Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Everyone who was not peacefully protesting
Their presence motivated Rittenhouse’s presence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As I understand it, if a verdict against Rittenhouse is revealed, the defense has a lot of grounds for an appeal or mistrial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m not arguing he should be charged with murder, I’m arguing he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Would there happen to be anyone else you believe shouldn’t have been there in the first place?
Created:
Hmmm… where to begin? I was really into guns in my younger years, but I’m not a “molon labe” (pry it from my cold dead hands) type either. I don’t really agree with any single group about guns, so I inhabit an odd, middle of the road territory on the issue. You might say both extremes disagree with me vehemently.
While guns are very much a part of US history, they didn’t really start getting collected and idolized (or whatever you want to call it) until the 1970’s. Why is that? No one seems to know! Since then, they have become a uniquely American phenomenon, and a uniquely American controversy.
Imo, both sides have major flaws. (Warning: large, sweeping generalizations soon to follow out of the need to for brevity! Not writing a book here, and if I did, no one would be bothered to read it) Pro-gun people want open access to all manner of weaponry and act as though that has no bearing at all on weapons ending up in the wrong hands. They fear gun bans via incrementalism, so they resist even “common sense,” effective gun measures. They also misunderstand the Constitution on the issue to an alarming degree. Anti-gun people fear guns excessively while tending towards being soft on crime and tough on police. The effects of that are on open display in many cities. They are entirely ignorant about guns, but that doesn’t stop them from preaching against them. They can’t understand why anyone would want a gun in the first place. They don’t believe that normal citizens can be trusted with firearms. They also come up with too many ineffective, largely symbolic gun control policies, such as “assault weapons” bans and bump stock bans.
There are, of course, effective ways to keep more firearms out of the wrong hands, but they are always opposed by pro-gunners. I think the Brady Campaign (named after James Brady who was shot by Hinckley in 1981) has the right idea for the most part. The key is to reduce the illegal trafficking of guns AND to properly enforce the laws that already exist! Thing is, pro-gunners might also be right to fear incrementalism, too.
It’s a very deep issue, but that’s enough for now…
Created:
Posted in:
I do not include the judge in that condemnation, I should add. He is on point…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think you are giving them far too much credit. There are tons of actions they have taken that indicate they are sincerely trying to win this case, including pushing for the judge to include lesser offenses in the jury instructions, trying to trip Rittenhouse up on the stand, and introducing the idea of “provocation” in the jury instructions.
Oh, it’s not me saying that. I actually called it crackpot thinking. I find your insights informative regardless.
The fact is that they are trying to railroad this kid because their fundamental belief is that the rioters had a moral right to be there and to do what they were doing, while Rittenhouse did not have the right to be there in his attempts to mitigate the damage. That said, a prosecutor throwing a case because they don’t believe in the evidence should also mean a disbarment. They don’t have to take up the case if the evidence doesn’t support it at all. Risking putting an innocent man in prison for political considerations should = disbarment and jail time.
Perhaps. I definitely believe that the DA team should all be up for investigation into professional misconduct after this. This is the most kangarooish court I have seen within US borders outside of stories of the Jim Crow South.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
As evidenced by post #4 and elsewhere, there seems to be a sentiment here that the prosecution is being intentionally bad so as to throw the case in Rittenhouse’s favor. Presumably, they pressed charges in the first place to appease the BLM crowd. While the former is, of course, crackpottery, I can’t imagine why they indicted him within 48 hours for any reason other than the latter.
Now, to see what the jury finally decides…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Indeed. As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley so courageously declared, “We don’t need black faces without Black voices.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No one knows what brought that man to rape a woman. He is obviously not a man of privilege. Perhaps he is himself a victim— a victim of our aforementioned racist system. Depending on that very system to deal with him is obviously a self defeating notion.
As to your second point, I must educate you there— white supremacy is a global phenomenon. Even with whites in the minority, white supremacy could theoretically still reign. That said, there is an ideology which believes that whites reproducing with other whites (thus sustaining or increasing the current white population) is an act of white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s the fault of our corrupt and racist system, not those who refuse to call the police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment was written in case the government became tyrannical.
That is not entirely correct. It was written to reduce the need for a large standing army, and to decentralize the national defense among the states. It was feared that a large standing army would enable tyranny in various ways. I suggest checking out the Federalist Papers on the subject and maybe even the Anti-federalist Papers (they REALLY feared centralized power).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you be able to speculate as to why so many prominent people continue to be convinced that Rittenhouse is a murderous vigilante?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny. If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny which either isn’t accountable (I.e. a foreign invading force) or refuses to be accountable to the Constitution (i.e. an insurrectionist). Police officers are ultimately accountable to the Constitution, so your hypothetical is operating outside the intent of the Constitution. It is an example of unlawful behavior, in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Here’s a superintendent memo about it:
“Navigating EdEquityVA”:
And the part of the doe website dedicated to anti-racism in education, though the concept permeates the whole site, I would say:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yes, I noticed the “you have this huge AR-15, and he has this puny little handgun… how is he a threat to you?” attempted narrative. Even worse, though, was the “He could have already shot you from 10-20 feet or so away. How was he still a threat up close if he hadn’t already shot you dead?”
Really??
Again, he rushed to indict Rittenhouse without proper investigation. It just got embarrassing from there for the prosecution…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Adding to all you said, I have noticed no one criticizing Grosskreutz for bringing a firearm to the riot, nor for pursuing a person while brandishing and pointing that firearm at a person’s head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The increasingly agenda-driven nature of our once trusted institutions is becoming more apparent every year. It will lead to the opposite of what they intend…
Created:
Posted in:
The prosecution has been looking weak, but that’s not surprising considering they indicted Rittenhouse in only 48 hours. Just a bit hasty…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“The left isn’t as susceptible to emotional appeals, so they voted for Youngkin?”
What?
I’m restating what you said in order to highlight to you the internal contradiction in your claim.
You said this:
What McAuliffe tried was to tap into the emotions of the left by making it about Trump which had little effect. It turns out the left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense, so the republican won.
To restate your claim yet another way:
“The left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense”… so, they went with the Republican kind of nonsense instead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The left isn’t as susceptible to emotional appeals, so they voted for Youngkin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You think it was less emotions based and more reason based for McAuliffe to equate Youngkin with Trump and declare that parents don’t really need a say in the education of their children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think it’s a variation of “Get woke, go broke.” And it almost goes without saying it means Carville is a racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We’re not talking about math or science. Race is a complex and controversial issue and it’s not going anywhere. Your child will be exposed to it and will eventually develop their own opinions on the matter which will be influenced by what they consume and who they talk to. If you’re not expecting and prepared to have those conversations with your child then that’s your failure.
You underestimate the scope of the movement. I could link a few sources which show how identity politics has affected the study of mathematics. You speak as though parents should be ok with controversial ideologies being taught to their children. You act as if you would be ok with, say, pro life or intelligent design ideology being taught in schools, but I don’t buy it, and other parents shouldn’t, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Neither do I. If I think teachers are steering my child wrong on matters of race I’ll steer them back. I’m not running out to vote for governor over it, especially when I’m so concerned about my life being destroyed by gas prices, inflation and my freedoms being taken away which I am so convinced the current administration is entirely responsible for.
If you are largely unconcerned with the trends in your child’s education, you are in the minority. McAuliffe basically announced in the open that parents don’t really need a say in their child’s education, and the majority of parents disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it’s all so anecdotal:
How many anecdotes before it becomes a real thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So the story is “poor communities have fewer trees”. The solution is “let’s plant more trees in poorer communities.”
The rest appears to be some weird hysteria.
Yes, trees are great. The weird hysteria is called “anti-racism.” If only it involved straightforward problems such as a dearth of trees…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I don’t know. Marxism used to be about the haves and have nots, which could at least be quantified easily enough ($). And that was just 10 years ago. Now, the Marxist narrative is about identity politics/CRT/oppressor/oppressed/privilege/etc. etc.— which cannot really be quantified at all. And it is often contradictory; it is the tiger which eats its own tail…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
“Facile” does not simply mean “simple.” The actual definition of facile describes your claim perfectly, though.
So, do you believe that children who happen to be white are better off (I.e. less negatively influenced) as orphans, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
“Racist parents are a negative influence on their children” is a facile statement and loaded.
To be honest, I didn’t think you were intending a serious response with it…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I’ll answer the questions I posed, then:
According to far left academia (not that all of it is far left, but the vast majority which is):
Far left academia gets to define racism. Oh, and they get to modify that definition over time— usually to encompass more and more aspects of society as meeting that definition.
Far left academia gets to define “anti-racism.” “Anti-racism” is actually a far left academic term, so that makes sense. Only they know how to fight it, see. Listen only to them, and learn.
Ya know, no one in far left academia can cogently answer who/what/where is NOT racist… which is not surprising…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yep… that’s just as I thought. So, back to what many parents want:
Many parents don’t want their children being taught a definition of racism that leads them to conclude that they are either inherently racist or a hopeless, powerless victim of racism…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not exactly— you answered the first out of three questions I posed— “what’s the definition of racism”— and it was, frankly, the easiest to answer of the three. And I posed my concerns about how your answer is not as simple as it seems. Hence, I ask slightly reworded questions now (except for the third, probably the trickiest and most unanswered one by anyone) none of which you have answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I frankly don't think that racist parents are a good influence on their children.
How trite. But I have been through this with you before, RM:
Who gets to define what racism is?
For that matter, who gets to define what “anti-racism” is?
Who/what/where is NOT racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The issue front and center in these elections was about the teaching of critical race theory in schools, which the republican candidate declared he would ban.
Except that critical race theory isn’t being taught in one single school anywhere in the state and his opponent has never expressed support for teaching it.
The most basic idea from which critical race theory is grounded is the idea that race is the most prevalent source of conflict in American life.
So to recap, the mere threat of teaching a course about race as a source of conflict in American life was so toxic that a private businessman was able to ride the fear and anger over it all the way to the governor’s mansion even though the class is not and has never been taught in schools ever before. If that doesn’t sound like baiting people over race I’m not sure what to tell you.
This is the standard lefty rebuttal, and it is steeped in semantics. What many parents do not want is “anti-racism” (of the Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DeAngelo, Ta Nehasi Coates et al variety) taught to their children in lower school.
Created:
Posted in:
This is yet another wake up call for the left and the DNC to reflect and self-assess, particularly in education. Maybe law enforcement, too. But the DNC didn’t reflect after the historic upset in 2016, so why would it start now?
Created:
Posted in:
“Let’s go, Brandon!” is a pretty effective meme because it gives those who oppose it nowhere to go. It doesn’t contain the vulgarity of the original chant, for one. It has all the appeal of an inside joke for another— innocuous superficially but making a powerful subreference. Most importantly IMO, it mocks the media for refusing to acknowledge the original chant even existed…
Created:
Posted in:
Biden is a combination of Carter, Neville Chamberlain, and the title character of “Weekend at Bernie’s.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct. It's the elite and wealthy DC lobbyists that select and elect their PR man, not the voters.
Generally true— even more true of the DNC than the RNC. Trump’s nomination was a notable upset of that norm. I’ve also heard that Carter’s nomination was pretty “grassroots” as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don’t blame people for trying to make a better life (although I do blame the human traffickers); I blame the people in power who incentivize it and think more highly of non citizens than our own citizens. It also leads me to wonder: if this nation is so irredeemably and systemically racist, why do so many POC demand to live here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I’ll just reiterate this sentiment of mine:
“Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Depends on the argument. If the argument is really about national security (i.e. a group of organized terrorists or a drug cartel crossing the border with impugnity), and that's the argument you make, it's different than the fig leaf that this issue often is, where pundits say things like "THEY are coming to replace US." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration, the promise that makes this country the best one on earth even if it isn't perfect, and it's about oligarchy. The bottom line is if your political ideas don't appeal to the majority of voters, the problem isn't the voters, it's your ideas, in a democracy (and again, that's not me saying we have democracy perfected by any means). And I'm not accusing you of one or the other, but the fact that people see through those pseudo-intellectual fronts more now than in years past is PROGRESS.
Yikes… you actually would *consider* firing someone over a widely held national policy opinion?
And you left out THE most important point in my response:
“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”
But I see now that you are AOK with that ever expanding strike zone. It “is PROGRESS,” as you said…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s not a syllogism, I’m just giving the latest example.
Ah, I see.
Almost every example in recent months regarding freedom of speech is just as absurd, whether we’re talking about Twitter enforcing it’s ToS against Trump or cancel culture. The point is that this popularized pro freedom of speech rhetoric is really just advocacy of one’s right to say whatever they want without any consequence from society. That’s not how it works.
Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Also most of the time freedom of speech issues are people getting mad at PRIVATE BUSINESSES limiting your speech. 1A only guarantees the government won't do it. It in no way guarantees that you can post racist rants on twitter.
You are correct technically and Constitutionally— you cannot be punished by the government for protected speech. The issue today is more one of our culture and the power of corporations and institutions to coerce people into limiting their speech. As Dave Chapelle said, “You take away a man’s job, you take away his life!”
Sure, people don’t want openly bigoted people in their workplace. The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago. For example, is it bigoted to opine that you want better border security, and if so, should you get fired for that?
Eventually, people will be afraid to talk openly about anything, and they will simply cluster together in like-minded groups and echo chambers, where tribalism, division and de facto segregation will markedly increase— the exact opposite of what these cultural limitations on speech are trying to achieve!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Your conclusion doesn’t follow your anecdotal setup. *scratching my head*…
Created:
Posted in:
1. Where do you get your information from? What news channels are you watching, what publications are you reading, etc.?
Yahoo, which comprises, among others:
- The PuffPost
- The Daily Least
- The Giardian
- The AOCiated Press
- NYT
- The Washington Compost
- Reuters
- Politico
- The Washington Examiner
- The National Review
The WSJ, Fox News, The Ben Shapiro Show, Anthony Brian Logan, Waking Up with Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray
Sometimes, out of morbid curiosity, I will check out CNN and MSNBC just to see if I can guess what they are talking about/not talking about and to see how they frame stories so differently from Fox
2. How do you go about vetting the information you consume?
To help “center” the news, I will peek at The Christian Science Monitor, but it’s only a weekly now, which is too bad.
In general, I use critical thinking skills and a BS detector honed over many years. If something fails the “smell test,” I will look at mediabiasfactcheck.org (to analyze sources), fact-check.org, politifact, snopes, media research center, Wikipedia (and its links) for less current information
3. How exactly do you identify when you think someone else is not “thinking for themselves”?
I don’t really think that very often. When I do, it’s when someone claims to like or dislike a particular politician but cannot substantively explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If Carlson’s narrative is problematic, it is nonetheless very popular and well received. In other words, I think he is a reflection of issues in the country rather than an issue himself…
Created:
Posted in:
The government is paying low wage workers NOT to work; the Fed is buying bonds to keep interest rates as low as they’ve ever been… and inflation comes as a surprise? The real insult is claiming this inflation is “temporary” pffft…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Close, but not quite. Satirical, yes, but it’s not *really* about Chappelle’s feelings about Trump supporters. There’s an extra layer of satire there. I even attached a video to supply context.
Created: