Saw a tweet from a conservative that basically outlined and was in disapproval of this double standard, “The President instructs that we shouldn’t say ‘radical Islam’ because it would agitate / antagonize, but he thinks its OK for him to talk about police brutality and be blameless for the agitation that comes from it’.
I have mixed feelings and/or dissonance. I think:
That’s a legit double standard called out as far as it goes. Its apples to apples basically.
But maybe this ‘incitement / agitation’ paradigm is all bullshit, a pretty low value observation anyway.
I think this is your cause and effect, really: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/the-near-certainty-of-anti-police-violence/490541/
But then it’s a predictable type that gets set off. With Dallas and this weekend’s Baton Rouge, these guys were both ex-Army veterans of recent US expeditions in Arabia. This is a concoction from which you get aberrant misanthropes with advanced skillsets for causing mayhem and the vocational determination to carry it out. No different than Tim McVeigh.
As a matter of truth, I don’t think Pres. Obama is at all rhetorically bombastic or reckless in these heightened times (the Glock / schoolbook trope he trotted out at the Dallas funeral was garbage, but kinda standard fare ambient garbage).
The President articulating systemic criminal justice injustice is an articulation of reality. And the backlash is accurately characterized this way: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/black-lives-matter-and-white-backlash-ideology.html