Mutual Exclusivity

Be carful what you say!!!

In todays world you are expected to speak out on social media when there is a social issue, especially if you are a person of interest. This can become difficult when you are put on the spot by a reporter, are limited to a certain amount of words in a post or you are just flat out a victim of intent vs. perception. Now I’m not here to say what is write or wrong because I am no professional and I believe everyone is entitled to their own truth. What I am here to talk about is something I take issue with and that is the misguided perception of mutual exclusivity on social issues.

In Webster’s dictionary the phrase “Mutual Exclusivity” is defined as: Being related such that each excludes or precludes the other.

How this definition pertains to our current social issues in America are the assumptions made by people on either side of social issues that lead to the criticism of others that don’t agree on every situation. For example:

1. You can’t kneel during the national anthem and also be supportive of the American armed forces.

2. You can’t disagree with kneeling during the national anthem and be in support of the BLM movement.

This exact situation put Drew Brees (An NFL Quarterback) under fire over social media after a video interview surface on twitter where he said “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country,”.

Photo via:

Drew Brees, whos grandparents both fought in the military is being accused of not supporting the BLM movement due to this comment and has recently stated an apology for his actions after backlash over multiple media streams.

Again, I am not here to say what Drew Brees did was wright or wrong but I am here to examine the facts and definition of mutual exclusivity. Can Drew Brees disagree with protesting during the national anthem and at the same time also support the BLM Movement? What do my readers think?

“Silence is Pro-Racist”

The above statement is something I have seen personally on many social media platforms. This statement is a ploy to get the otherwise silent population to get out and voice their opinion on the situation. I personally don’t use my social media for my political or social views but I was compelled to speak my mind after seeing this statement. But referring back to the idea of mutual exclusivity, can a person not chose to be open about their opinions but not be in support of racism? I found this statement to be coudy but far too compelling to not act and I wonder if you guys feel the same?

My final fruit for thought is on the rising level conflict with protesters and government officials. With most protesting you will always have a few bad apples that will turn peaceful protest in to a riot. This has become very common in the current string of protest and this has persuaded many government official to install a curfew on there cities.

MayorOfLA @MayorOfLA Replying to @MayorOfLA

Currently, the curfew will apply to downtown Los Angeles between the 110 fwy on the west, Alameda on the east, and 10 fwy on the south, and 101 fwy on the north between 8 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. 859 Twitter Ads info and privacy 986 people are talking about this

The statement above is a tweet sent out by the Mayor of Los Angeles that will start enforcing a curfew in stated areas. This curfew will effectively silence protests in a physical form and put damper on the otherwise growing support of BLM. This decision has been made in a belief that protests after 8pm have not and will continue to not be peaceful. In the context of mutual exclusivity this is just not true, but in order to keep people safe this is a choice that the mayor has made. Do you think that a curfew is the right decision in regards to the mutual exclusivity of protesting after 8pm and peaceful protests?

Why do so many people think that one decision made by an individual automatically classifies them on one side of a social issue? There are obviously clear cut questions that will put you on either side of an argument but not all questions answered have to put you at ends with a group of people. Just because you are a policeman doesn’t mean you have no problem using excessive force and just because you are protesting doesn’t mean that eventually you will start throwing balloons and looting after 8pm. The world tries to force us to work in absolutes and this is just not a real thing in our environment. We as a human race need to stop hearing a single statement by an individual and start filling in the blanks themselves based on preconceived relationships. We as a people need to start hearing a single statement and start asking “why” or “please elaborate”. More often then not you will see that most intelligent people follow the same core beliefs and sometimes just chose to express them in different ways.

How and when have you been in disagreement with someone, just to find out that eventually you both supported the same idea but just disagreed about how to go about expressing it?


References-Brito, Christopher. (2020, June 4th). Drew Brees Apologizes, Says He “Completely Missed The Mark” In Comments About Kneeling Protest. CBS News, doi:

Gavis, Nick. (2020, May 31st). Live Updates: Protests Continue Across America In Wake Of George Floyd Death. Fox News, doi:

Sewing, Joey. (2020, June 4th). ‘Silence Is Violence:’ Why Speaking Up Against Racism Speaks Volumes. MSN Lifestyle, doi:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close