morriswalters wrote:However the narrative where they are pure and he is evil is more suitable to your bias.
Gmal's narrative is that, if they weren't doing anything actually illegal, then there is nothing they did that is a national problem that society needs to discuss how to "fix".
If a child puts "2+2=5" on a math test and the teacher shoots them through the head, yeah, the child was "wrong", but that's not fucking important.
What conveniently happens when this comes up is that every narrative other than one that agrees with you is victim blaming.
No, the fact that in every story that's brought up about corruption of the system, you consistently
find a way to criticize and demean the behavior of those who suffered the most, usually those suffering from blatant violation of their civil rights, is victim blaming.
Whether or not you are explicitly saying "it is this person's fault that everything happened", you are consistently
finding a way to criticize the people who did not break the law and are suffering from those who did
, and saying that what they did is "not what you would do". It's ridiculous.
Being one, how could I have any personal experience that didn't include it. Am not ashamed of what I am, I didn't get asked.
And yet you chose to deny that these people's complaints were reasonable or that their suffering was believable, because it's not what you would have experienced.
Your rebuttal here is oblivious to (and very illustrative of) the gotdamn point.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.