree with your interpretation of what Del Rio was trying to say; however, came away with a different takeaway from Rivera. Rivera wasn't ignoring the excesses and evil from the protests; it just wasn't applicable because the BLM side wasn't entirely culpable. Much of the looting, rioting, and violence was perpetuated by right wing provocateurs and rogue police themselves. Specifically, the Minnesota police precinct that burned down.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd
Seems like Rivera did the patriotic thing by educating himself on the context of Del Rio's false equivalence of a failed violent and deadly coup attempt by domestic terrorists on our nation's capital based on a President's lies vs. the mostly peaceful protests stemming from deadly police oppression toward black people from the George Floyd "riots". It's unfortunate Del Rio refuses to do the same. The more nonpartisan our community leaders are, the better.