So like white people starting to give that black cop credit, as they should. But I’m still not sure they get it, so let me explain a little more succinctly, the play by play that likely happened in that mans mind.

He realized that the entire seat of power of the US govt was I defended, as was he, with no backup, when he looked over his shoulder. That he was the last line of defense, between the barbarians storming the capital. These barbarians, being racist white nazis.
And in that moment, when all of his training kicked in? And he made the heroic split second decision to save the senators lives, and delay as best he could? You know what he realized his absolute BEST weapon was? In that SPLIT SECOND?
It wasn’t his service weapon. His badge, his training. Lol it was the fact he was a BLACK man in front of a racist mob. Nothing else mattered, nothing else would be as effective. And he KNEW that, so fathom what that means for someone defending said racist country
With his life. Lol his gun wouldn’t help save these white elected officials, many of whom had directed this white mob against him...he knew the deep burning racism of said white mob, would be enough, on seeing a black man to forget what they even stormed the capital for.
Lol and you see it from the SECOND he challenged the first white protestor. Their entire focus did a 180 degree pivot. Nothing else mattered except lynching the uppity negro. Not even storming the actual Senate.
And aye that’s why that mans a hero and I’m not a cop. Because MY split second instinct, which would have processed all the same information because black male, welp...y’all gonna need a new senate lol.
So like again, white people, even the woke ones...y’all kinda get it. But you definitely don’t “get it”. Because...how could you if you haven’t had the life experiences that, even when your life is in danger, realize in a split second the mob is more mad at YOU just for existing
I don’t have anything to promote. But we are all gonna need eye bleach and reminders to smile in the next few months, so give @SupernovaMomma a follow. A Woman of color, a vet, and the best mom I know whose gonna give you reasons to be hopeful about the future!

More from Society

You May Also Like

Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9


Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?