Quote:
I think you've explained my point better than I have. My issue isn't the cause, it's the approach (and really, no one should be against causes like improved race relations, reductions in police-related violence, etc). But you don't always have to be an antagonistic ass hole to be a champion for a cause that is a net benefit to society.
Isn't there a way to meaningfully promote these things without forcing them into the political divide and actively offending a huge portion of the consuming public's sensibilities? Or is it really the case that antagonistic approach really is what generates dollars?
A substantial portion of those who don't like the approach don't accept the cause. And I know you know that to be true.
A corollary of that is no, I'm not sure you can make meaningful change in American race relations or how America polices itself in a way that isn't uncomfortable and "divisive."
The cause is complicated, the approach is complicated. But, I think most Americans are capable of being intellectually honest enough with themselves and others to not turn this into a referendum on supporting the military, or whatever they're using to criticize the approach. Some Americans simply choose to do it anyways.
One thing is, and I'm stating something obvious, is that people criticize the approach because its "disrespecting what America stands for", but the very protest is that America isn't fulfilling, in particular ways, what America is supposed to stand for. So I, personally, don't really give that criticism much water. At the least, lets recognize that criticism is, at the very same time, the exact reason why they've protested during the national anthem.