Twins/Tigers Players Vote to Postpone Tonight's Game

[etwink]

 

Just did a search on this thread and the word "brave" has been used exactly zero times.

Ok....um, thanks for checking?

 

I said “I hope” no one said it.  I wasn’t calling anyone out; I was making a point that “I” didn’t think it was brave at all and “hoping” other people agreed.
 

I have literally zero idea what point you were trying to make, other than saving me the effort of reading every post.

[LVTwinsfan]

Just did a search on this thread and the word "brave" has been used exactly zero times.

I guess we should have sang the National Anthem

[twinbythebay]

 

Ok....um, thanks for checking?

 

I said “I hope” no one said it.  I wasn’t calling anyone out; I was making a point that “I” didn’t think it was brave at all and “hoping” other people agreed.
 

I have literally zero idea what point you were trying to make, other than saving me the effort of reading every post.

I think the point is that you unnecessarily set up a straw man by arguing against the players being considered "brave" when literally nobody was saying that. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think the point is that you unnecessarily set up a straw man by arguing against the players being considered "brave" when literally nobody was saying that.

This is correct. He laid the groundwork in opposition to an argument no one is making.

[LVTwinsfan]

I think the point is that you unnecessarily set up a straw man by arguing against the players being considered "brave" when literally nobody was saying that.

So we’re not gonna sing the National Anthem?

[LVTwinsfan]

So now are their going to be back to back double headers

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So now are their going to be back to back double headers

No, they're playing a DH tomorrow and then another DH early in September, I can't recall the specific date. The fourth, maybe?

[wavedog]

 

I think this idea gets halfway to the finish line. You are asking the players to extend themselves into the lives of a police officer without asking the police officer to experience the discrimination the players are fighting to change.

 

There is not a conversation taking place currently. You have one side pleading for change and the other side saying no changes are needed. Until it is recognized on both sides there is need for change, no action will occur and no bridge can be built.

I was counting on the time spent together as a time for the players to share their viewpoints on discrimination.  When you have a personal interaction that can have more impact than just reading a tweet or even as well-meaning as they are and I applaud the team for coming together and choosing to take their action to boycott - the boycotts.  To go with the ride-along  - the league could hold a discrimination online seminar on the same day with the police and players watching together.  Probably start the morning with that and that invites further discussion during the day.       

[HighHeet]

 

My 2 cents worth. I would like it if they would keep politics OUT of sports. I watch it for entertainment, nothing more nothing less. It should be an escape for the fans not a platform for political groups and their agendas. I get enough of that on the News, I don't need it in sports. 

We made the professional athlete rich by going to games or watching them on TV. 

We can make them poor by doing the opposite. 

 

I have already permanently QUIT the NBA for mostly same reasons.  Don't care if my local team plays, wins, loses... I mean seriously, political slogans on jerseys? I don't care if they strike for the next decade. Depicting police as "PIGS" isn't my cup of tea.  Don't watch ESPN anymore, too political.  I follow politics and social issues from plenty of media forums, but "MY" sports are sacred; an escape from the madness.  NBA chose to become a political billboard - and that's okay I suppose, but must know you will be alienating a large segment of your business.  Was praying that MLB, NFL and NHL would not get contaminated and drawn into the same spiral of "purpose and identity erosion" with their customers.  Many like it.... and many do not.  Maybe CNN and FOX News should start forming baseball, basketball, football and hockey leagues ???  Seems to be no difference between their identity and purpose. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

If the point of them not playing is to create conversation they have already succeeded as we are all here talking about it. The idea that they need to have some sort of negative impact on their own lives to help create change is nonsensical. If they canceled the season and donated their paychecks for the next 7 seasons to social causes would that make you feel better? Would that make anyone suddenly say "oh man, they're right! Now I see that police brutality is a problem and there are inequalities in our country. I will also join the fight to fix these problems."? The answer is no. It wouldn't. Is their postponing 1 game some great, grand gesture of self sacrifice? Of course not. Does that mean it's not effective and incredibly meaningful to many of them? No. Do 100% of players agree with the idea that police brutality, inequalities, etc. are a problem that the postponement is supposed to highlight and further conversation about? No. Were there likely dissenting voices in every clubhouse in baseball? Yes. Did they have conversations and agree that postponing wasn't some terrible tragedy worth stopping once they saw how important it was to their teammates? Apparently. 

The idea that there needs to be negative consequences (thus the differentiation between consequence and punishment) to make this action meaningful is misguided. The consequences of their actions are people are talking about it. The conversation has been progressed and people who wouldn't have shared their opinions with others now have. There were no punishments for the players. And I don't see how that makes any difference as it wouldn't have effected the consequences in any meaningful way.

 

Except we're not here talking about the reason they chose to sit, we're talking about the fact that they sat.  Thus, The Conversation has not been furthered.  This is the problem with the protests over the past few years--the protest itself ends up being the topic, not what is being protested.  I would argue it's because the current style of protest, which to some extent involves at some level inconveniencing/aggravating others is not conducive to building bridges.

 

As for the piece around consequences, I think the point that's being made is not that people should suffer or their action is meaningless, it's that when an action costs someone nothing, it's hard to determine to what extent that person truly cares about that action.  They might really really care; they might just be going with the flow.  So I think the question on some people's mind is if Taylor Rogers would have suggested not playing, and been met with universal agreement, if game checks would be lost, or the playoffs would have been missed, or roster cuts would have been made.  Maybe nothing would have changed.  Maybe everything would have changed.  The point is the lack of sacrifice leaves open the possibility that this is simply a meaningless gesture, done to check a box/keep from looking out of line.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I believe one aspect of this is being missed. I’ve heard many players simply say that playing in light of what is happening would send a message that things are ok and they obviously are not.

 

So since the Twins were all set to play today, it means everything became ok overnight?  If this truly the reason, that baseball should not be played until the vague and unquantifiable list of demands is met, baseball will never be played again.

[ashbury]

So since the Twins were all set to play today, it means everything became ok overnight?  If this truly the reason, that baseball should not be played until the vague and unquantifiable list of demands is met, baseball will never be played again.

This extreme conclusion should be your indication that something went wrong in the chain or reasoning leading up to it. No, the players weren't on strike, until certain demands were met. Rather, they sat out a game, to send a message that "everything" is not "ok", to borrow the terminology you used. Message sent, now back to work. Weather permitting.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

Except we're not here talking about the reason they chose to sit, we're talking about the fact that they sat.  Thus, The Conversation has not been furthered.  This is the problem with the protests over the past few years--the protest itself ends up being the topic, not what is being protested.  I would argue it's because the current style of protest, which to some extent involves at some level inconveniencing/aggravating others is not conducive to building bridges.

 

 

I disagree. I will say that the legal community has seen some amazing push back by judges on the concept of QI over the last few years that is something I never thought we'd see and this is because the public, through protests, videos of officers acting out of control, emotional pleas from victims and, yes, athletes, is making changes. Frankly, if they weren't, much of the opposition to these actions would go away.

 

This order is 72 pages long but read the first three pages. It's devastating. That order - out of Mississippi - was huge in legal circles and is a potential bet to get to the Supreme Court. Judge Frank here in MN denied a motion to dismiss against an officer who told a person of color that he hadn't shot him "yet". The order called the officer's actions racist. I have several more cases like these on my work computer, judges taking note of current events to call into question how police treat people of color in America. These are real changes that are happening because protests have been non-stop on these issues.
 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

This extreme conclusion should be your indication that something went wrong in the logic. No, the players aren't on strike, until certain demands are met. Rather, they sat out a game, to send a message that everything is not ok. Message sent, now back to work. Weather permitting.
 

 

The logic is fine;

 

Statement A: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled

Statement B: The Twins' players chose not play as scheduled

Conclusion: Everything is not ok

 

If Statement B is flipped to, The Twins' players chose to play as scheduled, you cannot logically conclude that everything is not ok; the condition in statement A has not been met.

 

If it is not ok to play because things are not ok, then by that statement, you cannot resume playing until things are ok.  A more accurate summation of what the players are saying is "I don't feel like I can play today with everything that's going on".  That's a far cry from "Things aren't ok so we can't play".

[ashbury]

 

The logic is fine;

 

Statement A: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled

Statement B: The Twins' players chose not play as scheduled

Conclusion: Everything is not ok

 

If Statement B is flipped to, The Twins' players chose to play as scheduled, you cannot logically conclude that everything is not ok; the condition in statement A has not been met.

 

If it is not ok to play because things are not ok, then by that statement, you cannot resume playing until things are ok.  A more accurate summation of what the players are saying is "I don't feel like I can play today with everything that's going on".  That's a far cry from "Things aren't ok so we can't play".

This seems like hoops you are expecting someone else to jump through - "can" or "cannot" resume playing. I see it more simply as, if they choose to send a message by not playing, they just do.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I disagree. I will say that the legal community has seen some amazing push back by judges on the concept of QI over the last few years that is something I never thought we'd see and this is because the public, through protests, videos of officers acting out of control, emotional pleas from victims and, yes, athletes, is making changes. Frankly, if they weren't, much of the opposition to these actions would go away.

 

This order is 72 pages long but read the first three pages. It's devastating. That order - out of Mississippi - was huge in legal circles and is a potential bet to get to the Supreme Court. Judge Frank here in MN denied a motion to dismiss against an officer who told a person of color that he hadn't shot him "yet". The order called the officer's actions racist. I have several more cases like these on my work computer, judges taking note of current events to call into question how police treat people of color in America. These are real changes that are happening because protests have been non-stop on these issues.
 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by QI, can you define it for me (no sarcasm, I seriously want to know).

 

The case you mentioned about the person of color being told he hadn't been shot "yet" being called racism is troubling, and one of the roots of the issue.  What proof do we have that the officer said this out of racial animus?  A white person doing something bad to a black person is not an open and shut case of racism, yet that seems to increasingly be the bar being set these days.

 

That being said, if there is supporting evidence of the officer's racism, I obviously withdraw my argument.

[T_J]

I'm not sure what you mean by QI, can you define it for me (no sarcasm, I seriously want to know).

 

The case you mentioned about the person of color being told he hadn't been shot "yet" being called racism is troubling, and one of the roots of the issue. What proof do we have that the officer said this out of racial animus? A white person doing something bad to a black person is not an open and shut case of racism, yet that seems to increasingly be the bar being set these days.

 

That being said, if there is supporting evidence of the officer's racism, I obviously withdraw my argument.

I believe he's referring to qualified immunity. It's basically the core issue with everything.

[gunnarthor]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by QI, can you define it for me (no sarcasm, I seriously want to know).

 

The case you mentioned about the person of color being told he hadn't been shot "yet" being called racism is troubling, and one of the roots of the issue.  What proof do we have that the officer said this out of racial animus?  A white person doing something bad to a black person is not an open and shut case of racism, yet that seems to increasingly be the bar being set these days.

 

That being said, if there is supporting evidence of the officer's racism, I obviously withdraw my argument.

QI = qualified immunity and it is one of the biggest problems we have in getting rid of troublesome police officers. The link discusses it pretty fully. My "favorite" example of QI was where a part-time police officer raped a woman in a mall parking lot (and was convicted for it!) but the court found that because of QI, her claim of unlawful arrest was thrown out.

 

A police officer telling a person of color "I haven't shot you. Yet" is a world of difference away from a white guy telling a black guy that. You understand that, right?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

This seems like hoops you are expecting someone else to jump through - "can" or "cannot" resume playing. I see it more simply as, if they choose to send a message by not playing, they just do.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone jump through hoops, I'm saying if you make a far-ranging statement, you are then bound by the principles you established.  If I said I could never work for Nike because they utilize sweatshops, but then accepted a job with Nike, there are only two conclusions to be made;

 

1) Nike stopped utilizing sweatshops

2) I was not serious about my initial statement

 

That's what I'm saying here about the players; if they are truly saying "I can't play because it wouldn't be right to play while things aren't ok", the minute they resume playing, we must either assume that the players who said that now think things are ok, or they didn't actually mean what they said.  It's certainly possible they were being grandiose or hyperbolic in their initial statement, but the point remains the same.  If you didn't play Thursday because things aren't ok, you certainly can't play Friday, or Saturday, or anytime in the near future, for the simple reason that the swath of people who think things aren't ok right now are unlikely to think things are ok anytime soon.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not trying to make anyone jump through hoops, I'm saying if you make a far-ranging statement, you are then bound by the principles you established.  If I said I could never work for Nike because they utilize sweatshops, but then accepted a job with Nike, there are only two conclusions to be made;

 

1) Nike stopped utilizing sweatshops

2) I was not serious about my initial statement

 

That's what I'm saying here about the players; if they are truly saying "I can't play because it wouldn't be right to play while things aren't ok", the minute they resume playing, we must either assume that the players who said that now think things are ok, or they didn't actually mean what they said.  It's certainly possible they were being grandiose or hyperbolic in their initial statement, but the point remains the same.  If you didn't play Thursday because things aren't ok, you certainly can't play Friday, or Saturday, or anytime in the near future, for the simple reason that the swath of people who think things aren't ok right now are unlikely to think things are ok anytime soon.

Whoa, dude, your basis for this raises the bar to impossible levels.

 

You're essentially saying that we either:

 

A. Keep plugging along every day because nothing matters

 

B. Stop doing anything because the world isn't fixed

 

Your logic is flawed because your threshold for raising awareness (which isn't really your call to make for another individual) is impossibly high.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm not trying to make anyone jump through hoops, I'm saying if you make a far-ranging statement, you are then bound by the principles you established.  If I said I could never work for Nike because they utilize sweatshops, but then accepted a job with Nike, there are only two conclusions to be made;

 

1) Nike stopped utilizing sweatshops

2) I was not serious about my initial statement

 

That's what I'm saying here about the players; if they are truly saying "I can't play because it wouldn't be right to play while things aren't ok", the minute they resume playing, we must either assume that the players who said that now think things are ok, or they didn't actually mean what they said.  It's certainly possible they were being grandiose or hyperbolic in their initial statement, but the point remains the same.  If you didn't play Thursday because things aren't ok, you certainly can't play Friday, or Saturday, or anytime in the near future, for the simple reason that the swath of people who think things aren't ok right now are unlikely to think things are ok anytime soon.

 

Uh, no we mustn't assume anything. I mean, if that's all you conclude, that's you, but it's not at all how I conclude things. How I took it ... hmm ... I think of it more as a day of reflection. It doesn't mean everything is fine, at all, either before or after. But we are being asked to think on it. They took a day to say, 'Hey ... we need to all start thinking about these things and maybe, just maybe, that can lead to somewhere.' Rome wasn't built in a day and I highly doubt that those are the only two choices of conclusion that either it's all okay or they didn't mean it. If that's all you conclude, well, okay ... that's your right. But no, it's not at all what I conclude when they are back playing now. I took the time to read articles and resources, trying to outline ... how might I help? But because there is baseball today, doesn't mean it's all just miraculously okay. And it doesn't mean I'll go back to not trying to do better today. But that's me and what I think.

[HighHeet]

 

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

How about "on the side of humanity?"

As a stranger, love and respect you Chief for your comments over the years... but still feel obligated to point out... "side of humanity" seems to be as selective as "black lives matter".   But first, I am not diminishing nor am I against the quest to improve injustices in this world, including the plight of treatment for our fellow black citizens... 

 

- The NBA, and corporate goliaths in general, go to great lengths to protect their monetary interests in communist China with complete disregard to the "side of humanity" and human atrocities that regularly occur in that country.  Side of humanity doesn't matter one bit as long as the money keeps flowing.... Right LeBron? 

- The reactions to atrocious misdeeds by morally defunct individuals often and regularly leads to further atrocious misdeeds as retribution or collateral damage to additional and equally "innocent" victims.  Is the murdered black policeman a "side of humanity" and does his life not matter?

- Do murdered 2 year old's in a stroller, and kids on the sidewalk represent a "side of humanity"?  Never hear about these atrocities on the news too often, but happens exponentially more frequently than law enforcement atrocities.  Seems just as concerning to me.  

- Do murdered babies in the womb represent a "side of humanity"?  It's been going on a long, long time. 

 

Not trying to hijack or sidetrack this discussion, but I have a problem with the highly selective outrage that gets publicized. 

 

See if folks can follow this... there are a great many people that can't rationally distinguish between "Black Lives Matter" and "Black Lives Matter".  Yes, they are typed out the same way.  But one of them I agree with, and the other one is the definition of hypocrisy, as only politically expedient black lives truly SEEM to matter based on news coverage, social reactions and governmental response.   

[HighHeet]

 

I don’t really care either way about 1 game. Seriously this season is so screwed up anyway. it’s not really a thing. My wife, however is pissed. She’s a big hockey fan and she swears she won’t watch another game. And Vegas is the #1 seed in the West. I respect her opinion, pro sports is over playing their hand. These people are all elitists in my opinion, most people don’t need them to tell them what they should care about. I know I dont.

Nice, I too am a Twins baseball fan and a LVGK hockey fan.  Had my whole night planned out.... watch the first couple innings of Twins baseball, since that's the only chance the Twins will actually score any runs, then move on to playoff hockey..... But NOOOOOO!   Had to watch convention coverage instead, whoo-hoo.  

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

QI = qualified immunity and it is one of the biggest problems we have in getting rid of troublesome police officers. The link discusses it pretty fully. My "favorite" example of QI was where a part-time police officer raped a woman in a mall parking lot (and was convicted for it!) but the court found that because of QI, her claim of unlawful arrest was thrown out.

 

A police officer telling a person of color "I haven't shot you. Yet" is a world of difference away from a white guy telling a black guy that. You understand that, right?

 

Depends on the circumstances.  A black guy minding his own business, or peacefully complying with an officer's orders being told that is obviously problematic.  A black guy screaming "don't shoot" while waving a gun in the air, or holding a knife to the throat of a hostage he took is a totally different animal.  In those latter scenarios, the officer's words can be construed as a warning, not a threat, that is "if you don't surrender now, I will have no choice but to shoot you in order to ensure public safety."  The yet in this situation is representative of the officer's forbearance which is now running thin.  I don't know the specifics of this case, so I can't directly comment, although I am inclined to believe the situation in question was probably not similar to the last two scenarios I described.

 

That being said, I'm completely confused as to why an officer telling a black person "I haven't shot you yet" is worse than an officer saying the same thing to  a brown/yellow/red/white person.  Absent additional evidence of racism (again, not being familiar with the situation, I can't comment on this point), I am loathe to declare an officer racist based solely on one severely threatening statement made to one individual with a different skin color.  Am I to believe he either says this to every black individual he interacts with, or that this is the first black person he's had a situation with?  If not, it seems more likely to me there were other extenuating circumstances responsible that are not justification for the statement (if, as I suspect, the statement was not warranted), but are not racial in nature.

 

As for QI, I believe that police should have a different set of standards, for the simple reason that we daily ask police to be ready to deal with the absolute worst elements of society.  Situations most people would run from, police are obligated to run towards.  Police are required in these situations to make split-second decisions, almost always based on incomplete information, and on occasion, inaccurate information.  We bemoan when it appears police acted too quickly, but do we ever reflect when police react to slowly, and innocent bystanders become victims?

 

In the specific example you shared on QI, I of course view that as reprehensible, and would hope that after a fair trial, that officer, if convicted, would be remanded to prison for the rest of his natural life, with no chance at parole.  I believe QI can be examined, perhaps re-worked, but a starting point of we can no longer have it seems a dangerous place.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Whoa, dude, your basis for this raises the bar to impossible levels.

 

You're essentially saying that we either:

 

A. Keep plugging along every day because nothing matters

 

B. Stop doing anything because the world isn't fixed

 

Your logic is flawed because your threshold for raising awareness (which isn't really your call to make for another individual) is impossibly high.

 

That's not at all the point I'm making.  The statement the original poster attributed to the players, something along the lines of "we can't play right now because things aren't ok" is what sets the logical bar.  I'm not setting it--the players did when they made that statement.  Calling my logic flawed, and saying I have an impossible threshold for raising awareness is immaterial, because the statement the original poster alluded to has nothing to do with raising awareness; it has to do with things being ok.  If the players had said, "we can't play today, because we need to raise awareness about what's happening", I can be convinced that they truly believed a one day hiatus was sufficient to raise awareness.  But as I stated, raising awareness is not the bar this particular group of players was setting.  The logic is not flawed, the requirements being subjected to it are.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Uh, no we mustn't assume anything. I mean, if that's all you conclude, that's you, but it's not at all how I conclude things. How I took it ... hmm ... I think of it more as a day of reflection. It doesn't mean everything is fine, at all, either before or after. But we are being asked to think on it. They took a day to say, 'Hey ... we need to all start thinking about these things and maybe, just maybe, that can lead to somewhere.' Rome wasn't built in a day and I highly doubt that those are the only two choices of conclusion that either it's all okay or they didn't mean it. If that's all you conclude, well, okay ... that's your right. But no, it's not at all what I conclude when they are back playing now. I took the time to read articles and resources, trying to outline ... how might I help? But because there is baseball today, doesn't mean it's all just miraculously okay. And it doesn't mean I'll go back to not trying to do better today. But that's me and what I think.

 

The issue is (specific to this group of players only) that the rationale for not playing was because everything is not ok.  The rationale was not, we need to reflect as a society.  It's like if I tell my wife I can't go to the local coffeeshop because it's closed for the next week for renovations, but then tell her on the very next day I can go to the coffeeshop.  Either it's no longer closed, or the previous day I wasn't being totally honest about my motivations for not going to the coffeeshop.  I'm not saying these players are dishonest per se, I'm saying if they truly think they can't play while things aren't ok, then they can't possibly with a straight face decide to play any time soon.

[Squirrel]

 

The issue is (specific to this group of players only) that the rationale for not playing was because everything is not ok.  The rationale was not, we need to reflect as a society.  It's like if I tell my wife I can't go to the local coffeeshop because it's closed for the next week for renovations, but then tell her on the very next day I can go to the coffeeshop.  Either it's no longer closed, or the previous day I wasn't being totally honest about my motivations for not going to the coffeeshop.  I'm not saying these players are dishonest per se, I'm saying if they truly think they can't play while things aren't ok, then they can't possibly with a straight face decide to play any time soon.

 

Yeah, I get what you're saying ... I just don't agree with your conclusions. That's all.  

[Twins_Fan_For_Life]

How soon after the finish of game 1 is first pitch of game 2 tomorrow?

[USAFChief]

How soon after the finish of game 1 is first pitch of game 2 tomorrow?

typically 30 minutes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The issue is (specific to this group of players only) that the rationale for not playing was because everything is not ok.  The rationale was not, we need to reflect as a society.  It's like if I tell my wife I can't go to the local coffeeshop because it's closed for the next week for renovations, but then tell her on the very next day I can go to the coffeeshop.  Either it's no longer closed, or the previous day I wasn't being totally honest about my motivations for not going to the coffeeshop.  I'm not saying these players are dishonest per se, I'm saying if they truly think they can't play while things aren't ok, then they can't possibly with a straight face decide to play any time soon.

 

I have reread the original post and I don't think your interpretation is accurate because it is incomplete.  The poster said that the players chose to stop playing for a day because something in the world is unjust and they wanted to raise awareness and add their voice/clout to the conversation.

 

By you limiting the initial clause to a simplified version, you've essentially conducted a strawman argument.  

 

Your version: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled

What the poster actually said and better reflects the players: If everything is not ok and the players think their platform can be used to help reverse this injustice and support their teammates who feel strongly, they will choose not to play to make a statement and then continue to fight the injustice in other ways.

 

Those extra conditionals significantly alter the simplicity of the logic you tried to use and explain why it went so far astray at even the most basic analysis.  The players who feel strongly may have needed that show of unity.  They may have needed to exercise their platform to get people talking and paying attention for future actions.

 

Let's use a simple analogy to show the difference:

 

9/11 responders experience(d) significant PTSD and a host of other issues because of their bravery that day.  Many of them suffer daily from it.  Yet I would imagine, no matter how passionately you feel about honoring their sacrifice, you don't stop daily to remember it.  Or donate daily.  Or personally thank each of them daily.  Or make some grand display daily.  Those men and women are still there every day, but you effort isn't the same day in and day out. 

 

Does that, in any way, minimize the complications?  Or minimize your genuine appreciation of those people?  The simple truth is human beings don't have the capacity to be constantly, actively engaged in everything.  We commemorate and honor on particular days, we raise awareness, we throw our full weight behind things for short bursts and then back down to work at it daily.  We simply cannot do much more than that for all the injustices in the world.  Your attempt at logic only works because you ignore what is realistically possible and removes all the complexity that is actually part of the situation.  Which makes it appear easy to poke a hole in, but that's only because you've deliberately chosen to narrow the field to your convenience.