Total posts: 2,178
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s a weird argument to make - that the majority consensus gives the position credibility, when not only is the majority position the very thing being criticized
You haven’t actually made any criticism at all. All you’re doing is asserting republicans are making the issue up and there’s no problem. My position is that the problem is probably real because voters are clearly reacting very strongly to it, but I don’t know enough to write an essay on the subject. If it were truly the case that there is no problem outside of the heads of Fox News addicts, Democrats should’ve very easily won the argument on what was historically their best issue in a D+10 state.
but also when the majority is overwhelmingly white and the topic is about how racism has impacted ethnic communities.
That is not at all what the topic is about. The topic is about what’s being taught in schools. But why should white people not have a say in what their kids are taught at school? Would you prefer segregated schools?
Also it’s hard to tell because Virginia precinct data is wonky but all of the election experts agree that Youngkin made large gains with Hispanics and Asians and perhaps won them. Not that this should matter. It’s not immoral to win white voters.
Created:
Posted in:
Education has historically been one of Democrats best issues, if not their very best, and Biden won Virginia by 10 points in 2020. This was the first Republican win in any statewide election since 2009. You can either believe that Virginia, a highly educated and heavily Democratic state, is full of ignorant rubes who got easily played by Republicans manufacturing a controversy, or you can believe that maybe something sinister really was going on in the school curriculum there. Enough that a Republican got elected on the back of what is historically that parties biggest weakness.
I want to emphasize how unusual this is. Youngkin actually won the 1/4th of voters who said education was their top issue: https://www.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor/0
This is the equivalent to a Democrat winning voters concerned about border security in Texas. Just a complete earthquake. Go ahead and deny that *something* happened at your own peril.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I remember the higher ranks being higher numbers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the real issue is that they disagree with what their kids are being taught, well now they have to engage in the conversation and make their case as to why it is wrong but they have no interest in that because they know they don’t know what they’re talking about.
A weird comment considering that ever since this controversy emerged conservative candidates have been winning in school board elections almost everywhere and, by your own admission, flipped the Virginia governors mansion. Perhaps the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about here is you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If you and Fruit are trying to argue that some anti-White racism gets taught in public schools then I'd likely agree even before knowing the facts (which you are inexplicably shy in presenting). But, as you've just conceded, that is not CRT and the statement "CRT is not taught in US K-12 schools" stands unrefuted.
This is such a weird takeaway, though. If you think that many schools are engaging in racism you should be more angry about that than the fact that the opponents of that racism are using a term you don’t think is correct. But I simply don’t see that condemnation at all from you or anyone else. I don’t care about the term, it’s like getting outraged at someone calling aluminum foil tin foil
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I used to play this with my dad, it's a good game. Thanks for bringing it up, I'll try to play it again soon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you’ve actually bothered to read anything I’ve said you would realize that I couldn’t care less about defending it, my irritation is and has been all along the unwarranted hyper focus on this to which a man rode all the way to the VA governors mansion.
Education has historically been one of Democrats best issues, if not their very best, and Biden won Virginia by 10 points in 2020. This was the first Republican win in any statewide election since 2009. You can either believe that Virginia, a highly educated and heavily Democratic state, is full of ignorant rubes who got easily played by Republicans manufacturing a controversy, or you can believe that maybe something sinister really was going on in the school curriculum there. Enough that a Republican got elected on the back of what is historically that parties biggest weakness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why does that really matter though, do you deny that US democracy is in serious trouble?
I wouldn't deny that, but I have very different reasons for thinking so than you do. I have two really big concerns, the first is the consolidation of power away from democratically elected leaders and towards individuals and institutions that can't be held to account and often can't be readily named, but who collectively have the power to brute force almost any result they want no matter what the voters say. The second is the rights enshrined in the bill of rights becoming obsolete as time goes on and technology and circumstances change(the best example of this is the right to a "speedy trial" which is completely gone at this point)
Whereas I don't view Trump's post election behavior as a serious threat at all. I think it's all but disqualifying and severely damages his legacy, but I don't see it as a fundamental threat to American democracy. People will say in polls that they think the election was rigged but their revealed preference shows that they don't seriously believe this....because they still vote! It's just a coping mechanism. Ironically I think that if he had just conceded gracefully he would be a heavy favorite to come back in 2024, instead of a 50/50 bet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The whole "CRT isn't taught in schools" is so ridiculous.If it were a requirement for all teachers to be Catholics, the left would lose their minds if it were said Catholicism isn't taught in schools.
It's just a weird obfuscation. "Critical race theory" is a term being used as a catch all for a number of pretty sinister and anti-white/racial essentialist concepts increasingly being taught, which are deeply unpopular among parents of all races. Maybe "critical race theory" is the wrong term, but I sure haven't seen a lot of democrats stepping up to defend some of the things being taught in schools.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
My theory is that January and February of 2021 were extremely bad and that Delta would’ve been practically apocalyptic without the vaccines
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For the first time in its history the United States has been listed as a backsliding democracy.
Where is this listing from, Freedom House?
Created:
Posted in:
The exact same accusation can be made of liberals. This seeming contradiction is because conservatives, generally, believe in an internal locus of control, while liberals generally believe in an external locus of control. So to a right winger health is more or less a choice, whereas to leftists it is just something that happens to you. This leads to right wingers wishcasting that covid isn't a big deal, that they don't need a vaccine, etc. And it results in liberals pretending that pregnancy is just something that happens and is imposed upon women instead of being the result of their own decisions. Of course, COVID IS just something that happens to you while pregnancy is a predictable outcome of choosing to have sex.
The positions of each side aren't actually that contradictory imo once you realize what the beliefs are that are actually motivating their opinions
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Can you please explain this a bit further? Do you believe the discussion about gender roles and gender binaries are a result of some men feeling less than others with regards to masculinity?
Not exactly, more like trying to reconcile a desire for equality in a universe that is inherently unequal, in ways that people had no say in. Maybe the easier thing to do is to simply do away with the importance of the metric. That and like I said in an earlier post the desire to free people from obligations they didn't choose. If I'm born a man and men ought to act a certain way that's an imposition on me, especially if I just don't want to act that way and so am negatively judged for failing to live up to a standard I never agreed to. If we don't want to force people into things it's better to remove as many social expectations as possible. Other than basic stuff like don't commit crimes, etc.
I don't totally disagree, but I definitely have my problems with the philosophy as I see it. Problem for conservative is they don't have a competing philosophy. You can't just be a liberal from the 80's, today's liberals are obviously going to beat you at that game. America is an inherently leftist country in many ways, as its very existence is an act of rebellion against the old ways. Ironic since the founding stock of the country are probably the most staunchly conservative European group anywhere in the world.
There IS an undercurrent of people bitter about their own weakness and sense of inferiority and so they hate that which they perceive to be strong. But I think that's a minority among leftists, although they represent the overwhelming majority of people in movements like antifa.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Can you give a more detailed explanation on this?As I stated previously, Democrats and Republicans both are rooted in classically liberal principles (liberty, self determination, shared values, etc.) So, it isn’t the right alone, I would say. The problem is that postmodernist influences are growing outside of merely politics itself. Corporate CEO’s for example, give lip service to a socialist movement while being obviously capitalist themselves. Even if done out of pure cynicism (don’t want to lose their business!), it illustrates the traction such an ideology can attain.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and I would say that this is the closest thing to a one sentence summary of American cultures core values as you could get.
Jefferson apparently felt that those unalienable rights endowed by the Creator didn't include the right not to literally be owned by another person. Clearly the logical conclusion of anyone who seriously believes in these values is that slavery must be abolished. The abolitionists had a much stronger argument for anyone who internalizes these values and Jefferson looks like a massive hypocrite today for claiming to believe in moral equality and unalienable rights while personally owning other human beings.
Okay, so what happens when we drop slavery, which is pretty transparently evil to us now, and focus on something more nuanced. We're all created equal, we all have the same unalienable rights. Sounds nice. But what if the circumstances of our births are different? I believe, and since you come off as conservative I think you also believe, that people have an obligation towards their families. If your family wants you to do X, while my family wants me to do Y, that distinction in my view is morally relevant. You have less of a right to do Y and I have less of a right to do X. But this means that we were NOT created equal, and do NOT have equal rights.
So what happens when you get people who are DEEPLY committed to this equality. Say we're both men, but you're much more masculine than I am. You're bigger and taller, have a deeper voice and a square jaw, enjoy hunting and fishing as opposed to posting online etc. We are unequal in "manness." Nothing can possibly be done to ameliorate this fact, so if one wants equality they have to chip away at the importance of this distinction. This leads to stuff like attacking gender roles, questioning the gender binary, etc. Whereas I think conservatives see things totally differently (I know I do), there is a platonic ideal of "masculinity" and as a man you have an obligation to strive towards it. Some people were born closer than others, and that's unequal and unfair, but it's also just life.
The point of my ramblings is that I think liberals are basically just following the philosophical values that America was founded on and that conservatives claim to hold to their logical conclusion, so the conservative is pretty hapless to resist. Distinctions inherently create inequality, and so the less meaningful we can make the distinctions the less relevant the inequality. A new philosophy is needed, along with a spiritual awakening...it's going to happen eventually but don't count on seeing it in your lifetime imo
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I’m not getting the “silent judgment” reference, but… I would summarize it as the progressive/leftist/far-left ultimately wants a collectivist utopia, where envy doesn’t have an opportunity to really develop. It wasn’t until AOC made a reference to supporting people “who either are unable or *unwilling* to work” that I realized what such a utopia might offer. That blew my mind, that she ultimately wants to accommodate a person’s unwillingness to work.
That's more or less what I mean.
Reality is what it is, but a certain breed of leftists will do their damndest to brute force it into the shape they wish that it was. The best current example of this is the educational policies you are now finding on the extreme left--there has been talk of abolishing advanced classes and many universities have already abolished the usage of standardized tests. Why? Because the objective results of those classes and tests paint a picture that contradicts their view of reality, so better to shut the data off entirely. How they reconcile this cognitive dissonance I don't understand at all. There is a super dangerous undercurrent of people who are deeply, deeply DEEPLY (like to their very bones) committed to equality realizing that reality is inherently unequal, realizing also that their efforts to bring the bottom up have largely failed, and so now striving to bring down the top down
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This completely explains how a police station was allowed to be burned down. That's not something common in any nation before.
lol well the motivations for THAT sort of thing are a lot worse....and the best analysis of that kind of resentment based destructiveness comes from your friendly neighborhood eco-terrorist, Ted K. but remember that political coalitions are made up of groups of people, many (most?) leftists are just following the enlightenment ideals that underpin our society to their logical conclusion as opposed to being motivated purely by resentment. The type unleashed in 2020 are more of the latter type unfortunately. What happened in 2020 with the Bail Project is eerily similar to how during the Bolshevik revolution the reds would empty out the prisons and use the prisoners as a weapon to terrorize the population
Created:
This, from Double_R, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:
And gender confusion is a typical right wing strawman. No one is claiming the biological sex of the person is up for debate.
Sure, the left may not object to the existence of biological sex. But they sure as hell object to any attempt to inscribe MEANING to that reality. If we are free to choose even our gender, in defiance of our very DNA itself, than we are nothing but what we choose to be. That idea may sound nice in principle but in reality it has a lot of...problems. In my opinion, anyway.
Created:
no one can be forced to do anything, even face others silent judgement, on account of their clan, tribe, nationality, race, religion, etc
This is the exact opposite of how I view things. I quite often do things I don't want to do because I feel like I have an obligation to my family, my ancestors, etc. Or because something is how men ought to behave behave, whether I like it or not
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Yes, as best I can tell, the deep seated impulse that drives leftist politics is to liberate humanity from all non consensual social organization, especially with regards to hierarchies. This is why they pull and pull and pull until there's nothing left but a thread. Once you realize this, almost everything makes sense. Whether they realize it or not the endgame of leftist politics is an undifferentiated mass of humanity where no one can be forced to do anything, even face others silent judgement, on account of their clan, tribe, nationality, race, religion, etc.--anything they did not choose. The runaway train really started once it was realized that it simply isn't possible to totally remove the differences (and therefore the inequality stemming from those differences) between clans, tribes, nationalities, races, and religions, and therefore those things must be destroyed. Where liberalism started out breaking down feudal obligations, it has now creeped up to the point where as you point out even the reality of gender itself is under the microscope, something that was totally unquestioned in Western civilization for millennia.
The right in the West has no effective answer because their political foundation is also based around classical liberalism, and so they're basically sitting ducks when the left extends the principles that the right holds to chip away at traditional society generation after generation. This is because, ultimately, the society that rightists claim that they want (for example one of honor, duty, family, God, patriotism, etc) simply is not supported by the philosophical ideals they claim at the same time to hold. You mention that the enlightenment was the high point of civilization, but from the very beginning the principles of the enlightenment were used to demolish the pre-existing social structure of feudalism with its hierarchies. The society of complex interactions between lord and peasant, church and aristocracy, the monarch and God Himself was gradually replaced with a rationalized social contract between the atomized citizen and the centralized state.
Notably studies have found that leftists are far more concerned with fairness while conservatives are more concerned with things authority and purity. This throws the mental flaws of both camps into relief in my opinion. Reality is inherently unequal, and it is unequal in certain ways that leftists will NEVER accept. It is actually right and just that the worthy are rewarded for their talents and abilities, that they live better lives than the less talented, and undermining their ability to do so undermines the good. I know leftists on this thread will vehemently disagree with what I say, but this is simply how I see it. Conservatives on the other hand are easily led down rabbit holes by hucksters. See: the two most recent Republican Presidents, who were polar opposites in everything except clearly taking advantage of the base for their own purposes (and doing so easily.) The anti-vaccine nonsense is another great example of this fault.
If the lefts goal is an undifferentiated mass of humanity, the goal of the modern right is for that same thing but maybe a little slower and with guns, or something. Notice how quickly ideas that were complete nonstarters for hundreds of years such as gay marriage or transgenderism became hegemonic, and how impotent the right is in the face of whatever the left happens to demand this decade. It's because the right totally lacks a sound philosophical basis. In the end, objective morality comes from God or it does not exist. If objective morality does not exist, the conservative is unable to argue against a social change by virtue of its sheer *wrongness* and instead has to contend with a complicated mix of popular opinion, harm vs benefit, etc--but these things, unlike God's divine will, actually ARE subjective and subject to constant change. Good luck squaring that circle in an explicitly secular and classically liberal country. The right will continue to have electoral victories, and the "woke" hegemony may prove so toxic that the right gets a rare long-term cultural win, but overall I don't see this train stopping any time soon. It left the station centuries ago.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is exactly what I did. I got the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. I am not super worried about mRNA vaccines but since there was an option available that wasn’t using new technology I figured I would go with that one
Created:
Posted in:
As a white person it really is depressing to see what appears to be a racially motivated terror attack against people like you get memoryholed almost immediately. We all know that the opposite situation would be front page news worldwide. Like the vast majority of interracial crime in America, the victims in this case had the wrong skin color, and so the case will be quietly forgotten about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed just this once please stop being a stuck up limey wanker! If it happens one more time I’m bringing up the grooming gangs, end of!
Created:
Posted in:
I wouldn't be surprised if the hold up was someone whose position was "he shot one of them in the arm, why couldn't he do that to the others??" lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I gotta say, after 4 days of deliberations, I was getting very concerned with this unsequestered jury. My faith in our system is being sustained a bit…
Well not to be a buzzkill, and we'll find out if/when jurors do interviews, but the long deliberation suggests to me that it was a very close run thing. Given the extreme weight of evidence towards acquittal that's still very concerning. But it's possible they were just (over)doing their due diligence.
Still, I couldn't keep a smile off my face when I learned of the verdict. Justice was served
Created:
Posted in:
Biden is such a disgusting rat. I’m embarrassed that I ever fell for his affable “working class Joe” schtick
Created:
Posted in:
Great post from another forum. In this context, mistake theory means that both sides on a political issue are operating in good faith, and merely have a disagreement. Conflict theory is the idea that the difference is actually…well, a conflict and people are going to try to win by any means necessary.
“This is the Mistake theory mindset, which, as this case shows, is an inaccurate way of modeling politics. There is no way a reasonable person trying to assess the truth, having examined all the evidence and testimony presented in the trial, could conclude that Kyle is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But the reality is that facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter.
This is a politically-relevant case, therefore the behavior of the people involved can be only understood in terms of Conflict theory: leftists believe that rioting, looting, arson, battery, are valid tactics for them, and only for them, to use as part of the political process (e.g. "riot is the language of the unheard", "In Defense of Looting"). Kyle is a young white man obviously coded as working class and right-wing, this alone already puts him in the camp of the leftist tribal enemies ("basket of deplorables"). Moreover, he was out that night with a rifle as part of a group of armed men who were not only defending property (let's be honest, this isn't about property) but also standing in overt defiance against the leftist shock troopers, which is something that the leftist elites can't tolerate.
Therefore, the same people who talk about defunding the police and say that the criminal justice system is injust, want to use the criminal justice system to destroy Kyle and make an example out of him in order to send a clear message that leftists rioters are not to be defied: if the mob attacks you, just curl into a ball and take the beating, as one of the prosecutors literally said.
The prosecutors operate according to Conflict theory, and whoever juror is preventing the jury from acquitting operates according to Conflict theory.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
A) paint the rioters as dangerous rapist armed thugs who are out to hurt and kill people while burning down entire neighborhoods, and
Fair enough, I don’t actually think this though. The people out that night ranged the full spectrum from peaceful protestors to people causing minor mayhem, to hardened criminals. And mob mentality can do a number even on otherwise law abiding people. Rittenhouse just got really really unlucky with who he ran in to
Created:
Posted in:
Wow, MSNBC employee detained for following jurors home in attempts to doxx them. Sad!
Created:
Posted in:
I can see it now in my minds eye if Rittenhouse had carried a concealed handgun. “A lot of people were open carrying that night. People knew that if they attacked them, they would be attacking someone who was armed. But not Mr. Rittenhouse. He was carrying an illegal, concealed firearm. He did this because he wanted someone to attack him that night so that he could play vigilante.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe a journalist walking around the battlefield with a mini-gun signals to the combatants that he’s there for journalism?Do you believe that what you signal to others regarding your intentions dictates how others will treat you?
It signals that they are armed, no more and no less. Yes wha you signal to others does change how the treat you. For example, if you signal “I am armed” and get attacked anyway you can assume lethal intent on the part of that person
Once again, you remain focused on the wrong thing. I’ve made no criticisms of his actions after he arrived. I’ve repeatedly made clear that his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 is what makes this egregious. Focus on the point.And no, I don’t have a prejudice against the AR15, I continue to highlight it because of reasons I’ve already explained;A) It’s highly visible, which is a clear signal to the rioters that he is there to stand against themB) It is not a weapon designed to cripple, it’s designed to kill.
Re A) No, it signals that he is armed. No more, no less. Many of the rioters went about armed as well. What signaled he was against the rioters was him behaving in an honorable manner by cleaning things up and putting out fires.
B) is the statement of someone with literally zero clue about firearms. They are all extremely dangerous if used against another person. While it’s true that an AR-15 round at point blank range would do more damage than your median handgun round, it’s also less likely to make contact in the situation Rittenhouse was in because it’s less maneuverable. Had he brought along an (illegal) concealed handgun I assure you the prosecution would be fearmongering about that. “This is not a gun meant for hunting, this is not a gun meant for target practice. This was an illegal, concealed firearm for the sole purpose of killing human beings.”
What’s immoral about bringing along a rifle for self defense besides the fact that you don’t like it?
First of all, it wasn’t his community. He didn’t even live in the state.Second, please stop making arguments as if there is no context, it’s disingenuous. You make it sound like he was just going for a midnight stroll. Once again, I don’t object to his presence, I object to his mindset which is made clear by his preparation. He wasn’t going there for the purpose of to putting out fires any more then a man takes a woman to dinner for the purpose of feeding her. He strapped himself with an AR15 because he knew he’d probably have to use it.
That’s just baloney. That’s like saying you put on a seat belt because you knew you’d probably get into a car accident. Your arguments are so weird. You keep saying you’re not against his good citizen acts, only the fact that he went about armed, but he was chased and attacked by a mob for doing those good citizen acts! So why is it a bad thing that he was able to defend himself instead of being beaten, possibly to death? You’re not seriously alleging that the reason he was attacked is because he was armed with a deadly weapon, right?
As far as the “crossed state lines” thing that’s just disingenuous and I think you know it at this point. His hometown is right on the border, Kenosha is the closest sizable city to it, and he has extensive ties in the area including living their part time with his father and working there. Not that that would change much anyway. I didn’t realize state borders were so sacred
Again, he was not the victim. He’s the one who walked away. Alive.Again, it’s not about merely putting yourself in a dangerous situation. It’s about putting yourself in a situation where your only way out is to kill someone else. Rittenhouse was well aware that this would be the likely result of his heading down there and he did it anyway. That’s what I object to.
1) No, that’s not how victimhood works either in a legal or a moral sense. If someone tries to rape a woman and she shoots him she’s still the victim
2) Maybe it’s just me, but if I’m being chased by someone and I brandish a firearm at them I would absolutely expect them to stop. The fact that Rosenbaum didn’t is frankly shocking. So no the only way out was not to kill someone. He attempted multiple ways to avoid violence (keeping in groups, fleeing and demonstrating lethal capability) and only shot when he was caught alone, cornered and being chased by multiple assailants. Again the point of open carrying is to deter potential attacks before they come, and given that this is the only example of someone being attacked like this that I can think of it generally works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This was absolutely nothing like any standard open carry rally, so your comparison is invalid. Open carry rallies are generally peaceful because they are protesting institutions that carry actual authority. Such institutions are built on public trust, so of course opposing them without crossing the line should be expected to remain peaceful. No such thing could be said with a straight face with regards to dealing with rioters.
This is simply incorrect. People open carrying has happened at all of these protests/riots in areas where open carrying is permitted. To my knowledge, nobody who was open carrying had ever been seriously attacked before. So no you shouldn’t expect to be attacked (which wouldn’t really impact the morality of the situation much anyway)
By itself no. Unwise, strongly cautioned against. Not immoral.
Let’s focus on this key point then as you are morally condemning his actions. So according to you, his presence there is not immoral. According to your last post, bringing an (illegal) handgun for self protection is not immoral. The type of gun changes the morality of the situation? Why?
Part of what makes the self defense case so overwhelming obvious is precisely BECAUSE Rittenhouse was openly carrying, so anyone attacking him was clearly willing to use lethal force.
Again, there are two parts to this. First is that his decision not just to arm himself but to go to the lengths he went to ensure he had the right weapon for the occasion demonstrates his mindset. It shows just how fully expecting he was that he may have to use it. An AR15 is not a taser, you don’t pull the trigger expecting the person you are pointing it at will live. To be aware of both of these facts and proceed anyway is to be fully aware that he was going down there to possibly kill someone.
What are you talking about? It sounds like you just have an extreme prejudice against the AR-15. The type of gun involved has nothing to do with the morality of the actions that led to him being attacked (putting out fires and cleaning up graffiti) or the self defense situation after the attack occurred.
As far as the bolded bit…no. He has every right morally to walk down the streets of his community. He has more than a right, perhaps a duty, as a man to try to mitigate the destruction of his community. The gun was brought along for self protection, and he was indeed attacked despite not acting in any provocative manner—meaning that taking the gun along was justified.
This is what I mean by you’re victim blaming. You’re saying he brought it on himself because he chose to put himself in a dangerous situation and therefore deserves some portion of the moral blame, but his actions were perfectly legal. You don’t have to like his actions. I don’t like underage people getting black out drunk at bars. But my personal opinion of what came before has nothing to do with the morality of the situation after somebody is attacked, provided they did not provoke it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm horrified a State prosecutor would intimidate a jury by pulling a Baldwin.
That was so funny. I know not everyone can be an expert on all things but a prosecutor should be expected to have a basic understanding of firearms. Whether it was pointing the gun at people with his finger on the trigger, falsely claiming that guns don’t have handedness, or fear mongering about “full metal jacket” bullets being scary instead of just the default the prosecutors have shown that they have no understanding of firearms.
Either that or they are intentionally being dishonest because they think the jury is stupid. Which is even worse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In this case someone used a gun to defend themselves against multiple assailants so I’m glad he had a gun with him
Created:
Posted in:
You have a very strange narration of events when you say the mob set on him initially while in fact he'd already killed a guy by then.
No, Rosenbaum was just his lead attacker. There was a second person involved in the chase, about a second behind Rosenbaum, who was actually armed with a gun and fired into the air
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All of the people defending the State here are literal fascists.
If he is convicted it will be an egregious miscarriage of justice. I'm convinced that most of these people simply hate white conservatives, and believe that they don't have rights. Especially the right to self defense against one of their client groups using one of their most despised weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Complete strawman and false equivocation. Any 19 year old girl should reasonably expect that if they walk into a bar they won’t be sexually assaulted.
You're right...but she should know better than to walk down a dark alley, right? Some parts of the city should simply be off limits to women if they aren't being escorted by a man. After all, they should know not to provoke sexual assault by wearing short skirts. They should not be placing themselves in a dangerous situation where it's predictable that they may be attacked.
No reasonable person would presume that walking into a city plagued by riots is a safe place to show up with your AR15 as the anti-rioter. That is provocative, and that invites the very situation he found himself in. This was all foreseeable, this was all predictable.
How is it provocative? People open carry at protests in the United States ALL THE TIME--so it's actually not predictable whatsoever that open carrying would be physically attacked. To my knowledge, it hadn't ever happened before this for obvious reasons. It's the exact opposite of provocative--if I see a guy with a gun, I'm substantially less likely to attack him. The point of openly carrying a gun is to DETER potential attackers.
It’s not self defense when you create the situation that leads to you having to use deadly force. If he really just wanted to put out fires and render medical aid he could have left his AR15 at home.
Yeah you're victim blaming again. A woman who is attacked by a rapist because she chose to walk down a dark alley in a dangerous area created the situation that results in her having to defend herself.
Explain the logic behind the bolded part. Rittenhouse's story is that he took the weapon with him for self defense--and guess what: HE ACTUALLY WAS ATTACKED! So it's a GOOD thing that he brought the weapon, no? Or should he have been expected to fight off a mob with his fists, as the Prosecutor suggested?
Be clear with me. Disregarding the existence of a weapon, was his very presence there immoral? If so, why? And why does that condemnation not apply to the rioters who were actually committing crimes?
And if all he wanted was to defend himself he could have brought a hand gun instead of running around like a wanna be Rambo.
1) No, because it is not legal for someone of his age to carry or own a pistol. It was legal for him to carry a long gun, which is why the charge was dismissed
2) Are you seriously saying that if he had just unloaded on somebody attacking him who didn't know he had a gun, that would somehow be more moral? Part of what makes this CLEAR self defense is that the videos show Rosenbaum beginning to chase Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse flees and at one point points his gun at Rosenbaum, in an attempt to get him to stop chasing him. Rosenbaum then continues the chase, and Rittenhouse only fires at him after he has exhausted all reasonable avenues of retreat, and the man is lunging at him and reaching for his gun. If somebody knows you have a gun but attacks you anyway, it is reasonable to assume lethal intent from that person. If Rittenhouse had waited until Rosenbaum tackled him and then unloaded his pistol into the man, before Rosenbaum had demonstrated lethal intent, that's somehow more moral?
If someone knows you are armed and attacks you anyway, it is more than reasonable to assume lethal intent on their part. Rosenbaum had the option to stop his pursuit when he saw Rittenhouse's gun. He did not, but 99% of people in that situation would. Rittenhouse carrying a concealed handgun removes the ability to easily signal "I am armed, do not come any closer" and thus removes the ability to deter potential attackers without lethal intent. If someone doesn't know you are armed and attacks you...well, you do have the right to defend yourself in my mind. But they have not demonstrated lethal intent in the way that Rosenbaum clearly did.
3) Please show me a clip of Rittenhouse acting like a "wannabe Rambo." I have been watching the trial closely and every single clip brought up by both parties has shown him behaving very meekly and non-confrontationally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This is the most kangarooish court I have seen within US borders outside of stories of the Jim Crow South.
Yeah…What scares me the most is that soon the median judge is going to be more like Binger and less like Schroeder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
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.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
I have been watching this video on repeat and have probably seen in two dozen times now, and I laugh each time. In a sane society making a statement like that in a court room = automatic disbarment.
Created:
Posted in:
Exact quote from the Prosecution: “everybody takes a beating sometimes” lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think part of what you’re missing is the uniquely American weirdness of open carry. In fact, nobody we have been able to see on any of the videos was terrified of the fact that Rittenhouse (among many, many others) had a gun. The first attacker, Rosenbaum, was earlier in a minor physical altercation with people open carrying. So Rosenbaum wasn’t so terrified by the presence of a gun that he felt compelled to attack in defense. There was some other reason. Whatever that reason was (and there has been no evidence that Rittenhouse provoked him in any meaningful way), Rittenhouse was clearly trying to retreat.
When it comes to the second incident I don’t know if you’re really taking into consideration mob mentality. It’s pretty clear in the video—it starts out with yelling and following. Then the pace picks up slightly, someone throws a punch or hits him with an object from behind. Another hits him with skateboard. He trips and falls and the bloodlust kicks in. No less than five people descend on him. Two stop advancing as he recovers and shows clear control of his weapon. One jumps onto his face, making contact and Rittenhouse fires two shots that miss. Another hits him in the neck with his skateboard and tries to take the gun, and is killed. Finally the last attacker pretends to surrender, but sidesteps and points a gun at Rittenhouses head and is shot in the arm
Other than not being there in the first place I don’t really know what you’d expect him to do in that situation. That mob would have beaten him to death. His behavior beforehand simply wasn’t the behavior of someone who just wanted to kill people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't think anyone on this site would have taken the case to trial. I may vehemently disagree with Castin, Ramshutu and Double_R on the morality of the situation but unlike the prosecution they aren't monsters who would try to put someone away for life over this. The prosecution is that monstrous. It is an open and shut case of self defense! The reason the prosecution looks so bad is because they literally have no case so they have to resort to inane tactics like asking "why did you run to put out a fire? there were multiple fires!" and charging the defendant for a gun crime that requires the rifle to be a short barreled rifle, without actually measuring the barrel of the rifle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then those authorities need to be held accountable by the people who elected them. If what they did was egregious enough they will be, if not then perhaps the situation was not quite what right wing propaganda made it seem.
That has nothing to do with the here and now. Your position on the police and fire departments totally abandoning their posts is "the community has no right to collective self defense, they can just wait it out until the next election"
Right wing propaganda? Do you deny that 40 buildings were destroyed during the Kenosha riots? https://abc7chicago.com/kenosha-shooting-protest-looting-fires/6402998/
That’s not the part I objected to, and there’s no way you could have honestly gotten that from what I said.
I don't see what else I'm supposed to take away from your statements. You are calling what Rittenhouse did (put out fires and render medical aid) immoral because there are authorities charged with that responsibility. I pointed out that the authorities had completely ceded the streets to the mob, allowing businesses to be burned and people to be attacked, and that I don't think it's immoral for private citizens to put out fires or render medical aid. You say "he shouldn't have been there!" well, why? Simply because it was dangerous? I'll reiterate: doing what is right even when it puts you in personal danger is the definition of heroism.
I said it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. Do you agree with that statement? If not, who is responsible? How do we as a society handle such a threat?
I don't agree with that statement. If 18 year old LARPers are the only people with the courage to put themselves in harms way to put out fires and help people injured by rioters that's a reflection on society, not them. Ideally the local authorities would have dealt with the rioters with overwhelming force...but they didn't. They allowed businesses to burn, and people to be attacked, and your position is that the community just needs to lie down and take it, they aren't even allowed to try and put those fires out
I also said if one has no business in a neighboring state (and he didn’t, having family 30 minutes away does not make it your business) and it’s dangerous enough to need an AR15, and local authorities are on the scene, then he had no business going there. Do you agree with that statement? If not, what’s wrong with it?
I don't agree with that statement. He is an American citizen and has every right to walk the streets if he so chooses. The streets do not belong to violent rioters, they belong to the people. We have also already established that local authorities were not on the scene. Local authorities allowed dozens of buildings to be burned to the ground, and allowed people to be assaulted. When Rittenhouse tried to surrender himself to the police because he had shot someone they told him to go away and pepper sprayed him. That is how little the authorities cared...they wouldn't even take someone who just said they shot someone into custody
This is textbook victim blaming. Does a 19 year old girl with a fake ID belong in a bar? No? Well, she shouldn't have been there! Who cares if she is assaulted!
Imagine a couple of antifa members showing up at the Capitol on Jan 6th with their AR15’s ready to “defend democracy” and then ended up killing a few Trump supporters. Would you be just as dismissive of their actions? Would you be just as sympathetic to their view that Capitol police weren’t going to handle them properly, so they felt they needed to handle it themselves? Would you be just as quick to talk about their Boy Scout activities prior to using their AR15’s? Would you be just as willing to dig up the personal histories of the people they killed and deem their lives unworthy of concern?
If a mob of Trump supporters attacked a leftist who was clearly trying to flee and in no way provoked them (other than just being there) and it was all caught on camera I would 100% be on the leftists side, yes. If a leftist at the capitol riot was going around trying to clean up damage and giving people medical aid I see absolutely nothing immoral about that, and if they were attacked they would 1000% have the right to self defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
DeSantis would appeal to a broader coalition than Trump does, as he is less likely to scare off suburban voters. Unfortunately a first past the post electoral system all but guarantees there will only be two main political parties. Since the goal of political parties is to get elected they do a pretty good job of cobbling together viable coalitions of different voting groups, but holding enough groups together to win a national majority is hard enough. Winning 60%+ of the voters is almost an impossible task even when a candidate promises to try or promises to be bipartisan simply because there are so many mutually exclusive interests. I believe you see similar things happening across the pond
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What about when the local authorities have completely abandoned their posts? It’s immoral for citizens to put out fires or administer medical aid? What’s immoral about that?
You shouldn’t opine on the case if you don’t know the facts. His father, grandparents, aunt and uncle, and cousins live in the area and it was about a half hour drive. He also worked in the area. The local authorities were in fact not dealing with the situation—like they did throughout 2020 they completely abandoned their duties. Even when he tried to surrender himself to the police, saying that he shot someone they told him to get lost. It was a good idea to bring a rifle for protection since he was attacked by a five time child rapist who twice threatened to kill him
Why is unethical to do good deeds even when it places you in personal danger? That sounds like the definition of heroism to me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope so. He is way better than Trump
Created: