Don't forget that the violent mobs just need be given "space to destroy". Don't worry, the government will rebuild it so it can be burned down again.
See the point made right before that post. Quite literally, police have quite a long track record of doing
exactly what you're trying to caricature (not always, of course, but far more often than you would likely like to believe) - so long as the riots aren't, for example, pro-justice, pro-civil rights, etc. To make it worse, right wing propagandists on Fox have really blatantly worked to excuse it when it's young white people rioting after, for example, sporting events or doing so in favor of right-wing causes. On the flip side, obviously peaceful BLM protests are far more likely to get large numbers of police in full riot gear.
Well, yes, conservatives or libertarians don't control the media, government, universities, or Hollywood. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the problem gets solved, progressives can take all the credit that they want.
Just to be clear, progressives don't even remotely control the media. The actual relationship is more along the lines of -
1) The corporate media wants to make money and supporting popular causes is one of the totally normal ways to get and keep people engaging with their content.
2) Progressives support a lot of things that consistently poll as very to extremely popular.
Thus, there's notable overlap. When it comes to the more direct relationship between progressives and the corporate media, though, there's significantly more tension. The actual left in the US is the ONLY notable political force in the US that threatens corporate profiteering and is actually pushing for corporate accountability, with progressives as the major focal point of that, so the corporate media has a habit of working to sabotage the left where and as they can.
I can't explain why police abuses aren't considered a problem until progressives can blame it on racism in order to increase their power and advance their agenda.
That's a fair concern. The really simple answer to that, though, is that you're working from false premises. IIRC, addressing police abuses has actually been a progressive cause since at least the late 1800's when the Progressive movement actually really started taking shape. To be clear, significant strides have been made since those days, but things have never actually been "good", which pretty well leaves us with the choices of just letting it stay bad, trying to improve it more, or getting rid of it.
Let's face it, most of these abuses are taking place in areas where progressive Democrats have controlled the government for decades, so maybe that explains why the problem couldn't be solved earlier.
Again, false premises. Either way, most of the biggest problems aren't something that said Democrat led local governments can meaningfully deal with in the first place, especially individually. Qualified immunity, for example, that the police force inherently tends to attract authoritarians, and police unions with rather absurd amounts of power are three notable issues that local governments have little say over, among far too many others.
Who cares as long as we can solve the problem?
That, at least, I'll agree with. The results matter far more to me than who's doing it.
