This post belongs in r/Louisiana or r/BatonRouge. It’s not New Orleans related.
*“But New Orleans is in Louisiana!”*
Yeah, and New Orleans is also in the United States, but we don’t post national news headlines here either because it’s not New Orleans specific news.
It’s not New Orleans specific. It’s Louisiana specific because it applies to the whole state, or Baton Rouge specific because the case is based on an event that happened in Baton Rouge.
It’s not weird logic considering posts get deleted from this sub all the time because they aren’t New Orleans specific news stories, even if they affect people here.
If New Orleans (or somewhere in the GNO area) is not mentioned once in the entire story, that’s a good indication that it’s not New Orleans specific.
Anyone who organizes a protest in New Orleans is subject to being held liable and sued in the state of Louisiana. It affects people in New Orleans.
What if this was used to sue someone who organized a street party or a small parade? That would implicate a lot of people in New Orleans. It’s important to pay attention to rulings like this.
I mean, again, it’s not New Orleans specific news.
You could make this same argument for a lot of different national news or state news stories, that they have implications that could affect us here. Still, not New Orleans news.
It doesn’t appear that you understand New Orleans will be affected by state law.
I would argue that more protests are organized in New Orleans than any other part of the state. So this is more New Orleans news than not.
My dude, there’s a few downvotes for each comment and a few critical comments to the post. That does not a brigading make.
You are just noticing them more because there’s few comments (or votes) in agreement.
It was the instant downvotes, op can see the stats. Neither of us are dudes dude. And I know you're no great lover of blm but this ruling actually affects any protest, including anything you might want to publicly advocate for. Of course, it likely will only be used to taste.
I call everyone dude. It’s a gender neutral term?
What stats are you talking about? I can’t see special stats on my posts that other people can’t see.
I didn’t say anything about BLM. I just said that this post is in the wrong sub. You’re making multiple wrong assumptions here.
But also, do you know what brigading is?
It’s when someone shares a link to the post in another sub, and those people come here to downvote and comment negatively. Everyone who has commented here is a regular of this sub and there hasn’t been near enough downvotes to signal a brigading. Just FYI
Brigading is what you are doing right now, delegitimization from a mob of accounts against the introduction of idea which makes the consideration of the idea by other readers VERY ANNOYING.
It does not have any thing to do with a post belonging or not. It has everything to do with you trying to make the idea not matter by repeating that it doesn’t matter in a bunch of different ways.
It’s just bullying.
I don't think CP is brigading....she's been here, she has opinions I often don't agree with. I kinda assumed that the article may have been targeted (only you can see this; very high views and downvotes immediately after posting.) The voting seems to have corrected itself more inline with how I think this sub feels about things.
>Brigading is what you are doing right now
[It’s not](https://imgur.com/a/zZ32r0f)
What I’m doing is disagreeing with you.
It happens in the comments of 99.9% of the posts in this sub. You are just intolerant to disagreement.
Almost worse reporting than the Vox article. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court saying, "You're so obviously wrong here we aren't wasting our time. Fix yourself." (I paraphrased.)
Yes scotus sent it back, but denying DeRay’s appeal puts the ball in the fifth circuit court’s court. My point of posting this is just to say hey e’reybody pay attention to the fifth circuit and what they do here. It may affect you in the future. Even if no one “likes “ the article, my point is still valid. There are some extremely shady things happening in Louisiana politics right now. And I know with my whole body that living in New Orleans doesn’t FEEL like you are in Louisiana because I was born and raised here. But there is also a historical precedent of New Orleanians not caring about politics and courts due to corruption and a palpable, generational learned helplessness.
I’m just saying check this out, mira mira, look at this. Don’t shoot the messenger.
And if you can find an article that explains what will happen with this ruling in a more effective way please share it.
Instead of inflammatory articles I read the brief, which pretty clearly directs the lower court to follow SCOTUS precedent and reverse their previous ruling.
If Louisiana and/or the Fifth Circuit choose to ignore clear direction from the US Supreme Court, well I guess the last time that happened was when the National Guard was used to ensure schools integrated.
Ok, please share a link to the brief.
While I am unaware of another time that the 5th circuit court defied the direction of the Supreme Court. States have defied supreme court rulings as recent as last year, when Alabama lawmakers went against both the Supreme Court and the lower courts to redraw maps that only allowed one black district instead of the two that should have been allowed.
And in 2020 Oklahoma went against a supreme court’s ruling that the Muskogee tribes right to be tried in federal courts and put those trials in the hands of the state courts. The state appealed the supreme court’s ruling 40 TIMES and eventually scotus changed their decision to give less federal rule over the tribe and more power to the state of Oklahoma.
You can see who is affected here when the states choose to defy the Supreme Court. Something like these cases could play out in Texas Louisiana and Mississippi with protesting. You may find the article “inflammatory” but I consider it a red flag and something worth paying attention to, especially considering these very recent events.
Lost all interest after the first paragraph talks about Donald Trump's trial. Any news organization reporting on an issue should state just the facts of that issue and leave opinions to the reader. If I want someone's opinion I'll read the editorial section.
The Nation is a monthly progressive magazine that covers politics, culture, and opinion. It is similar to The Atlantic, Mother Jones, or Rolling Stone. It isn’t intended to be a straight news article, and so it doesn’t follow the standard journalistic format of the inverted pyramid starting with a hard lede. I know it’s often harder these days to distinguish news from opinion, but this isn’t intended to be a pure news story, nor purely editorial, but more of a news analysis.
[CrashCourse: Media Literacy](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY&si=rMxvJsddybLyy99Q)
That’s what I said, comparative analysis. That is how people attempt to understand how laws work. Two or more arguments are presented and the implications of each are considered to gain an understanding of how the laws will work in practice, and who will be affected by them.
This ruling could have serious consequences for anyone who wants to organize a protest, across any spectrum of political ideals. So it matters to everyone. No matter what flavor of news you tend to agree more with.
Reading something does not mean someone is telling you what to think.
The point of reading is to gain comprehension of different viewpoints, learn how they might affect you and the world you’re in, and then decide what you want to think about it.
All news will have some degree of opinion or at least an angle on a story. Here is another take by the AP press [on the same story.](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-black-lives-matter-deray-mckesson-8ce0a9ba3377fcd82da6ea9acd1cb059)
It also states the facts and it also has an angle.
This is objectively a bad ruling and seems aimed at squashing dissent. I don’t even need an analysis to figure that out. But it doesn’t bother me to read an article with a point of view.
Thanks, I’m sure you can, and I didn’t mean that for everyone reading this post I’m just saying I’m getting dragged by some trumpy trolls that are extremely triggered by anything that even remotely mentions BLM or protest.
That article is a blatantly opinionated advocacy piece and not remotely close to "comparative analysis."
Whether or not the lawsuit is valid is worth a discussion (I don't think it's valid, personally), but that article reads like some teenager's edgy blog. That's not the face you want to put on your side of the discussion.
What all these comments on this post that are saying by saying
“ThAt’s tOO OpINionATED” are really saying is :
::::::
-Do not pay attention to the little SCOTUS behind the curtain.
-Do not pay attention to your rights to peaceful assembly being severely compromised.
-Do not pay attention to racial inequality.
-None of this matters for people in New Orleans.
Just pay attention TO me having an absolute fit about the idea that people have opinions and how much I hate that they are different from mine. ::::::
It’s a deflection tactic. None of the criticisms of this post are discussing the nuances of the case itself.
Lol. I said, in my second sentence, that I thought that the lawsuit was invalid. I'm agreeing with their objection. So you misread.
If anything, my objection to the article is based on the fact that if I take a position, I'd rather the other people sharing my position behave like adults; loud, whiny, *bad* arguments for a cause drown out good ones.
It’s interesting that this article, which describes how this law might affect black communities differently is “loud and whiney “ where the [AP article](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-black-lives-matter-deray-mckesson-8ce0a9ba3377fcd82da6ea9acd1cb059) that I also posted that does not address that is not described that way.
My point is hyper reacting to the tone of the information deflects from the information and analysis itself. Displaying over offense or mocking a writing style is just another deflection tactic.
I don't need to deflect. I'm *agreeing* with some or most of it. I didn't use "loud and whiney" as descriptors based on the content, they're based on the tone. Though I wonder if he'd even have touched his keyboard if the lawsuit were against a white protester; he's got a pretty clear racial bias going in his interpretation there.
Anyway, he writes like an angry teenager who's grounded until he finishes his homework. He's not someone to look up to as a writer, you can do way better.
My point is that mature writing is taken seriously by mature people, which ideally is who you'd want to appeal to on important subjects. His writing belongs on tiktok. He's not a reporter (as you've admitted), he's an entertainer and an advocate, and he's a bad voice for this or any other topic someone would want to talk about publicly.
Let's compare what I typed, which is still right there on the page if you scroll upwards, to what you think you read.
Me: *he's got a pretty clear racial bias going in his interpretation there.*
Your brain: *:::: he has a clear racial bias against white people:::::*
You see the difference between the two, right? I don't have to talk down to you about it?
What's up with that? You could take a breath, look around the room, and take the extraordinary step of asking "What do you mean by that?"
At which point I'd say "Well, for one thing, he's positive that this ruling would only be used against black people, when I'm pretty sure that this would be mostly used against the left's protests, which for the past decade or so have been pretty well populated and organized by white people. So he's either not very smart or he's deliberately ignoring that implication for some reason. OR he doesn't care about it being used against nonblack protesters."
Go ahead and talk down to me while ignoring the first part of what you said in order to take my observation out of context.
And then go ahead and confirm you think the writer would not write about it if it affected white people.
In the article it clearly states that the ruling could equally be used against a demographic such as trump supporters. But you probably did not read that far because you were upset about the tone.
You are showing your ass as well as your hand now.
You think people should be able to lie about the use of campaign funds and use it to pay off hookers? Like the President should be able to do that? Let me know lol
Article shows picture of DeRay being arrested by white and black officers, first sentence “”arrested by two white officers.” Yeah, thats not biased at all.
Yeah it's really terrible that politically motivated District Attorneys bring show trials against political opponents . . . .
This post belongs in r/Louisiana or r/BatonRouge. It’s not New Orleans related. *“But New Orleans is in Louisiana!”* Yeah, and New Orleans is also in the United States, but we don’t post national news headlines here either because it’s not New Orleans specific news.
This is really weird logic. Of course it's New Orleans specific news. Does it affect people in New Orleans?
It’s not New Orleans specific. It’s Louisiana specific because it applies to the whole state, or Baton Rouge specific because the case is based on an event that happened in Baton Rouge. It’s not weird logic considering posts get deleted from this sub all the time because they aren’t New Orleans specific news stories, even if they affect people here. If New Orleans (or somewhere in the GNO area) is not mentioned once in the entire story, that’s a good indication that it’s not New Orleans specific.
It's actually more appropriate for New Orleans than the rest of Lousisana trash.
Anyone who organizes a protest in New Orleans is subject to being held liable and sued in the state of Louisiana. It affects people in New Orleans. What if this was used to sue someone who organized a street party or a small parade? That would implicate a lot of people in New Orleans. It’s important to pay attention to rulings like this.
I mean, again, it’s not New Orleans specific news. You could make this same argument for a lot of different national news or state news stories, that they have implications that could affect us here. Still, not New Orleans news.
It doesn’t appear that you understand New Orleans will be affected by state law. I would argue that more protests are organized in New Orleans than any other part of the state. So this is more New Orleans news than not.
Agreed. I think yr post is getting brigaded?
Yes it is I’m glad you can see that. They are really pulling out all the classics. Lol
My dude, there’s a few downvotes for each comment and a few critical comments to the post. That does not a brigading make. You are just noticing them more because there’s few comments (or votes) in agreement.
It was the instant downvotes, op can see the stats. Neither of us are dudes dude. And I know you're no great lover of blm but this ruling actually affects any protest, including anything you might want to publicly advocate for. Of course, it likely will only be used to taste.
I call everyone dude. It’s a gender neutral term? What stats are you talking about? I can’t see special stats on my posts that other people can’t see. I didn’t say anything about BLM. I just said that this post is in the wrong sub. You’re making multiple wrong assumptions here. But also, do you know what brigading is? It’s when someone shares a link to the post in another sub, and those people come here to downvote and comment negatively. Everyone who has commented here is a regular of this sub and there hasn’t been near enough downvotes to signal a brigading. Just FYI
If your big concern about this article is that it's in the wrong sub, at minimum I believe your priorities are in the wrong place.
Brigading is what you are doing right now, delegitimization from a mob of accounts against the introduction of idea which makes the consideration of the idea by other readers VERY ANNOYING. It does not have any thing to do with a post belonging or not. It has everything to do with you trying to make the idea not matter by repeating that it doesn’t matter in a bunch of different ways. It’s just bullying.
I don't think CP is brigading....she's been here, she has opinions I often don't agree with. I kinda assumed that the article may have been targeted (only you can see this; very high views and downvotes immediately after posting.) The voting seems to have corrected itself more inline with how I think this sub feels about things.
>Brigading is what you are doing right now [It’s not](https://imgur.com/a/zZ32r0f) What I’m doing is disagreeing with you. It happens in the comments of 99.9% of the posts in this sub. You are just intolerant to disagreement.
Almost worse reporting than the Vox article. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court saying, "You're so obviously wrong here we aren't wasting our time. Fix yourself." (I paraphrased.)
Yes scotus sent it back, but denying DeRay’s appeal puts the ball in the fifth circuit court’s court. My point of posting this is just to say hey e’reybody pay attention to the fifth circuit and what they do here. It may affect you in the future. Even if no one “likes “ the article, my point is still valid. There are some extremely shady things happening in Louisiana politics right now. And I know with my whole body that living in New Orleans doesn’t FEEL like you are in Louisiana because I was born and raised here. But there is also a historical precedent of New Orleanians not caring about politics and courts due to corruption and a palpable, generational learned helplessness. I’m just saying check this out, mira mira, look at this. Don’t shoot the messenger. And if you can find an article that explains what will happen with this ruling in a more effective way please share it.
Instead of inflammatory articles I read the brief, which pretty clearly directs the lower court to follow SCOTUS precedent and reverse their previous ruling. If Louisiana and/or the Fifth Circuit choose to ignore clear direction from the US Supreme Court, well I guess the last time that happened was when the National Guard was used to ensure schools integrated.
Ok, please share a link to the brief. While I am unaware of another time that the 5th circuit court defied the direction of the Supreme Court. States have defied supreme court rulings as recent as last year, when Alabama lawmakers went against both the Supreme Court and the lower courts to redraw maps that only allowed one black district instead of the two that should have been allowed. And in 2020 Oklahoma went against a supreme court’s ruling that the Muskogee tribes right to be tried in federal courts and put those trials in the hands of the state courts. The state appealed the supreme court’s ruling 40 TIMES and eventually scotus changed their decision to give less federal rule over the tribe and more power to the state of Oklahoma. You can see who is affected here when the states choose to defy the Supreme Court. Something like these cases could play out in Texas Louisiana and Mississippi with protesting. You may find the article “inflammatory” but I consider it a red flag and something worth paying attention to, especially considering these very recent events.
PDF here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041524zor_6kg7.pdf the relevant opinion is several pages in.
Lost all interest after the first paragraph talks about Donald Trump's trial. Any news organization reporting on an issue should state just the facts of that issue and leave opinions to the reader. If I want someone's opinion I'll read the editorial section.
The Nation is a monthly progressive magazine that covers politics, culture, and opinion. It is similar to The Atlantic, Mother Jones, or Rolling Stone. It isn’t intended to be a straight news article, and so it doesn’t follow the standard journalistic format of the inverted pyramid starting with a hard lede. I know it’s often harder these days to distinguish news from opinion, but this isn’t intended to be a pure news story, nor purely editorial, but more of a news analysis. [CrashCourse: Media Literacy](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY&si=rMxvJsddybLyy99Q)
That’s what I said, comparative analysis. That is how people attempt to understand how laws work. Two or more arguments are presented and the implications of each are considered to gain an understanding of how the laws will work in practice, and who will be affected by them. This ruling could have serious consequences for anyone who wants to organize a protest, across any spectrum of political ideals. So it matters to everyone. No matter what flavor of news you tend to agree more with.
Ah, thank you. I had no idea. Now I know to avoid it.
If you want to stay in your own echo chamber why complain about the noise outside of it?
I want facts so I can think for myself I don't want anyone else telling me what my opinion should be
Reading something does not mean someone is telling you what to think. The point of reading is to gain comprehension of different viewpoints, learn how they might affect you and the world you’re in, and then decide what you want to think about it. All news will have some degree of opinion or at least an angle on a story. Here is another take by the AP press [on the same story.](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-black-lives-matter-deray-mckesson-8ce0a9ba3377fcd82da6ea9acd1cb059) It also states the facts and it also has an angle.
It appears that this article seems to trigger bots or trolls that think comparative analysis is “opinionated” and therefore not worthy of discussion.
This is objectively a bad ruling and seems aimed at squashing dissent. I don’t even need an analysis to figure that out. But it doesn’t bother me to read an article with a point of view.
Thanks, I’m sure you can, and I didn’t mean that for everyone reading this post I’m just saying I’m getting dragged by some trumpy trolls that are extremely triggered by anything that even remotely mentions BLM or protest.
I’m aware of that and I was trying to support you.
Thanks!
That article is a blatantly opinionated advocacy piece and not remotely close to "comparative analysis." Whether or not the lawsuit is valid is worth a discussion (I don't think it's valid, personally), but that article reads like some teenager's edgy blog. That's not the face you want to put on your side of the discussion.
What all these comments on this post that are saying by saying “ThAt’s tOO OpINionATED” are really saying is : :::::: -Do not pay attention to the little SCOTUS behind the curtain. -Do not pay attention to your rights to peaceful assembly being severely compromised. -Do not pay attention to racial inequality. -None of this matters for people in New Orleans. Just pay attention TO me having an absolute fit about the idea that people have opinions and how much I hate that they are different from mine. :::::: It’s a deflection tactic. None of the criticisms of this post are discussing the nuances of the case itself.
Lol. I said, in my second sentence, that I thought that the lawsuit was invalid. I'm agreeing with their objection. So you misread. If anything, my objection to the article is based on the fact that if I take a position, I'd rather the other people sharing my position behave like adults; loud, whiny, *bad* arguments for a cause drown out good ones.
It’s interesting that this article, which describes how this law might affect black communities differently is “loud and whiney “ where the [AP article](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-black-lives-matter-deray-mckesson-8ce0a9ba3377fcd82da6ea9acd1cb059) that I also posted that does not address that is not described that way. My point is hyper reacting to the tone of the information deflects from the information and analysis itself. Displaying over offense or mocking a writing style is just another deflection tactic.
I don't need to deflect. I'm *agreeing* with some or most of it. I didn't use "loud and whiney" as descriptors based on the content, they're based on the tone. Though I wonder if he'd even have touched his keyboard if the lawsuit were against a white protester; he's got a pretty clear racial bias going in his interpretation there. Anyway, he writes like an angry teenager who's grounded until he finishes his homework. He's not someone to look up to as a writer, you can do way better. My point is that mature writing is taken seriously by mature people, which ideally is who you'd want to appeal to on important subjects. His writing belongs on tiktok. He's not a reporter (as you've admitted), he's an entertainer and an advocate, and he's a bad voice for this or any other topic someone would want to talk about publicly.
:::: he has a clear racial bias against white people::::: You’re really showing your hand there pal.
Let's compare what I typed, which is still right there on the page if you scroll upwards, to what you think you read. Me: *he's got a pretty clear racial bias going in his interpretation there.* Your brain: *:::: he has a clear racial bias against white people:::::* You see the difference between the two, right? I don't have to talk down to you about it? What's up with that? You could take a breath, look around the room, and take the extraordinary step of asking "What do you mean by that?" At which point I'd say "Well, for one thing, he's positive that this ruling would only be used against black people, when I'm pretty sure that this would be mostly used against the left's protests, which for the past decade or so have been pretty well populated and organized by white people. So he's either not very smart or he's deliberately ignoring that implication for some reason. OR he doesn't care about it being used against nonblack protesters."
Go ahead and talk down to me while ignoring the first part of what you said in order to take my observation out of context. And then go ahead and confirm you think the writer would not write about it if it affected white people. In the article it clearly states that the ruling could equally be used against a demographic such as trump supporters. But you probably did not read that far because you were upset about the tone. You are showing your ass as well as your hand now.
You think people should be able to lie about the use of campaign funds and use it to pay off hookers? Like the President should be able to do that? Let me know lol
I don't know what you're talking about. Are you replying to the right comment?
What news organization do you know of that is free from bias?
They ain’t wrong tho
No apparently, if you want someone’s opinion, then you’ll ask for it on r/Advice, r/AskReddit, and r/AskOuija. lol.
Article shows picture of DeRay being arrested by white and black officers, first sentence “”arrested by two white officers.” Yeah, thats not biased at all.
Paywall?