France, Corrected, To Better Understand This Street

France riots corrected HEADER

Posted: Jul 23, 2023   1:25:37 AM   |   Last updated: Jul 28, 2023   12:30:15 AM
by Pascal-Denis Lussier

It's Only My Fault Because It's Your Fault I Can't Blame You

This post centres on one of the things I've kept meaning to address, which I'll do before an overdue post on India—if I've captured a 'short' "Le Monde" message correctly—which I'll do in between sinking back into resolving some bugs so I can release some sections. I needed to catch up on things and stuff, then got caught up with catching up on some news while getting caught up with having to say stuff, much like this stuff:

By the way: I did just notice that posts are inaccessible on the old site. Sigh... always one or the other. I'll have to kill the old one sooner than later, I think. There will be some surgical DB work to do. Always risky. But, if an adrenaline junky with a gambling problem, what joy(?)!       

I also wanted to point out the ‘correction’ that follows so I could take advantage of what would have otherwise been a two-paragraph post, which seems like a waste of postage(?).

Plus, we all know that the two-paragraph quickie is a myth ‘round these parts.

That’s because we use the PDL standard here, which stands for Paragraph Dialectological Length, which converts the banal, mainstream two paragraphs into roughly 17.82 PDL paragraphs, which is reducible to 13.27 PDLs to the mainstream's one, say-nothing paragraph.

See. That’s already two paragraphs too many, right above. It’s not as if I plan these things.

•     •     •

In that "French Fry" post on the wave of riots in France that had resulted out of the facts emerging in relation to the police shooting of 17 year-old Nahel Merzouk, I'd written: "The teen simply disregarded the police and decided to drive away, that's it. Infuriated by the brazzen act, the police killed him." 

This is the version I believed to be the truth at the time I'd written it, having then gotten caught up in trying to resolve that rendering issue, which happened prior to my then having gotten caught up with catching up on some news while I'd gotten caught up with having to say stuff, much like the aforementioned stuff I'd said. 

(Including this one, that's already 1.536 paragraphs you could have done without in this section.)

•     •     •

At the time, the "reckless danger" version had been refuted following the bit of video—from a bystander, not a security camera as I'd specified—that had been released, the sequence not matching the recorded sequence of events. 

However, and although not a clear one that can easily be discerned as an accurate version, more facts came out allowing for a more detailed interpretation of events than the one I provided, and, albeit these confirmed the point I did want to get across, I painted a far too simplistic version of the killing that seems to have placed, grossly and unjustly, blame on the police.

To be perfectly frank, I didn't review those facts before posting, my emphasis on that one being on the racial element which differentiated these riots from previous ones, as well as on taking a jab at Emmanuel Macron and the upper class.

The 46,000 officers mobilized to deal with the violence, having inflicted violence themselves, is an aspect that I should have mentioned as it solidifies the perspective I wanted to communicate, but had forgotten to do so.

Civic anti-riot "mobs", like the one in the picture, where the town's mayor and his family were attacked, took root in various parts of France. 'Taking back France' silently, but firmly, underscores their attitude, but they mean it in a 'bring back a sense of security, civility, and tradition', not in the racist sense...  

Personally, from a purely analytical point of view, those particulars are irrelevant, what matters most being: what do people believe happened and why? But that's not necessarily the one that matters most if seeking to responsibly transmit info and not stir unnecessary aggression, a facet I pretty much pushed aside, potentially adding more anger to this particular case rather than to the race-based class issues I targeted, along with the unfortunate exploitation that plagues both sides, immigrants and not.   

I do grant myself lots of liberty, those moments marked by details that turn aspects of an event banal and absurd if not bizarro, or they're ones few can possibly know, not having been there or possessing the ability to read what's in X's head. I try to make such moments stand out somehow, using various methods to do so. Maybe.

BUT: What I always try to avoid is precisely what I did, for which I apologize; that was negligent of me. Leaving readers with a false impression of any and all facts that were within my reach at  the time of publishing is something i consider to be a failure on my part.

Furthermore, and without adding anymore to that story... 

A Few PDLs About PDL and this Street, and Up Yours, Too

I've partaken in a few tribalities and took a few tribally-motivated shots at media people and politicians—I am human, OK—so, yes, I’ve been guilty of doing a bit of that, but the tribal game of attacking an other isn’t one I care to play although I do comment on the behaviour itself; breaking tribalism is a primary target of my efforts, after all. 

Biases may imply that I'm less tolerant in certain respects, but one should have noticed that those I "attack" are those that do upsetting things, regardless of the tribe they belong too. That said, any negative attention placed on an individual is meant to be limited to what I bring attention to, leaving out all aspects that pertain to one’s personal life unless there exists a very clear, direct, and important relationship between that personal matter and professional ones, the first affecting the second in a manner that negatively impacts a public.

I rarely sugarcoat my criticisms, but I always try to attack a behaviour or mindset, not the individual per se, and I’m always careful to not go beyond what they themselves have served up, the insults I allow myself to make are proportional to any name calling or harm they’ve done for which ‘public’ records exist.

Some I’ve criticized were probably surprised to see positive remarks or a show of support popping up on our street, or vice versa, more so given how harshly I may have previously criticized them (or vice versa). That’s because, most important of all: I don’t do tribal. Nor do I endorse or turn a blind eye on anything I’d condemn ‘the other side’ of doing, allowing my side to behave in some way because our side’s politics are ‘good’ and the correct ones for all.

Of course I’ve a ‘side’; I’m not apolitical. The left may assume I’m a rightist while the right write me off as being a lefty, but, in my mind, that’s how everyone should feel about anyone whose focus is “info”, not “PR”. I’m not alone, but I am an aberration.

In my opinions, there’s a tiny bit of a persona at work, and the Internet’s ability to amplify extremes plays a role, of course, plus, there’s the nature of the indirect form of communication that speaks to an abstraction even if a real-life analog is the target that factors in (i.e., the bravado provided by a keyboard), there’s also the fact that emotions spark much of the motivation needed to set down one’s opinion/reaction, which leads to an offshoot of the last two, in that passion oftentimes dictates one’s focus, and, lastly, the format provides a release, though putting limits on the anger expressed and channelling it productively should always be top of mind.

Let’s be frank: there are veritable a-holes out there who deserved to be called out as such. But you first gotta confirm—and not with your bubble friends—that what you’re accusing anyone of fits. Basic stuff. You’d think so, but…

Aside from morally reprehensible views and comments, I’m of the mindset that anything is OK, like saying “piss”, “shit”, “cunt”, but only if it’s to clarify aspects of one’s intended communication by eliciting feelings or cultural elements, or to paint a texture or convey a crudeness, or to keep readers grounded or untethered and uncomfortable, etc., providing that the effect walls off the instance rather than the instance opening wider pastures (i.e., not encourage readers toward that negative).

In short, I aim to never be gratuitous except to provide an example of gratuitousness, as in the previous paragraph. This isn’t always easy given the type of humour I enjoy doing.

By the way, I use “idiot” as a mostly endearing term I oft apply to myself upon realizing I made an oopsie, like being absentminded and putting arsenic instead of sugar in other people’s coffee. I mean, that never happened, officially, but that’d be a good example.

With “moron”, things are more serious, and if I’m in the “scum” territory, you can bet I don’t think highly of you. If I give you the “scum-snot” label, that’s when you know I’ve got more respect for a slug than I do for you, and you’re the only one to blame for that.

I’ve insulted many, I’m sure, but I dish what I can take. However, in all my critiques, there’s two instances where I feel I’d crossed a line, to be honest, delivering an entirely gratuitous comment I’d justified through the more generalized sentiment I took as license to be unduly boorish  based on the conviction that my overall characterisation of their viewpoint was correct.

Ben Shapiro was one, Sean Hannity the other; I had voiced a vile personal attack, insulting Shapiro, out of the blue, in a post that had absolutely nothing to do with him (I deleted the comment two days later). Another time, I spewed hatred at Hannity on a subject that, had I not allowed biases to dictate my reaction, I’d have adopted a fairer framing that established him as being just as correct as I was on the matter. Considering all the criticisms I’ve thrown their way, it may seem odd to say: I’ve always wanted to apologise for those two instances, but I assumed they’d never seen them; there, got that off my back.

If you feel I've missed you... could be. Let me know; I'll do the same.

The rest I classify under “roasting” and fair game. For example, I may respect Rand Paul albeit he was the target of a not-so-kind post, and although I’ve also said positives about him elsewhere, there’s nothing I’d qualify as gratuitous in that ‘unkind’ post.

And yes, I stand by that "Shapiroid" post.

So very few disseminators seem to give serious consideration to any of the briefly outlined facets that form a part of the ethical framework I abide by, expecting others to have formulated a similar, honest framework they operate under, able to provide clear, unambiguous, and non-contradictory reasons for any position they voice, which includes intent, strategy, and one’s scope.

There are few, but there are some.

 

 

.

.