MetaReview: Dave Truesdale Reviews Diabolical Plots #21

http://www.tangentonline.com/e-market-monthly-reviewsmenu-265/279-diabolical-plots/3305-diabolical-plots-21-november-2016

Let me talk briefly about dehumanisation. There are many examples of this in politics and there are many examples of specific kinds of dehumanisation – of women, of ethnic minorities, religious minorities, immigrant communities, people of various kinds of sexualities or gender identification. However, I’m going to focus on a least-worst example. I say ‘least worst’ not because some kinds of dehumanisation are OK but because the general target is political. However, the nature of this kind of dehumanisation means it often encompasses specific targets listed above as well.

So, I’m talking specifically about the dehumanisation of the left. By this, I mean a repeated attempt to deny that people on the left have genuine anger, that any display of emotion is either fake or socially unacceptable. And yes, people on the left do it to the right as well – it is a pernicious habit among all humans to dismiss the feelings of their opponents and reject empathy. The difference is how entrenched this rejection of the legitimacy of emotion has become among not only the right but also the centre and the media when discussing the left. It is as if, the left are now meant to be a parody of some kind of Vulcan species or perhaps Romulans, in which all reactions are either calculating or a violation of social norms.

I said ‘least worst’ because I’m phrasing it in terms of the left as a political grouping but do not doubt that this rooted in the wider attempt to suppress broad groups of people – specifically those historically subject to oppression. For example, the notion that the righteous anger that arises from police violence toward the Black community in the USA is illegitimate is a form of this dehumanisation. People are told by earnest voices that protest is either illegitimate or inappropriate – even if it is simply a sports player respectfully kneeling rather than standing during a national anthem.

We can see the same attempts to deny, trivialise or delegitimize the concerns among not only the Muslim community but other religious minorities in the face of proposed ‘registration’ of Muslims by the Trump presidency. The self-appointed serious people attempting to portray legitimate fear as unfounded or premature or ‘hysterical’ (a word itself that is rooted in attempting to delegitimise the emotional reactions of women).

So let me encapsulate it, the dehumanisation is this: for you (a person on the left or a person who sees themselves as an ally towards a range of groups facing systematic oppression or a person within one of those groups who thinks enough is enough) your feelings are merely a pose or virtue signalling or animalistic irrationality or inappropriately expressed (so not worthy of consideration) *AND* you are not being sufficiently considerate to the feelings of X, who may get angry at you as a consequence and whose feelings are genuine and should be respected, acknowledged and accommodated regardless of how they are expressed.

There are those who wish to perpetuate this meme, this lie, to advance a false narrative, even unto a review of a piece of fiction . In this case, the reviewer (Dave Truesdale of Tangent online) rigs his review so that the weight of his criticism can revolve around whether the author of the story has paid sufficient attention to a real-world case of police violence. By doing so the true thrust of the review is crystal clear. It is not the reviewer’s dissatisfaction with the story itself, but the advancement of an agenda.

That the reviewer frames his review around a comment by the author—the “unjust violent death of Michael Brown”—and then gives the reader of Truesdale review a totally different narrative that is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Truesdale’s review fails on literary grounds (the shift of focus from a fictional story about emotional pain in the face of perceived injustice and violence to Truesdale’s evaluation of whether the author is justified in feeling angry about a real-world event), and from an error in judgment by Truesdale in attempting to justify a judicial killing, which not only reveal the weakness in the review itself, but which highlights how the reviewer’s own strong prejudice in the matter clouded his thinking, and obstructed his capacity to give a professional review.

Consider what it could mean when a reviewer of fiction says:

 The author allowed strong emotions to bubble over, to overwhelm her desire (and ability) to pen a professionally written story with her obviously heartfelt message.

Note that this attack on the professionalism of the writer arises because the author of the story mentions the shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer in an afterword to the story. This becomes ‘strong emotions’ that ‘bubble over’ – that is a case of the second way of trying to delegitimize the feelings of the writer as being inappropriate to the space in which they are being expressed.

The story in question by Khaalidah Muhammad-Ali is short and powerful and can be read here: http://www.diabolicalplots.com/dp-fiction-21-the-banshee-behind-beamons-bakery-by-khaalidah-muhammad-ali/

What Khaalidah appended to here story is this:

Author’s Note: The unjust violent death of Michael Brown at the hands of a police officer was the specific impetus for this story. I tried to imagine what his mother must’ve been feeling upon learning about her son’s death. This wasn’t difficult because I have a son as well. I tried to impart the feeling of rage and horror I, any mother, would feel upon learning that her son was taken away in such a violent horrific way.

What Dave Truesdale effectively identifies as unprofessional (and later ‘amateurish’) is that Khaalidah Muhammad-Ali calls the killing of Micahel Brown ‘unjust’. Indeed he goes further and says that  saying “unjust violent death of Michael Brown” is a lie. As he neither disputes the ‘death’ nor the ‘violent’ it is a necessary conclusion that Dave Truesdale regards the death of Michael Brown as just. He admits no possibility of nuance or perspective on this (e.g. that the shooting of an unarmed man by a police officer is inherently unjust) but rather spends his time trying to re-prosecute the details of the shooting. Truesdale displays a classic error of ethical reasoning by attempting to portray the shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer as not an attempt at murder and then leaping to the conclusion that it was somehow JUST or right and proper. Even if we were to accept that somehow this killing was a tragic accident of circumstance and misunderstanding to the extent that the officer involved is absolved of blame (which itself is problematic), the intentional killing of a man innocent of a capital crime is not in any reasonable society JUST. Anger in the face of injustice is a virtue – even if (as Truesdale appears to contend) the source of that injustice was somehow unintended by accident.

[I will let readers draw the other obvious connections between Dave Truesdale’s own emotional reactions to what he regards as injustice towards himself in other circumstances]

Critical reviews of stories with diverse themes and viewpoints should be encouraged in literary magazines, especially when dealing with hard-hitting or controversial material—even more so in science-fiction—and by any and all practitioners. Controversial or heartful topics shouldn’t be above informed criticism. The more the merrier.

Dave Truesdale should hope that this amateurish review of his should be quickly forgotten (or perhaps used as an object lesson is what not to do), and I doubt that Tangent will live up to its obvious potential in future efforts by showing more skill and sophistication than shown here. The scalpel cuts cleaner than the axe but more importantly righteous anger is not unprofessional nor illegitimate.

Advertisements

47 comments

  1. Mark

    So…. Truesdale spends over 900 words complaining about the end note of a story of only 547 words? I don’t think it’s the _author’s_ professionalism that was overwhelmed here.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. thephantom182

    “Let me talk briefly about dehumanisation.”

    “As he neither disputes the ‘death’ nor the ‘violent’ it is a necessary conclusion that Dave Truesdale regards the death of Michael Brown as just.”

    Yeah, let’s dehumanize Dave Truesdale instead. That’ll be great, huh Camestros?

    Like

      • thephantom182

        Camestros: “(e.g. that the shooting of an unarmed man by a police officer is inherently unjust)”

        I will take a wild guess and say that you have zero experience in self defense tactics, the use of firearms and the training that US police receive. Also your grasp of ethics seems weak.

        The shooting of an unarmed man by police is -not- inherently unjust. Your statement demonizes Dave Truesdale as a person who is unreasonable and toward the ugly end of that scale as well. The implication you give is that he is a racist, and said mean things about the nice lady’s story because racism.

        I read the story. It was okay. I didn’t really care, because the author didn’t give me anything to care about. A kid died by accident, his mother turned into a banshee and haunts the ally. Yeah, very uplifting. I’n not feeling it.

        I read the author’s note. That was bullshit, because the story had nothing to do with Michael Brown. Unless you cast the honkey policeman as the kid taking out the garbage, then it reads a bit truer. She’s perpetuating a harmful lie in bad fiction. Yay. I wonder what’s on TV?

        I read Truesdale’s review, and it is both fair and reasoned well. It does not demonize the author of the story, it simply states the truth about the story and the author’s note. Boring story, bogus author’s note, maybe she’ll do better next time.

        Therefore obviously he must be destroyed. Right?

        “I’m guessing we’ll never find out.”

        Disrespecting the people that read your blog is a great way to get more readers? I should try that.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        “”Therefore obviously he must be destroyed.”

        Destroyed? I explained why I think he was wrong.

        Now note – when *I* do that you roundly declare that this is awful and terrible and illegitimate. Why? It can’t be because you think in general people shouldn’t criticize the writing of others. No, i is because you think it is not legitimate for people on the LEFT to do so.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KR

        I keep waiting for it to occur to Phantom, that self-declared fan of free and unfettered speech, what it might mean that he has remained welcome to comment in CF’s house (despite his ill-informed, incorrect statements which are typically rude and condescending in tone) while CF has been banned from VD’s site, from Dave Freer’s comments section, and from other puppy spaces at various times though he was participating in a far more polite and intellectually honest way.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        “…though he was participating in a far more polite and intellectually honest way.”

        Opinions on that subject vary. This present post is an example of why. There’s little polite or intellectually honest about it. Straight up, he’s doing -exactly- what he accuses Truesdale of. Hence my above comment.

        As to my tone, I can’t imagine what would make me feel like being rude here. Can you?

        Since you’re replying to my comment, tell me again how Twitter wasn’t 100% in the tank for Hillary why don’t you, KR? I’m a liar, remember? Go on. You know you want to.

        Like

      • Aaron

        You mean made up stuff like when I said Twitter was in the tank for Hillary?

        Oh no, do keep whining about how Twitter wouldn’t let Trump make emojis for Twitter. It shows just how ridiculous a person he, and you, are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        “If you are cool with the state executing citizens then I’m really not sure what you would regard as ‘indefensible’.”

        Well now, is that what happened in the Michael Brown case, Camestros? I know you’d like it to be that way, “hands up” and all that, but that’s not how it went down.

        That’s why I said you have no knowledge of self defense or of police training. Your opinion is uninformed by facts, and has been molded for you by other people who have unpleasant goals. I’d fill you in, but I sense you prefer your comfortable myth.

        As it happens I am not in favor of capital punishment. I do not trust government at the best of times, why on Earth would I trust them with that power? It would be idiotic.

        If you want an example of a straight-up police execution, look up the Sammy Yatim shooting. The video tells the story, IF you know anything at all about guns, police and combat. You will no doubt have to ask questions. Sammy Yatim is why I do not favor capital punishment, and why I hold the police in high suspicion generally. They do shit like that all the time.

        But Michael Brown was -not- one of those times.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //Well now, is that what happened in the Michael Brown case, Camestros?//

        Yes.

        ANYTIME a police officer kills somebody that is a failure of the state of some kind. Now note, that does not necessarily mean the culpability lies with the officer involved.

        What I find fascinating though is how quickly the right’s knee jerks in the other direction.

        I’m actually not saying anything REMOTELY controversial there. The idea I just expressed is one that can be derived from the kind of libertarian-flavored conservatism or scepticism of the state that has a long history within American conservatism.

        The simple fact is this: if Michael Brown had fitted into different demographics (not necessarily on racial grounds) and had been shot by a BATFE agent, conservatism would be offering an utterly different position on the killing. And that is a failure of conservatism – not objecting to the killing or even being concerned for the legal rights of the killer (those are both virtues if applied consistently) but judging the rights and wrongs of such cases on the basis on the demographics of who got shot.

        I’ll even make half an excuse for you guys. It is EXACTLY about race, it is about those you’ve decided are ‘one of us’ and those you have decided are not – now, that closely but exactly runs along some racial lines but I don’t think that is the first thing going on in your heads. No, it is whether you think ‘that could have been me’ or whether you think ‘it was one of them’. ‘Them’ can be all sorts of people and in theory ‘that could have been me’ could be somebody who was African American – it’s just that, well it just never is, is it?

        Where am I headed: just this – what hope is there for political rapprochement or finding common ground if conservatives who have spent several decades decrying state power who were (not unjustifiably) outraged by federal agents killing citizens at Ruby Ridge, who were (not unjustifiably) outraged by the deaths at Waco, can’t agree to the simple proposition that when officers of the state kill somebody that there should be a basic assumption that something has gone badly wrong?

        Conservatives should have been out on the streets of Ferguson, holding the state to account. To do so does not require you to demonise the police or even to reject the notion that sometimes a police officer may make what could be called a legitimate error. All it requires is to accept that the power of the state is there to serve the people and not vice-versa.

        Instead we’ve all just watched conservatism slip-slide its way into the kind of authoritarianism it supposedly decries.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Mark

        “ANYTIME a police officer kills somebody that is a failure of the state of some kind”

        Yes, particularly with your proviso that it’s not necessarily a judgement of individual responsibility.
        You don’t need to examine every incident and judge them individually, you simply look for evidence for whether the level of incidents in which the state ends up killing someone is acceptable or not. There are plenty of broadly comparable nations in which the police kill very few or no people, therefore the level of police killings in the US is disproportionate.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thephantom182

        Aaron said: “Oh no, do keep whining about how Twitter wouldn’t let Trump make emojis for Twitter. It shows just how ridiculous a person he, and you, are.”

        Meaning I told the truth, I was 100% correct, and you are going to pout rather than admit the obvious. But -I- am ridiculous.

        Sure thing, Aaron. Har!

        Like

      • Aaron

        Meaning I told the truth

        And? When you lie about things, we point out that you are lying. You lie frequently, a fact that has been demonstrated time and again. I might object to your characterization of Twitter being “in the tank” for Clinton, since it assumes that a private organization is somehow obligated to allow anyone to use their service for any reason, but as I have pointed out before, there is a difference between “news” and “opinion” you seem not to understand.

        In this case, Twitter turned down the Trump campaign’s request to put emoji’s on Twitter that Twitter thought were inappropriate. You have decided that anyone rejecting anything from the Trump campaign means they are “in the tank” for Clinton. You also think this is some sort of huge deal. Both notions make you look ridiculous. The fact that you are screaming in outrage over this just reveals to anyone who isn’t an idiot like you just how far out in left field you really are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        Camestros said: “ANYTIME a police officer kills somebody that is a failure of the state of some kind.”

        Ah, finally a statement of substance.

        This philosophy of yours denies human agency to Michael Brown. In what way is the state at fault for the actions of the individual, Camestros?

        I will also ask, in what way is the shooting of Sammy Yatim the fault of the state? That was all on the cop.

        You rush to accuse “conservatives” of racism in who they support, yet ignore the blatantly racist agenda of the media in how they report such incidents. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, two examples of the media lionizing violent criminals.

        Ever hear of the Waco riot? http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2015/05/white-men-rioting.html
        Short version, 9 fatalities, 170 arrests. You didn’t hear about it because they were white and Latino. Nobody cares. That was a righteous shoot by the way, cops did well.

        Some science: http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2015/01/no-cops-dont-target-blacks-reverse-if.html Cops try hard not to shoot black people. Harder than they try not to shoot whites. They still end up shooting more black guys. Why?

        Then there’s my favorite, http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2009/06/what-does-racism-look-like.html Where’s your #GurjeetSinghLives! hashtag? Where’s your #SikhLivesMatter trend on facebook? Not reported. Nobody cares. Indian kid, black shooter.

        Like

  3. delagar

    As much as I admire Camestros’s commitment to free speech, holy hell is phantom boring. I didn’t think anyone could bore me as much as VD, but yeah, phantom is managing to do it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Stobor

    Hello Camestros,

    There’s a fair amount I disagree with in what Truesdale says, but I think he has a point about the Author’s Afterword. It would be best to let the story stand on its own. Having an afterword saying that a story is based on a real world issue invites interpretation based on the reader’s views about that real world issue. In effect, it can change the story for the reader (especially for such a short story that is easy to reread).

    Also, if you *are* going to mention an “unjust violent death . . . at the hands of a police officer” there are far better cases to mention than the controversial Michael Brown case. Wilson claimed justified self defense, and both at the state and Federal levels, after big investigations, they decided that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to contradict him.

    That said, I wouldn’t condemn the author as Truesdale does. Reasonable people can disagree about the case, or what the laws regarding justifiable self defense and police actions should be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      I see your point and there is an element that I deleted from my post that I deleted – I felt I was succumbing to my nitpicky tendencies and strayed away from the core point about people on the right denying the emotional reaction of people on the left (as well many others).

      The point you raise is part of the flim-flam of Truesdale’s review. The author discusses the death Michael Brown in terms of her emotional reaction to it – it was this case that motivated her story. She didn’t pick out that case to write an essay about or to examine. What she did was consider her feeling in relation to the case and then wrote a story about a mother’s anger and grief.

      Now absolutely, if somebody wanted to show the wrongs of police violence then they would be wise to pick the clearest cut case they could. But this is a category error in discussing the story – it isn’t an examination of the rights or wrongs of police violence but rather a story about the visceral reactions of a grieving mother in reaction to police violence.

      Now note what Truesdale does. First he insists on reading the story as if it were some kind of parable or analog to the Michael Brown case (which the author doesn’t say at all). The he points out the ways that the story is NOT an analog to the Michael Brown case. What he is actually doing is demonstrating that HIS reading is simply false – he is wrong, as the story doesn’t match except in the very broadest sense of a person shot by a police officer. Yet, Truesdale not only persists but then criticises the author for the fact that her story doesn’t match the conditions that his invalid reading of it should have!

      It is not unlike saying that Moby Dick is about fishing and then saying Melville was a poor writer because a whale is not a fish.

      Read the author’s note again. She certainly does not say that her story is meant to resemble the Michael Brown case. What she says is that Michael Brown’s unjust death is what motivated her to write a story about anger and grief.

      Liked by 1 person

    • JJ

      Stobor: I think he has a point about the Author’s Afterword. It would be best to let the story stand on its own. Having an afterword saying that a story is based on a real world issue invites interpretation based on the reader’s views about that real world issue. In effect, it can change the story for the reader (especially for such a short story that is easy to reread).

      Um, no. No, he doesn’t have a point. The author did leave the story to “stand on its own”. The author didn’t say that the story is “based on” a real world issue, so trying to present an interpretation based on the the author’s note is invalid. Truesdale showed himself to be an incompetent reviewer by doing so.

      What the author said was “this is what inspired me to write this story, this was the emotion I wanted to convey”.

       
      Stobor: Also, if you *are* going to mention an “unjust violent death . . . at the hands of a police officer” there are far better cases to mention than the controversial Michael Brown case. <irrelevant details elided>

      Seriously? Why are you or Truesdale even discussing this? It’s not part of the story. Her point in writing the story wasn’t to talk about an unjust death, it was to write a story which conveyed a certain emotion.

      Truesdale trotted out a red herring, and it looks to me as though you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

      Like

  5. thephantom182

    http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2015/08/as-ive-been-saying.html

    This is the one I was looking for earlier. Unarmed white kid killed by police, zero reason for it. Zach Hammond. Dead. This kid actually fits the story Truesdale reviewed.

    Cop wasn’t charged, and we are all very not surprised by that. Difference between Zach Hammond and Michael Brown, Zach was a white kid.

    Nobody rioted over Zach Hammond’s death. There was no burnt downtown stores. No #ZachLivesMatter trending campaign on Twitter. Because it didn’t fit the media profile. Didn’t forward the narrative. Not my words either, it was the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center who said that.

    “The lack of publicly disclosed video of Mr. Hammond’s death helps explain much of why it has not drawn more notice, said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a longtime civil-rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala.
    Yet he added: “The reality is that this killing maybe doesn’t get quite as much attention because it doesn’t fit into the current narrative that’s sweeping the country.””

    Article in the well known right wing rag, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/zachary-hammond-police-shooting-south-carolina.html?src=twr&_r=1

    Now, everybody in the USA is aware of this media narrative. It isn’t subtle. So when Truesdale points it out in a review and calls out the author for it, that’s pretty mild criticism Camestros.

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      //. Unarmed white kid killed by police, zero reason for it. Zach Hammond.//

      Which is a BAD thing right? What we are all trying to work out, is why you or Truesdale or conservatives in general keep tying themselves into ever more convoluted knots when the person killed is not white.

      I made my position quite clear about all and any cases of the police killing somebody: it is necessarily a failure of some kind.

      Whereas you guys – you are like some miners in a coal mine who when somebody points out that the canary just fell off its perch start saying “People should be more concerned about our lives and less concerned about the lives of canaries”.

      BLM are demanding greater accountability for the police in the cases of lethal force. They are focused on a vulnerable section of the US population but their demands would benefit everybody. They are asking for things that will make it LESS likely that YOU will get KILLED by a POLICE officer.

      Your argument as to why they are wrong: well the police kill lots of different kinds of people unjustly so maybe its somehow all OK and people shouldn’t make a fuss!

      You really sound like you are saying the police murdering people is all just fine and dandy so long as they ensure they do so proportionally to demographics!

      Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        “What we are all trying to work out, is why you or Truesdale or conservatives in general keep tying themselves into ever more convoluted knots when the person killed is not white.”

        Please. BLM does not give a shit about Zach Hammond’s death, as can be plainly seen by the fact that there was -zero- coverage at the time. Had he been black, that would have been different. Then he’d be a POSTER CHILD. The cop shot him through the open window of a car that was driving -away- from him. Extremely questionable, in my opinion, almost as bad as the Sammy Yatim shooting.

        Every other BLM poster child has been some sort of violent asshole who was killed in a legit self defense shooting. Shot while trying to kill a cop. That’s how it shakes out. Because -innocent- black kids are not getting killed.

        Some police shootings are entirely right and proper. That is not to deny that they are -regrettable-, but then rapes, murders and assaults are always regrettable. The only available response to a man trying to crush your skull against the pavement is to make him stop. If you have a gun, you shoot him. Then he stops. That’s why police shoot people.

        Sometimes they screw up horribly. That would be Zach Hammond’s shooting. The officer involved did not start the say saying “I’mina shoot that Zach kid today.” He fucked up. Little Zachy was not blameless either, it must be said. If he’d followed orders, he’d be alive. Two screwups together is disaster.

        I’d have fired that cop and made sure he never worked for the government again, but I don’t get to decide this kind of stuff. I’d have also fired his tactical instructor and his superior officers for letting him walk around armed and evidently untrained. I’m a bit harsh that way. Actions are meant to have consequences. You screw up, you don’t get to play anymore.

        BUT. To accuse the police of having a racist agenda in the killing of Michel Brown is ludicrous. They have, if anything, a hands-off policy with black suspects. See above.

        The media, on the other hand, most definitely has an agenda and a narrative. Hence Truesdale’s comments, and my defense of him. I think you’d get a lot further if you stopped denying reality, Camestros.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Again you are talking nonsense. BLM is campaigning for greater police accountability on police shootings – that benefits EVERYBODY. You are saying there demands are invalid somehow because of the communities that doing the campaigning? How does that even begin to make sense?

        If BLM get their way that will mean fewer *white* kids getting shot by cops. That is a good thing.

        What you seem to be saying is that trying to repudiate the existance of institutional racism is more important to you than actually stopping the people you claim to care about being shot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        “Again you are talking nonsense. BLM is campaigning for greater police accountability on police shootings – that benefits EVERYBODY.”

        That’s silly, Camestros. I just finished showing you that BLM and the media generally DO NOT CARE when people who are not black get shot and killed by the cops. The only time anybody says anything is when a black dude gets shot by a cop. And when they do, it always turns out the shoot is legit and the guy they shot gave them no choice.

        That’s why I posted the thing about Zack Hammond. White kid dead in an extremely sketchy shoot, total cop whitewash, nobody said -shit-. If that kid was black, the stories of how he was just going to the store to get Skittles would be never ending.

        It is amazing how you consistently miss the point.

        The point of the BLM and the greater media narrative is to demonize Republicans and their supporters, to create unrest among blacks and get DemocRats elected. Its a blatant propaganda campaign, and anybody who’s championing the likes of Michael Brown is part of it. It’s that thing I posted the other day, the Lie Swarm.

        Like

      • JJ

        thephantom182: I just finished showing you that BLM and the media generally DO NOT CARE when people who are not black get shot and killed by the cops… That’s why I posted the thing about Zack Hammond. White kid dead in an extremely sketchy shoot, total cop whitewash, nobody said -shit-.

        No, you didn’t. You just finished claiming that nobody cared — you didn’t show anything remotely like that.

        This is what “nobody giving a shit about Zach Hammond” looks like.

        And this is what Black Lives Matternot giving a shit about Zach Hammondlooks like.

        You are such a liar, phantom.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Aaron

        Nobody rioted over Zach Hammond’s death. There was no burnt downtown stores. No #ZachLivesMatter trending campaign on Twitter.

        Well, let’s see. Hammond;s death is currently being investigated by Hammond’s death is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Attorney for South Carolina. It was also investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. several newspapers filed a lawsuit against SLED seeking release of the dash camera video under the Freedom of Information Act.

        A social media campaign was organized via the Facebook group “Remember Zach”, and a vigil was held at the Hardee’s restaurant where Hammond was shot. There was a rally organized by the anti-gun violence group, Put Down The Guns Now Young People, in Seneca. Demands for all law enforcement officers to wear body cameras were seen on social media in the wake of Hammond’s death.

        Hammond’s family received $2.15 million from a settlement against the city of Seneca.

        The notion that nothing has happened in the aftermath of Hammond’s death is only supportable if you ignore all of the things that have been done.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        Aaron, you and JJ can keep on pretending all you want, but your prevarications are becoming ever more ridiculous. There is no comparison between the public media circus surrounding Brown and the very few, mostly local stories about Hammond.

        You two geniuses wouldn’t know the name Zack Hammond if I hadn’t brought it up, so your protestations and accusations seem a bit pointless. Today is the very first you’ve heard of it.

        Show me another picture of a cow in Greenland.

        Like

      • JJ

        Ooo! Goalposts moved yet again!

        “Well, okay, there was a teeny-tiny bit of media coverage, but there were very few stories!” <ignores the 43,000 stories at the link I posted, and all of the Black Lives Matter links>

        Oh, phantom, your tap dancing away from the evidence is always good for a laugh.

        Liked by 1 person

    • JJ

      thephantom182: This kid actually fits the story Truesdale reviewed.

      No, this victim doesn’t fit what Truesdale reviewed. Because Truesdale didn’t review the story. He posted a tirade about the author’s comment on what inspired her to write the story.

      And I notice that you haven’t actually provided any meaningful commentary on the story either; like Truesdale, you’re just using it as an excuse to push your your narrative and agenda.

      Like

      • thephantom182

        Well now, JJ is going to pretend that Truesdale -didn’t- review the story, even though the review is there for all to see.

        Lie swarm, check.
        Demonization, check.
        Character assassination, check.

        Yep, I think you got them all, JJ.

        Like

      • JJ

        thephantom182even though the review is there for all to see

        Oh, there’s something there, all right — but it’s not a review of the story. It’s a tirade by Truesdale about the author’s comment on what inspired her to write the story.

        Try reading some real story reviews, perhaps you can learn to tell the difference between those and what Truesdale wrote.

        Like

  6. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 11/21/16 Pon Far. Squa Tront. | File 770
  7. deezelboy

    I think my favourite part of Dave Truesdale’s review is where he suggests that ‘something along the lines of “mute witness”‘ would have been a better description than ‘chronicler’ for a banshee who ‘keens like a broken dog,’ and whose ‘voice, like daggers, cleaves the night.’

    Liked by 4 people

  8. greghullender

    I just took a look at the story and the review myself. Obviously it isn’t a very good story. For one thing, it has no plot and, in fact, no protagonist. For another, it’s entirely narration, with lots of author intrusion. Finally, the author has trouble controlling tense. If I were reviewing it for Rocket Stack Rank, I’d give it one star.

    But the note at the end has no bearing on the story. I personally happen to disagree with the note–I think Michael Brown precipitated his own death by trying to take the gun from a police officer–but I can’t imagine allowing the note to influence a review. The note simply isn’t part of the story.

    I would say that the problem with Truesdale’s review isn’t that he depersonalizes the author; it’s that he lets his political beliefs interfere with his objectivity as a reviewer.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s