By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey defended his criticism of the Trump administration’s response to the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer. Frey stood by his statement that ICE should “get the f— out of Minneapolis,” arguing that the administration’s initial narrative was “garbage” compared to the act of killing someone. The shooting, which local officials dispute as self-defense, has sparked tension between federal and state authorities, particularly after federal officers were sent to Minnesota for an immigration crackdown. The incident has been compared to a similar event in Portland, Oregon where federal immigration officers shot and wounded two people.
Read the original article here
‘I dropped an F-bomb. They killed somebody’: Dem mayor unleashes on Trump admin. This, it seems, is the crux of the matter. The reaction to the mayor’s use of profanity – specifically the F-bomb – feels wildly disproportionate, especially when juxtaposed against the backdrop of a life taken. It’s a classic case of misplaced outrage, isn’t it? The focus should be on the actions that led to a killing, the circumstances surrounding it, and the pursuit of justice. Yet, here we are, seemingly more concerned with a word. The “Cussing Police” are in full force, and the irony is practically dripping off the page.
The reality is stark: “They killed more than somebody.” There’s talk of disappearances, of war crimes, of a regime steeped in, well, let’s just say unsavory activities. And amidst all this, the pearl-clutching over a swear word feels not just inappropriate, but almost insulting. It’s a deliberate misdirection, a tactic to shift the narrative away from the real issues. As someone pointed out, weren’t there plenty of “Fuck Joe Biden” shirts, flags, and chants that didn’t generate this level of outrage? The hypocrisy is glaring. And, let’s be honest, it’s not like the former president was a stranger to colorful language himself. Remember the casual f-bombs during press conferences? It’s almost as if some people are looking for any excuse to be offended, any opportunity to play the victim.
The whole situation highlights the double standards at play. You have those who claim to be morally superior, yet turn a blind eye to genuine atrocities while fixating on the trivial. It’s the “fake Christians” and the “religious republicans” who, according to some, are often the worst offenders. They may avoid certain words while perpetrating or condoning truly abhorrent behavior. It’s about actions, not just words. This manufactured outrage is a distraction, and an effective one, it seems, to keep people from addressing the real problem: the murder.
The mayor’s language, while perhaps not ideal for primetime, feels almost refreshing in its rawness. It’s a reflection of the anger and frustration that many feel. It’s a human response to an inhumane act. It’s also worth noting the calculated nature of the F-bomb. It’s as though this mayor knew the reaction it would elicit and was prepared to use it to drive a point home. And honestly, it worked. The fact that the same people who are outraged by the word are probably fine with someone calling a murdered woman a “bitch” is truly telling.
Of course, the reaction isn’t surprising. It’s all about playing the game, isn’t it? As one person observed, the right will happily direct those same words at their political opponents. It’s the epitome of “rules for thee, but not for me.” The comments rightly point out the hypocrisy of those who complain about the F-bomb, but are silent about the actions of those in power. It’s the same pattern we’ve seen countless times: major crimes are downplayed, while minor transgressions are amplified. The whole thing screams of bad faith and manipulation, especially when the actions are committed by someone that they support.
The story goes further, adding a perspective about the “purity politics” within the Democrats as well, something that has to stop. The focus should be on holding those accountable for the killing. The mayor is not excused for his actions or lack of, the focus should be on the murder. It seems the political sides have become so polarized that they have become masters of manufacturing outrage. The conversation then shifted to the true crime that was committed, the murder.
Then there is the issue of double standards. The article rightly points out the issue of double standards and the faux outrage and hypocrisy. The article rightly focuses on the actions that led to a killing and the pursuit of justice. The outrage should be pointed towards the fact that a woman was murdered in cold blood. The point is to expose the dishonesty and manipulation, the attempt to derail the conversation. Remember the former President’s actions, his words, and the actions of the ICE agent.
The argument touches on the core issue of behavior versus language. It’s not the word itself that’s the problem, it’s the behavior. It’s a reminder that language, particularly in the public sphere, can often be used to distract from the real issues at hand. It’s all about shifting the focus, manufacturing outrage, and playing the victim. But in this case, the focus should remain clear: The murder, and holding those responsible for it accountable. It is also a reminder of the need to focus on actions, not just words, particularly when discussing serious issues.