There is a failure of human empathy here that I think really undermines any point you might try to make. You suggest that problems in policing are imagined by people who are upset about systemic racism, but provide no reasoning or evidence for your claims, just further statements that people who have a problem with some systemic problems in policing in the US are wrong, projected onto a pretend British guy.

I think any real world problem, particularly one in a political space, requires a lot more nuance in one's understanding of the situation to tackle head-on like this and do it well. The 60-90 second soundbite-ification of what are often incredibly complex issues where both or all sides of a debate have some valid criticisms and defenses alongside their shortcomings does not, to my mind, help move these discussions forward in a productive manner.

We can have respect for good policing around the country without being dismissive when increasingly numerous videos of cops shooting unarmed black men stoke speculation and criticism of a system that allows cops to go largely unpunished in cases like this. There have been plenty of mistakes made by people who identify with the BLM movement, too, to be sure. I'm not suggesting that the right has a monopoly on stupidity in this complex set of problems. But describing people who have helped bring these problems to light and want there to be accountability for them as "misguided" and "useless" is precisely the kind of dismissive rhetoric that you're attempting to criticize: insulting the people who disagree with you without offering a solution.

And finally, dismissing people who disagree with you as "the liberal elites" and "the media" is further indicative of the kind of lazy labeling that is too often used to suggest that any people who don't see things your way can be fit into a neat little package that is more easily written off. Again, a problem on both sides of any issue. The media, for instance, is not a monolithic entity with unified conspiratorial intent to push messaging in a particular direction. Various media coverage of BLM has received plenty of criticism from both sides over the past couple of years, and rightly so in many cases. But that doesn't mean that enormous swaths of of people should be grouped and dismissed on the basis of some individuals or systemic problems, just as your imagined British surrogate expresses dismay at people doing that with law enforcement.

Greetings All. Thank you both, William Osborne, and, site administrator, Sméagol, for viewing and responding to this, our second Independence Minute episode. Upon further examination of this episode, we believe that many of your criticisms are accurate. In this post, we will primarily discuss our response to the comments of Sméagol, and then briefly examine the shorter post of William Osborne. So, let’s begin.

Very well then, we will begin by discussing the first point in the site administrator’s post. He said, “You suggest that problems in policing are imagined by people who are upset about systemic racism, but provide no reasoning or evidence for your claims…” After viewing this video, we are disappointed to say, that this is unquestionably true. We do not offer any evidence whatsoever to support our claims, but just blindly attack those whom we believe disagree with us. Moving on, we read, “But describing people who have helped bring these problems to light and want there to be accountability for them as ‘misguided’ and ‘useless’ is precisely the kind of dismissive rhetoric you’re attempting to criticize.” Here is another correct point. Applying demeaning names or descriptions to people we possibly disagree with is truly misguided, and, useless. Finally, our studio agrees that dismissing people who disagree with us “the liberal-elites” and “the media” is not tactful, nor is it going to help solve these issues. The site administrator has undeniably brought up some excellent points in his post. We as a studio are frustrated to find that most of them are true.

Turning to William Osborne’s post. He makes a very important point, “I don’t want to sound as though your side of the argument is wrong, it’s just you don’t really give much of an argument”. He’s right! We don’t! As a studio, we are annoyed that this is true, but, we will admit when we make a mistake, and we absolutely did in the case of this episode. Our intention was to voice conservative opinions on these important current events, but instead, we took a very complex issue and loudly voiced our opinion with a “pretend British” accent in about one minute. We did it without tact, and without skill.

That is why we will be taking down all LEGO Independence Minute episodes. This is effective as soon as we receive some sort of response acknowledgment that both of you, William Osborne, and the site administrator, have seen and read this post. Then, we will remove the videos and we will ask the site administrator to close both threads (Episodes 1 and 2), as they will be useless, for the videos will be removed entirely from You Tube.

But, for those viewers who were expecting more from this series than what you received, we will return! We, as a studio, intend, in the near future, to reboot this series with a more tactful and accurate representation of our views on current events and subjects, (We may also decide to remove the fake British accent if we find that it gives the appearance that our studio does not take these issues seriously, or, if it annoys our viewers).

We’d like to thank you again, for watching and commenting on this video. We’d also like to thank Sméagol and William Osborne for revealing to us our mistakes and, consequently, showing how we may improve. We apologize for allowing such unprofessional material to be published from our studio and we hope that our audience will continue to view and comment on our videos. We also very much welcome more precise and accurate critiques, like Sméagol’s, on all of our future videos.

Learning Every Day,

The Remnant Media Public Relations Team

Last edited by RemnantMedia (September 26, 2016 (02:55pm))

I however, am upset that the video was taken down before I had the opportunity to see it.  When a person addresses controversial topics, there will be a debate over it.  I agree that your opinions must be made with facts to back them up, especially when a conservative says them, as their points are met with much closer scrutiny even when sourced, while positions made by liberals are often accepted without even any information to support them.

BLM the source of a lot of racism, and yet it is financed by a white man.  They have corporate ties.  They shout down politicians who say "All Lives Matter" (democrat candidate Martin O'Malley is one example.)  I can't critique your video since I can't view it, but if you research the money trail and the systemic racism inside BLM and base your opinions on the facts you uncover, at least your argument is demonstrated to be sound, even to detractors.

I'll be looking forward to your insights in your future videos.

EDIT: by the way, here's a video you may want to watch for inspiration.  This is a longer video (13+ minutes) but it it well-produced, entertaining, but also a well-documented and sourced deconstruction of most of the main altercations BLM created a narrative over, and what really happened.  It refutes most of the false claims, shattering their stereotype that cops are racist in general.  But because it's well-researched, it enlightens while it entertains.

Last edited by HoldingOurOwn (September 27, 2016 (01:37pm))