And an even better example:
Posted on 01/22/2019 11:18:53 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
Some are incapable of viewing the MAGA-hat-wearing teens from Covington Catholic as anything other than pure evil.
In the nearly two hours of video footage that greatly elucidate what happened between a group of boys from Covington Catholic High School and Native American veteran Nathan Phillips, there are many moments that turn the media's initial, false narrative—racist teens harass well-meaning elderly man—on its head.
...Undoubtedly, it is a teachable moment for everyone who rushed to join the social media mob condemning the kids as abominable racists, including prominent journalists on the left, right, and center. To their credit, many have admitted their mistake.
Others have doubled down, offering a variety of explanations for why the new evidence doesn't sway them. Some of this is just goalpost shifting: Maybe Sandmann didn't do anything wrong, but what about the kid who made the tomahawk gesture? An image of Covington Catholic high school students in black body paint at a basketball game in 2012 is somehow supposed to be damaging to Sandmann's credibility (The New York Daily News: "This won't help Nick Sandmann's case"), as is the fact that public relations experts reviewed his statement (uh, of course they did).
But the most frustrating and worrying reactions have come from those who have convinced themselves that the extended video footage confirms their initial impressions. Of all the myriad examples of this, perhaps none is more contemptible than the effort by Deadspin's Laura Wagner, who writes, "Don't Doubt What You Saw With Your Own Eyes." Wagner accuses the Covington kids' defenders—me among them—of "siding with some shithead MAGA teens and saying that 2+2=5 in the face of every bit of evidence there is to be had."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
They have to keep the narrative going that these kids were irredeemably racist, despite the truth.
Treacherous Trio:
1. Confirmation Bias
2. Cognitive Dissonance
3. Motivated Reasoning
It was obviously one of those uncomfortable smiles one has when one doesn’t know what to do in a strange situation. He was actually a lot calmer than I would be if I had a savage banging a drum and howling in my face.
They use the word “smile” as a dog whistle for “white face”
The facial expression is that of silent courage in the face of treacherous racially aged adversity.
The photo depicts the future inoring the past.
Ironically, the past doesn’t understand that a red MAGA hat wearing young man is destroying the effect of the abusive racially charged outmoded efforts.
Not so much. I’ve seen that facial expression a million times - it means discomfort in the face of something out of the person’s experience, while trying to be a good sport about it. Used to watch the bridge-and-tunnel crowd interact with city creeps in NYC and I saw that facial expression all the time, so much so that decades later I recognized it instantly.
The kid deserves credit for smiling beatifically at the crazy old coot.
I wouldn’t have smiled if some loon got in my face like that.
Even the “conservative” blogs were dutifully reporting that this kid had a “smirk” on his face. Do they understand how loaded that term is? Are they too stupid to understand that they are promoting the Leftist narrative? So besotted with Stockholm Syndrome that they can’t fully condemn the MSM narrative — they have to concede that the kids were being “jerks”? Or laughably playing up their “credibility” as even handed analysts with a “well, maybe the kids were wrong too” side of their articles. Most of the media response to this incident, including the “conservative” media response, has ranged from the pathetic to the criminal.
B-b-but, but, but....he SMIRKED!
If he was born in 1955 as his bio states, he was about 16 when the war ended.
If you have ever been through basic training, you would immediately recognize that smile but none of our well-learned press has ever whiffed the inside of a barracks on inspection day.
Phillips would have been 18 in 1973, the year that American military personnel were pulled out of South Vietnam.
That’s still too young for him have been inducted, trained and sent to Vietnam. It’s just more BS from this goofball.
He and Elizabeth Warren ought to hook up and gave her Fake Indian Act some new fuel.
And an even better example:
How is that not what he just said?
Being a good sport, trying to diffuse the situation in the young man’s own words, during unexpected events beyond your experience sounds like courage to me.
The antics of Chief Crying Wolf would make a Gandhi-like stair impossible, but it is the same kind of passive-resistance in the face of an intractable enemy.
It’s proof of anti-white racism.
There are people reporting that this youth who smiling was/is racist, however I’ve been around enough young people and I was young once myself and in the beginnings of a confrontation with somebody I think the human reaction is to sort of have a smile to demonstrate unconsciously that you are in control and are not afraid when... You are actually losing control and you are scared shiftless! When you are seconds away from screaming and running away from the antagonist. Mere bravado, it is a natural reaction.
But these dolts and keyboard psychologists out there are telling us that this young man/child is racist because he was smiling in a certain way. That is not true. Any behavioral psychologist worth their salt will probably tell you it is a natural reaction and a common subconscience ruse to hide fear and the turmoil that is going on within. It’s quite common in the animal kingdom, dogs lash out and put up a huge front of aggression when it is really fear that is on display.
This story is like the Kavanaugh story or a dozen others.
You see that which reinforces your opinion, because doing so causes the least discomfort.
Nobody likes to be wrong. So people will view ambiguous information in a way that confirms that they were right all along.
Thus, Sandmann’s smile is a disrespectful smirk if you are pro-choice and opposed to Trump , and an uncomfortable attempt at non-confrontation if you are pro-Life and support Trump.
Your reaction says more about you than it says about the actual facts.
This is a useful tool to sort the sheep from the goats.
If a commentator immediately jumps to the assumption least favorable to conservatives, he is revealing his inner thoughts. You should suspect that commentator is a leftist, in his private thoughts, no matter how he portrays himself in public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.