American Politics

[M3J]

Who knows, but you're not allowed to talk about any of this in regard to this case because he only killed white people, didn't you get the memo?

Must have gotten lost somewhere

Wonder why white supremacists aren't angry enough that two white lives were lost, though. Is it because the victims support BLM? Because Kyle used a gun? It's quite fishy.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Who knows, but you're not allowed to talk about any of this in regard to this case because he only killed white people, didn't you get the memo?

I certainly would LOVE to hear about the racial component.

Do you have anything substantive, or just sarcasm on the matter?




Placeholder to reply to you and ninja's posts.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2021 ---

Here's the fact though, if Kyle was Black or a person of color, he'd have either been shot by the police on sight OR been guilty. There's no way he'd have gotten away with it, not when a Black kid with a toy gun was shot and refused medical care that could have saved his life, and not when a Black teenager attacked a wannabe cop out of self-defense (which evidence implies).

I'm going to call the police you so disdain if you keep abusing the word 'fact' like this.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021 ---

Must have gotten lost somewhere

Wonder why white supremacists aren't angry enough that two white lives were lost, though. Is it because the victims support BLM? Because Kyle used a gun? It's quite fishy.

What a sad us-versus-them world you must live in to ponder on such inanity.

 

[M3J]

What a sad us-versus-them world you must live in to ponder on such inanity.

it's a world created by republicans/the right, as shown when Trump kept blaming everything on the Dems, Clinton, or Obama or when the right chose to vote for a sexual predator just to stick it to the libs. That's a fact.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

it's a world created by republicans/the right, as shown when Trump kept blaming everything on the Dems, Clinton, or Obama or when the right chose to vote for a sexual predator just to stick it to the libs. That's a fact.

Show me on the doll where the politician touched you.

and lol that you think Obama or Clinton are liberals.

 

[kkck]

The judge's treatment helped make Kyle look better though.

What facts? He crossed a state line illegally carrying a gun to a place where he knew there'd be civil unrest. At no point can anyone think he had good motive or reason for being there, other than to shoot people.

Welp, the following facts (because you clearly aren't reading my posts):

- The charges against kyle on getting an illegal weapon were dismissed because of how the law was written. Which also conveniently took care of the crossing state lines thing.
- Rosembaum did charge at kyle (and threw a plastic bag at him). And based on video evidence kyle did only turn around to shot when he heard a fired weapon.
- The second guy that charged at kyle (thinking kyle was an active shooter) and according to kyle went for his AR15. So... he has a perfectly reasonable case of self defense.

Now, is kyle a fucking idiot? Definitely. Did we get rosembaum's or the second guy's testimony? Nope, we only got kyle's side of the story and some video evidence. Did kyle's mom drive him to kenosha? Yep. Is that relevant? not really but that's incredibly disturbing. Did kyle go to the riots to provoke people with an armed weapon and shoot people? it certainly looks that way..

So... yeah, from all angles kyle had the law and the facts on his side. At this point all you can do is simply grapple with the fact that murder is legal in the US. All you got to do is provoke someone, get a reaction, shot the person and then claim you feared for your life. It's literally that easy.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Welp, the following facts (because you clearly aren't reading my posts):

- The charges against kyle on getting an illegal weapon were dismissed because of how the law was written. Which also conveniently took care of the crossing state lines thing.
- Rosembaum did charge at kyle (and threw a plastic bag at him). And based on video evidence kyle did only turn around to shot when he heard a fired weapon.
- The second guy that charged at kyle (thinking kyle was an active shooter) and according to kyle went for his AR15. So... he has a perfectly reasonable case of self defense.

Now, is kyle a fucking idiot? Definitely. Did we get rosembaum's or the second guy's testimony? Nope, we only got kyle's side of the story and some video evidence. Did kyle's mom drive him to kenosha? Yep. Is that relevant? not really but that's incredibly disturbing. Did kyle go to the riots to provoke people with an armed weapon and shoot people? it certainly looks that way..

So... yeah, from all angles kyle had the law and the facts on his side. At this point all you can do is simply grapple with the fact that murder is legal in the US. All you got to do is provoke someone, get a reaction, shot the person and then claim you feared for your life. It's literally that easy.

You alllllmost get it. Close.

1. The gun did NOT cross state lines! This non-fact keeps getting repeated for reasons I'm not sure.

2. Kyle was NOT driven to the 'protest' by his mom.

Mom of shooter Kyle Rittenhouse did not bring him to Kenosha

Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother “drove him across state lines and dropped him off in the middle of a riot armed with an assault rifle” in Kenosha.

www.politifact.com

Even left-liening politifact knows this.



And, yes, KILLING is legal in most societies, always has been, probably always will be in some form - in many, but not all, self-defense scenarios. Murder and killing are not synonymous.

Oh, and you CAN NOT provoke someone and then kill them.

Self-defense cases are full of nuance. The devil is in the details.

 

[M3J]

Show me on the doll where the politician touched you.

and lol that you think Obama or Clinton are liberals.

Maybe when you're not a twat, I'll actually bother to argue with you.

And show me where I said they were liberals. Actually don't, you'd probably make something up.

Welp, the following facts (because you clearly aren't reading my posts):

- The charges against kyle on getting an illegal weapon were dismissed because of how the law was written. Which also conveniently took care of the crossing state lines thing.
- Rosembaum did charge at kyle (and threw a plastic bag at him). And based on video evidence kyle did only turn around to shot when he heard a fired weapon.
- The second guy that charged at kyle (thinking kyle was an active shooter) and according to kyle went for his AR15. So... he has a perfectly reasonable case of self defense.

Now, is kyle a fucking idiot? Definitely. Did we get rosembaum's or the second guy's testimony? Nope, we only got kyle's side of the story and some video evidence. Did kyle's mom drive him to kenosha? Yep. Is that relevant? not really but that's incredibly disturbing. Did kyle go to the riots to provoke people with an armed weapon and shoot people? it certainly looks that way..

So... yeah, from all angles kyle had the law and the facts on his side. At this point all you can do is simply grapple with the fact that murder is legal in the US. All you got to do is provoke someone, get a reaction, shot the person and then claim you feared for your life. It's literally that easy.

Didn't the survivor also testify, and from his story it seems like Kyle did act in self-defense. Still, reckless endangerment.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Maybe when you're not a twat, I'll actually bother to argue with you.

And show me where I said they were liberals. Actually don't, you'd probably make something up.



Didn't the survivor also testify, and from his story it seems like Kyle did act in self-defense. Still, reckless endangerment.

Sorry, only a TWAT would try to shoe-horn race into everything, even when it's not relevant beyond reason.

LOOK OUT, BEHIND YOU! IT'S RACE!!!

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2021 ---

You clearly made a delineation between R's and who they voted for to stick it to the libs... WHO were the libs they were sticking it to if not their political rivals?

 

[Shobu_Yoruichi]

Yeah, let's also pray for his book deal, podcast, and show on OAN/Newsmax/Fox News to be as successful as possible.

Prayers work so damn well

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

EDIT: Wait, you're referring to the ones shot by Rittenhouse? I'm referring to protestors having concealed firearms or staying close to people that are armed with firearms.

Missed this, ehh, ninja edit. Yes, of course.

My part in this conversation wasn't really about the law.

So, just to be clear... Kyle was within his rights all night, no? I mean that was your take prior to being found not guilty? If that's the case, should he have even been tried in that case?

Clearly the law doesn't frown upon his behavior and that's why he walked.

It wasn't clear at all. If it were so clear, charges should have never been brought against him. Further, it took the prosecution working for the defense AND ~4 days of deliberations to get to the 'clear' as mud result. Or... was it clear to you since the beginning?

Just like the law wouldn't frown upon me sitting out in front of your house with a loaded weapon (provided it's legal in your state and I was on public property of course).

Eh, no. Loitering, particularly if habitual, at odd hours, or attempting to intimidate is still frowned upon in most municipalities. You'd absolutely get escorted away at some point. Even if, technically, you're within your rights to walk or stand in public property. There are limits that are considered 'within reason' laws.

And, I'm certain you're not referring to brandishing outside of my property line...

That's in no way similar to a crowded, fluid, violent situations where locations are routinely changed and purpose is literally defined via hard video from multiple angles and recorders.

Again, that analogy is imprecise.

Is that a good thing though?

So, your argument is that Kyle isn't a good person, no? Is that the extent of your issue with the case, because you've pointedly avoided discussion of legality.

If I say 'sure' - what relevance does that have? Do you take proportionately worse issue with the THREE VIOLENT FELONS that attacked Kyle? Shouldn't your ire, if it's not about the legality per se, be more directed at the filth that was there, with worse offenses, and that were the actual aggressors?

Or do you limit your quips for just Kyle? Why?

This is the same person saying:

Yeah but they're "antifa", and there's been a concerted effort to bring the dead's own criminal records into the conversation even though it clearly had nothing to do with what transpired that night and has no bearing on whether it was justified or not. But yeah, whether he shot black people or anteefers, he'd still be hanging out with Proud Boys and having drinks bought for him.

Which is to say, taking issue with anyone that even remotely refers to their offender status'. You even tried that crap with me (again, even though I didn't bring it up at all, but you had, 'opening the door...').

So, let me get this straight: Kyle's non-connected behavior that you poo-poo before/after the incidental night - great topic for discussion. But don't dare bring up the child-f****** or anything like that. Further! Refer to him as merely a 'mental patient' in attempt to downplay his history. How very objective, no?

Be consistent. Or not.

The double jeopardy clause doesn't apply to crimes that violate both state and federal laws.

There are no charges because there are none that can be filed.

I was referring to the spirit of the law. Which is to leave those found acquitted ALONE. Not to seek out anything they can in an effort to find the result you'd like in what even a 12yo could understand as a political hit-job.

For instance, the police officers that beat the shit out of Rodney King walked on state charges, but were convicted on federal ones.

Kyle wasn't a police officer; didn't deprive anyone of their rights (nor was he on federal land, nor anything else 'federal' in that regard). You could have argued that with Chauvin, but not Rittenhouse, sorry. Not everything is the same as everything else - NEITSAEE from now on, because I feel I'll probably be saying that again.

So, if you think that qualifies as a red herring, fair enough.

I made two separate, only-slightly connected, points. The red herring comment wasn't about double-jeopardy (b. point)

My comment about a red herring, because it was, was referring to your pushing the narrative of 'crossing states' (a. point). Now, maybe if a firearm HAD been transported across state lines (for the millionth time it was in fact not), or if Kyle was guilty of using USPS for a crime, then there'd be something to talk about in that regard. Kyle was essentially living in a bedroom community JUST over the border, and Kenosha represented a town he worked, had relatives, and played in. The video of him hitting a female... happened in Kenosha. Kyle didn't travel to a place he didn't frequent, nor did he go very far at all to get there.

I usually don't make a habit of treating criminal defendants as "darlings", regardless of political affiliation. I don't think you know what my affiliation is anyway, so I don't know what you're getting at.

Good. It's more fun that way.

My point is I'm sure you'll empathize, perhaps even relate to, some person caught up in the legal system and finding themselves defending their deeds. If you haven't already. I'm sure you would not want that person (or yourself!) being tried by public opinion any more than can be avoided. You'd want the jury pool as untainted as possible. And, you'd want them to remain as impartial as possible.

It's just more fun for you, or so it seems, to be overjoyed at someone who you don't seem to share anything with - political ideology or otherwise.

And, I never made claim of your affiliation one way or another. Though it's pretty apparent you're not a conservative, right? It's irrelevant either way to me, really.





NOW... where were we with the race-grifting??

 

[xi0]

I certainly would LOVE to hear about the racial component.

Do you have anything substantive, or just sarcasm on the matter?

I'd be willing to bet that you really don't.

Yeah I think it's better that I meet condescension with sarcasm in this case, sorry for wasting both our time.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2021 ---

So, just to be clear... Kyle was within his rights all night, no? I mean that was your take prior to being found not guilty? If that's the case, should he have even been tried in that case?

Yes, because he killed people.

It wasn't clear at all. If it were so clear, charges should have never been brought against him. Further, it took the prosecution working for the defense AND ~4 days of deliberations to get to the 'clear' as mud result. Or... was it clear to you since the beginning?

I mean, no? This is how the law and legal proceedings work. There's plenty of times cases are brought against people when conviction can only be wishful thinking, but the point of the state bringing forth criminal charges is finding out all of the facts and testimony, something that can't really happen without a trial.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Isn't the judge obviously biased? I saw people saw how his ringtone is Trump's anthem or something

Oh, good thing you 'heard' something! (this is the problem with you just... shooting from the hip and repeating crap 'you heard' instead of actually researched)

Schroeder is a democrat-appointed, registered ***D*** For. Fucks. Sake.

The song isn't owned by Trump - FFS! It had a long, storied, patriotic use long before Trump was even an R, which is why Trump co-opted it.

He really broke you, didn't he?

BTW, the judge also quoted Chaucer. I heard Trump once read that in grade-school!

As a leftist, a BLM supporter, a progressive, and someone who wants gun control reform...

Why do you have to be so redundant?

...I want everyone in America to own a gun now. Because the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Yup! The pro-2A crowd has said that forever. Because it's true, and there are many, MANY examples of this being the case. KR being just one.

California was open carry until the Black Panthers started toting guns around. And that's what it's gonna take to make Republicans start taking gun control seriously throughout the rest of the country and STOP rushing to commit acts of vigilantism : black people carrying guns en masse.

2A peeps have no problem with law-abiding AA's being lawful gun-owners. It's literally a demo that is marketed to by the NRA. They are welcomed with open arms.

If you're suggesting criminal AA's should carry, well, many do already - illegally.

Welcome to the US of A.

 

[xi0]

So, your argument is that Kyle isn't a good person, no? Is that the extent of your issue with the case, because you've pointedly avoided discussion of legality.

If I say 'sure' - what relevance does that have? Do you take proportionately worse issue with the THREE VIOLENT FELONS that attacked Kyle? Shouldn't your ire, if it's not about the legality per se, be more directed at the filth that was there, with worse offenses, and that were the actual aggressors?

Or do you limit your quips for just Kyle? Why?

No, I'm saying do we think that it's a good thing that the law protects people using deadly weapons in this manner?

Which is to say, taking issue with anyone that even remotely refers to their offender status'. You even tried that crap with me (again, even though I didn't bring it up at all, but you had, 'opening the door...').

So, let me get this straight: Kyle's non-connected behavior that you poo-poo before/after the incidental night - great topic for discussion. But don't dare bring up the child-f****** or anything like that. Further! Refer to him as merely a 'mental patient' in attempt to downplay his history. How very objective, no?

Be consistent. Or not.

You brought up "violent offender" first -

And 'the first person shot' was what exactly, just mentally ill is it? So, a violent offender, mentally ill, comes at you to kill you - grounds for defense.

If that's just you referring to him being attacked, then fair enough. But that's not how it read to me.

I wouldn't take issue with the people that attacked him being charged for doing so btw, but because of events and circumstances of that night that the law in Wisconsin protects, they're not there to stand trial, are they?

If you want to dismiss how Rittenhouse behaved at previous BLM-adjacent protests as "non-connected", then this is cognitive dissonance that you'll have to deal with on your own time, I can't help you there.

There are no charges because there are none that can be filed.

I was referring to the spirit of the law. Which is to leave those found acquitted ALONE. Not to seek out anything they can in an effort to find the result you'd like in what even a 12yo could understand as a political hit-job.

There are none yet

There's the dual sovereignty doctrine that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't protect against, regardless of what you think the spirit of the law is. In particular, the Supreme Court has always upheld it.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

I'd be willing to bet that you really don't.

Yeah I think it's better that I meet condescension with sarcasm in this case, sorry for wasting both our time.

I can speak for myself, thanks. I really am ready for that conversation. I mean... if all you're capable of is sneering that's fine.

Yes, because he killed people.

I'm not sure if you're aware or not - that does not necessitate a trial, nor charges. He's either within his rights or he isn't. If he were, and it was beyond evident (it was), he wouldn't have even been charged. Arrested maybe. But that would be the end of it. This happens all the time. Obvious examples of self-defense don't get charges probably every day. Of course this is often up to locale and prosecution's discretion. Another problem with political-affiliated prosecutors, but I digress again.

You haven't made a claim if you think he was within his rights, per your opinion. Obviously, post-trial his LEGAL status is rightful. I'm asking for your opinion, not his legal designation post-jury.

I mean, no? This is how the law and legal proceedings work. There's plenty of times cases are brought against people when conviction can only be wishful thinking, but the point of the state bringing forth criminal charges is finding out all of the facts and testimony, something that can't really happen without a trial.

As I mentioned above, I am talking about opinions.

And, withholding exculpatory evidence just to go to trial is just one example of prosecutorial misconduct. If there were video evidence that would show this as a clear-cut example of self-defense, it should not have been tried even if they found a way to push it forward (for a political sacrifice).

The disconnect I think you're having is - I'm asking if YOU think he was in his legal rights from the beginning. If you don't want to answer, then don't.

But if you did in fact think he was in his rights (while maybe having reservations about self-defense laws that I'm sure you think are dated to say the least), then that opens up discussion for how things were handled after the fact, and is thus relevant.

But it seems you'd prefer to bow out from further discussion. Totes fine with me. Next.

 

[ninjabot]

Why do you have to be so redundant?

I get you're joking, but for the more impressionable readers here I'm gonna call you on this. I'm a secular humanist. Literally every other left leaning person in my neighborhood is Christian. We're not all the same in the same way not all Republicans are the same.

Yup! The pro-2A crowd has said that forever. Because it's true, and there are many, MANY examples of this being the case. KR being just one.

I know they've said it forever, I was saying it ironically. I don't want protestors to own guns because I'm pro second amendment. I want protestors to own guns to protect themselves from people that are pro second amendment and are itching for an opportunity to live out their Punisher fantasy.

2A peeps have no problem with law-abiding AA's being lawful gun-owners.

You'd be better off saying "Not all 2A peeps have a problem with law abiding AA's being lawful gun owners." I'd agree with that. Not your initial wording though.

It's literally a demo that is marketed to by the NRA. They are welcomed with open arms.

That doesn't mean much. If there's a demographic that has money to spend an organization will market to them.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

No, I'm saying do we think that it's a good thing that the law protects people using deadly weapons in this manner?

I think we should be able to defend ourselves lethally, when our persons are attacked in a manner where a reasonable person would fear for his or her life - as was the case here. And any similar situation. Having such a law is a GOOD thing, yes.

You brought up "violent offender" first -

I was referring to you pointedly referring to him as a 'mental patient' (or the likes) for sympathy points - irrelevant information. I also stopped short of itemizing his crimes. He was, in fact, a violent offender attacking Kyle at that point in time secondary to his actions that day, not prior. But ALSO prior.

I wouldn't take issue with the people that attacked him being charged for doing so btw, but because of events and circumstances of that night that the law in Wisconsin protects, they're not there to stand trial, are they?

That certainly remains to be seen. Now that Kyle is acquitted, the door is wide open for charges. Because they were discovered to, in fact, not be victims.

If you want to dismiss how Rittenhouse behaved at previous BLM-adjacent protests as "non-connected", then this is cognitive dissonance that you'll have to deal with on your own time, I can't help you there.

You've failed, as the prosecution and twitterati, to establish any relevant connection. The cog-dis isn't laid at my feet. Because I am not using a past history as a basis for either party.

I was asking if prior history was relevant for both parties or not.

I'm repeating myself, but KR could be the biggest white nationalist asshat in the world and STILL be within his rights that night. He's not standing trial for being a good citizen or not. Defending yourself is not a crime even if you're an idiot, racist, asshole, etc etc.

There are none yet

There's the dual sovereignty doctrine that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't protect against, regardless of what you think the spirit of the law is. In particular, the Supreme Court has always upheld it.

I'll note you didn't address the point I was making about an impartial trial, and not being chased about by a federal power.

I'm sure you'd be happy to hear of a defendant that's a relative, friend, self, or empathetic mate of yours that is the victim of Petite Policy from a politically-charged federal AG.

I'll bet you there WON'T be any federal charges. stare decisis IS the spirit of the law, and I'd prefer it to stay that way.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2021 ---

I get you're joking,

Well, that's good at least.

but for the more impressionable readers here I'm gonna call you on this.

Isn't this just another way of saying 'for those that are too dumb to know better but are still politically-affiliated'? (at least in this case)

I'm a secular humanist.

Channeling your inner Dawkins is it?

Literally every other left leaning person in my neighborhood is Christian.

A lot has been said about the veracity of faith from a so-called liberal Christian. A conversation for another time perhaps. I don't want to go full 'No True Scotsman' - yet.

We're not all the same in the same way not all Republicans are the same.

For the 'more impressionable readers here' - I never said or implied that you were/are.

That said, there are often themes seen as overlaps more and more in the Venn Diagram of the left as the left gets pushed more and more liberal (a trend with merit).

I know they've said it forever, I was saying it ironically.

I know, hence the ironic over-retort of 'Yup!' - I just felt to further qualify my point. You know, for those impressionable readers and all.

That doesn't negate the truth in the statement.

I don't want protestors to own guns because I'm pro second amendment. I want protestors to own guns to protect themselves from people that are pro second amendment and are itching for an opportunity to live out their Punisher fantasy.

Genuine curiosity (not bait!) - do you see the problem being anywhere near close for lone gunman (who just so incidentally DEFENDED themselves after being assaulted) in such a crowd in comparison to the use of guns - in or out of a riot/protest/whathaveyou - used in the commission of a crime?

Put another way, which do you think is more common - a Punisher fantasy come alive like you believe Kyle to be, necessitating guns

OR

Common, law-abiding people who are protected from more common baddies?

You are aware there were dozens of anti-protestors there, carrying, that didn't fire a shot, no? And, as I've said many times, not a single person that didn't attack Kyle was shot. That's not an unimportant qualifier.

You'd be better off saying "Not all 2A peeps have a problem with law abiding AA's being lawful gun owners." I'd agree with that. Not your initial wording though.

Agreed, though I don't know how either of us would pretend to know or quantify how much of which ones... I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you think they'd be the minority while I would say, with good evidence (anecdotal), that the majority are cool with it. Yes, racist assholes (from every stripe) exist. Shocking, I know.

That doesn't mean much. If there's a demographic that has money to spend an organization will market to them.

Fair enough.

I guess each side looks at the other as contemptuously using AA's as useful idiots. Though, I would prefer to say they have more agency than that.

Or are only AA's that are traditionally conservative (say, 2A supporters, or anything else) ignorant and being used? Or, what's the other charge, self-hating?

 

[kkck]

You alllllmost get it. Close.

1. The gun did NOT cross state lines! This non-fact keeps getting repeated for reasons I'm not sure.

2. Kyle was NOT driven to the 'protest' by his mom.

Mom of shooter Kyle Rittenhouse did not bring him to Kenosha

Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother “drove him across state lines and dropped him off in the middle of a riot armed with an assault rifle” in Kenosha.

www.politifact.com

Even left-liening politifact knows this.

And, yes, KILLING is legal in most societies, always has been, probably always will be in some form - in many, but not all, self-defense scenarios. Murder and killing are not synonymous.

Oh, and you CAN NOT provoke someone and then kill them.

Self-defense cases are full of nuance. The devil is in the details.

Welp, but I intentionally said murder is legal. And I call BS to there being any meaningful nuance to self defense scenarios. That's why I made the point some time ago well before the jurors even started deliberating that both the laws and facts were on rittenhouse's side. It was pretty clear cut (because the law in the US is perverse).

Take a look at the trayvon martin case... Zimmerman followed some kid who did nothing to him or anyone else at the time, the kid reacted and attacked zimmerman (because he was being stalked) and then zimmerman shot him because he feared for his life. In the US you only need to "feel" threatened to be able to use self defense. If martin had killed zimmerman he would also have been able to claim self defense. Same thing with at least the second and third guy that confronted rittenhouse... It's an exceptionally stupid free for all where the one who remains standing can claim self defense. MURDER is legal in the US.

 

[ninjabot]

Isn't this just another way of saying 'for those that are too dumb to know better but are still politically-affiliated'? (at least in this case)

No. I mean for people that are... impressionable. Not everything is coded language. Qanon has ruined discourse, I swear.

A lot has been said about the veracity of faith from a so-called liberal Christian. A conversation for another time perhaps. I don't want to go full 'No True Scotsman' - yet.

My point is that nothing is redundant about my list of descriptors because none of them are synonymous.

For the 'more impressionable readers here' - I never said or implied that you were/are.

I'm not gonna push too hard on this because, like I said, I know you're joking, and I don't care enough about this to push for a gotcha. But you did imply that the left are all the same, by stating all of my qualifiers were redundant.

I know, hence the ironic over-retort of 'Yup!' - I just felt to further qualify my point. You know, for those impressionable readers and all.

That doesn't negate the truth in the statement.

Sure.

Genuine curiosity (not bait!) - do you see the problem being anywhere near close for lone gunman (who just so incidentally DEFENDED themselves after being assaulted) in such a crowd in comparison to the use of guns - in or out of a riot/protest/whathaveyou - used in the commission of a crime?

Put another way, which do you think is more common - a Punisher fantasy come alive like you believe Kyle to be, necessitating guns

OR

Common, law-abiding people who are protected from more common baddies?

The latter.

You are aware there were dozens of anti-protestors there, carrying, that didn't fire a shot, no? And, as I've said many times, not a single person that didn't attack Kyle was shot. That's not an unimportant qualifier.

Yep.

Agreed, though I don't know how either of us would pretend to know or quantify how much of which ones...

That's why I didn't.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you think they'd be the minority while I would say, with good evidence (anecdotal), that the majority are cool with it. Yes, racist assholes (from every stripe) exist. Shocking, I know.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. I'm not gonna push you on this too much though because I used anecdotal evidence too when mentioning liberal Christians prior. I will say however, even if the chance is high that you were right, I can't afford to flip that coin because I'm black. The consequences of me being wrong are greater than the consequences of you being wrong. And on that day if/when I'm wrong I'd want the ability to give someone a modified tracheotomy like that woman got on January 6th.

I'll simply point out that I think most people are less likely to be looking for opportunities to enact violence, gun enthusiasts included. But there are those that exist, and most of them are my political enemy.

I guess each side looks at the other as contemptuously using AA's as useful idiots. Though, I would prefer to say they have more agency than that.

Or are only AA's that are traditionally conservative (say, 2A supporters, or anything else) ignorant and being used? Or, what's the other charge, self-hating?

Black people in general are very conservative. Conservative, believe it or not, doesn't mean Republican. You can vote for Democrats and still be considered conservative. Just more conservative on certain stances more than others. Black people, for example, are the most homophobic/transphobic racial demographic in America, despite being the backbone of the democratic party.

And I'm not relying on my anecdotal experiences to make this claim although I could, since I'm black, and I hear how we talk about the LGBTQ community.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Welp, but I intentionally said murder is legal. And I call BS to there being any meaningful nuance to self defense scenarios. That's why I made the point some time ago well before the jurors even started deliberating that both the laws and facts were on rittenhouse's side. It was pretty clear cut (because the law in the US is perverse).

Take a look at the trayvon martin case... Zimmerman followed some kid who did nothing to him or anyone else at the time, the kid reacted and attacked zimmerman (because he was being stalked) and then zimmerman shot him because he feared for his life. In the US you only need to "feel" threatened to be able to use self defense. If martin had killed zimmerman he would also have been able to claim self defense. Same thing with at least the second and third guy that confronted rittenhouse... It's an exceptionally stupid free for all where the one who remains standing can claim self defense. MURDER is legal in the US.

Well, then you're factually incorrect. This isn't the TM case. This is the KR case.

Outliers are not the bulk of how things work. EVEN IF you think KR is a perverse case, you're simply incorrect categorically. Words have meaning. Full-sale murder is in fact not legal, and that's not what happened here either.

Self-defense cases ARE full of nuance (whether you want to bang your head against the wall and claim otherwise). And we got to see that actually play out. You're aware this isn't the only case of self-defense ever, correct?

I guess we'll ignore your repeated claims that were not factual but the basis for one of your biggest complaints here against KR though. I only went back a few pages, but you were one of the ones repeating them the most.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2021 ---

No. I mean for people that are... impressionable. Not everything is coded language. Qanon has ruined discourse, I swear.

Eh, no. Never been a Q person. But since *you* make a habit to make categorical assumptions - lefties are devoid of finding delight in obvious humor, I swear. If your attempt was to assume that about me - swing and a miss. If that was your attempt at humor - I blame this format of communicating to make that difficult to see on its face for either of us.

My point is that nothing is redundant about my list of descriptors because none of them are synonymous.

I know your point.

I'm not gonna push too hard on this because, like I said, I know you're joking, and I don't care enough about this to push for a gotcha. But you did imply that the left are all the same, by stating all of my qualifiers were redundant.

No, I didn't make a categorization of ALL the left (the qualifications of 'all' or 'the left' were never made - assumptions on your part). I made a categorization about those on the left - such as yourself - that check all these particular boxes, boilerplate. I made a very quick aside which is now devolving into pages of OT commentary about a subset, particular phenotype of the left. I was stating that all of YOUR qualifiers are redundant. Or, at least predictable if nothing else.

But, if you insist on telling me what I meant, I have little to add. I'll just concede that you knew better than I about what I was getting at, is that what you'd like to hear?

Sure.

I love noncommittal answers. So smug. So helpful!

The latter.

Then why aren't you a 2A supporter if the later is wildly more commonplace, and a very extreme example of 'active active-anti-rioter shooters' is enough to necessitate guns for you? That's inconsistent, if your basis for guns is a 'need' yet we've agreed on the greater need. I'll just avoid the obvious about the enshrined legality that should be sufficient enough in the first place.

Yep.

You don't find that relevant?

That's why I didn't.

Funny... because I don't believe I did either (no arbitrary figures pulled out of my ass here). Although I did fill in the gaps for your impressionable readers. Which is to say that you probably (operative word) believe that to not be a minor subset and I (for good reason) do.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence.

LOL! That's why I knowingly admitted as much (I don't need a definition, thanks). Who else would preemptively call their evidence anecdotal and then lean on it hard as somehow empirical. I can't believe I have to hear about the quality of anecdotal evidence AFTER I went out of my way to make sure and be transparent about the quality to begin with...

I'm not gonna push you on this too much though because I used anecdotal evidence too when mentioning liberal Christians prior. I will say however, even if the chance is high that you were right, I can't afford to flip that coin because I'm black.

Shocker. Countdown to the 'lived experience' argument that somehow trumps actual hard data...

The consequences of me being wrong are greater than the consequences of you being wrong.

You wouldn't actually know that, would you?

And on that day if/when I'm wrong I'd want the ability to give someone a modified tracheotomy like that woman got on January 6th.

Oh, the unarmed, 100lb lady making not verbal threats. lol, gotta love the EITSAEE crowd. I know, I know, you feel no pity for her because she's white. Hey, at least all the fatalities in these recent discussions are wh ppl, right?

I'll simply point out that I think most people are less likely to be looking for opportunities to enact violence, gun enthusiasts included. But there are those that exist, and most of them are my political enemy.

Most gang members are your political enemy? How did you come to that conclusion, a former poll? Oh, wait, I understand now, only WHITE gun-owners are of a concern to you (correct me if I'm wrong, gold star me if I'm right)? I'm assuming you have data on your side about this, so we can avoid the cherry-picking and anecdotes?

Black people in general are very conservative. Conservative, believe it or not, doesn't mean Republican.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not a D vs R guy. I'm an anti-neocon, anti-uniparty guy. If I'm remarking on D's or R's it's only in how they portray themselves as at odds with each other politically - that's not MY take on it. That is to say - yeah, I know. I don't conflate every conservative with a republican, nor the inverse of that with liberals and democrats. Though I think the bulk of the later overlaps quite well. Vote blue no matter who! That was kind of a thing, and it played out just like that.

You can vote for Democrats and still be considered conservative. Just more conservative on certain stances more than others. Black people, for example, are the most homophobic/transphobic racial demographic in America, despite being the backbone of the democratic party.

Yes, I know trends as well. Many are church-going for instance. That doesn't mean that there aren't clear discrepancies in how one votes with what they think they are voting for. I'll include both poor whites, and, hell, even educated coastal whites in this as well. Cognitive dissonance and voting patterns, shown in exit polling, and single-issue voters are, quite frankly, stupid. But... within their rights.

I do find it odd that you'll categorize black people as largely homophobes. Does that mean the LGBTQ intersectionality of society trumps the black intersectionality (I thought it was the opposite?), thus triggering the ability to broadly paint people with stereotyping? Or, you get this ability as a representative black person? If you discovered that I too was black, would I be allowed to counterpoint? Unless, of course, my counterpoint was quickly labeled a conservative talking point. Ah, the chessboard is no longer recognizable.

I'm not sure how it works anymore. I only care about raw facts to be honest (that's probably a racist statement). Not massaged data. Pure data.

And I'm not relying on my anecdotal experiences to make this claim although I could, since I'm black, and I hear how we talk about the LGBTQ community.

Well thank God (or, you know, the accidental void of nothingness - whatever you'd like) that you don't claim to be a representative of all _____ because you are one. Nothing worse than that. Perhaps I judged too quickly. I suppose we'll see.

 

[Sanity Check]

Does anyone actually.

Subscribe to this ideology?