Only replying to parts of this for the sake of brevity, and... not wanting to continue, quite honestly. There's no real point.
Jubei_Kibagami said:
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.
Don't do that. Don't assume you're making categorical assumptions because I've been doing it. You're making them because you've been making them. You've been replying in this thread a lot, not only to me. And a lot of the time you've made broad claims about the left you're incapable of demonstrating as true.
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.
I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not, and your tone makes it easy to assume you're just being bad faith, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't say that you said all of the left are the same. I said you implied it. Deny it if you think you have to, but implications don't have to be intentional.
I'm quite positive you and I have a different definition of smug. I can't imagine someone responding to people in the tone you have been and thinking me agreeing with you in an unenthusiastic manner is smug. That's not smugness you're seeing from me here, it's restraint. I understand it's harder to recognize tone in text than it is in person, but that's what it is.
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...
Yes, I would. Know that, I mean. I'm making a positive claim, complete with burden of proof that needs to be met and everything. This is a truth claim on my behalf. Yes.
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 take issue with you claiming I'm okay with white people dying because they're white. Especially a white woman. As a black man I value few things in life more than I value a white woman.
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?
I actually meant conservative gun enthusiasts, and don't like using conservative as placeholder for 'white'. And yes, I've got data on my side, but you already know what data I'd use: the demographic most responsible for mass shootings in America. Gang members don't do random mass shootings, their gun violence is usually targeted. And I'm not one of their targets. I won't clarify further because that's anecdotal.
Don't do that. Don't assume you're making categorical assumptions because I've been doing it. You're making them because you've been making them. You've been replying in this thread a lot, not only to me. And a lot of the time you've made broad claims about the left you're incapable of demonstrating as true.
You're conflating a singular instance, as I pointed out a rather (admittedly) mocking aside of your predictable political predilections (alliteration what), with other broad comments, as they are not one in the same. If there's something you're alluding to specifically, feel free to point it out and I'll address it. It's either opinion-based, which I'd readily admit, or not. But, you know, it's easier to cower out than address what is actually said (or not said).
I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not, and your tone makes it easy to assume you're just being bad faith, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't have much faith in leftists - of any stripe (I'm aware there are many 'types'). I read the tone in the room, and matched it. It's cynical, violent, condescending, assholery. Which is something I've seen across the board from leftists - par for the course IMO. Time and time again. In youtube comments, on reddit, twitter, HERE, wherever. I tend to find leftists a special kind of vile, and more vocal, than conservatives - but, you know, anecdotes and stuff. Or that's just my echo chamber, right? Or whatever you'd chalk that up to. I'm also talking about the VOCAL left, not so much the left as a whole. I've pointed out a few of the glaring examples here, for sure. Hardly the biggest sample pool, but it is what it is.
Regardless, unsure of your use of the term 'bad faith' - if you mean I'm not exactly thrilled to be conversing with a very polarized leftist, that's accurate (it's generally unpleasant and fruitless for both sides). I find the arguments dull in their predictability, repetitive, unfounded, and from individuals that I'm certain I don't think seek actual truth. AND YET, if you have a better argument or facts I haven't heard, I'm all ears. I can admit when I'm being objective versus just giving opinion. Opinion I generally think is fact-based, but... that's just my opinion.
I don't particularly find leftists endearing - I don't like them. No, I just don't (generally). It's not a function of not agreeing with them - I find they are generally not agreeable. No, not every one (I have fewer and fewer progressive friends... probably good for us both... but I still have some classically-liberal friends, well, left). Let's just bypass the pleasantries and get down to brass tacks is my attitude. Particularly when jumping into what is largely a lefty complain-fest, dog-pile about Rittenhouse in this case. You consider the tone here respectful? Really?
I didn't say that you said all of the left are the same. I said you implied it. Deny it if you think you have to, but implications don't have to be intentional.
I think I made myself very clear - I was talking about your subset and not leftists as a whole. At that moment in time. The never-ending 'I know what you are saying better than you do' (it was unintentional... you just didn't know that's what you really thought! I do!) crowd never gets old though. Never change, guys! It's always easier to argue against what someone didn't say for your own purposes rather than address what they actually said, right? Particularly when they follow up for clarification. Where is that benefit of the doubt when I've been very explicit about intent?
Probably. One side (generally) seeks to constantly redefine the meaning in language. You could say they'd like to progress things along as they see fit. While others might wish to, IDK, conserve meanings for a more traditional sense. Would I be shocked we disagreed on the meaning of any given word? No, not at all.
Cry me a river. I've seen multiple, hateful calls for violence, a constant stream of irreverence, patronizing attitudes from the minority of posts that run counter to you and yours, derisive and scornful remarks, the usual implied -isms (heavy accusations wielded with little thought), etc etc.
You guys set the tone. If you can't trade soft barbs (neither of us has been particularly ugly in an explicit, ad hominem-y way) while pushing the conversation while letting shit roll off your back then, yeah, probably best to end tit-for-tat here.
It's ALSO smug. If you agree, but offer a one-word reply (while being able to write a lot about little elsewhere...), about something central to your ideology and core of your argument, you don't exactly qualify as engaged. And, as I pointed out - and you gloss over (for brevity! har har) - it makes you inconsistent. But you don't want to, or can't, address that.
I guess I should be thankful for your restraint? You don't have to be for my sake. Tell me how you really feel. I'm certain I have an idea...
You could have just likewise qualified your evidence as anecdotal in that case, and saved us both the vocab lesson. If you truly recognized I was aware of what an anecdote is, and you know what it is, why spend the time? I'd accuse you of backpedaling, but benefit of the doubt and all that jazz.
No. You wouldn't. You can't qualify yourself as any more in danger than I am. Particularly, because you don't know my race. Or situation. You can only assume. You also don't have a crystal ball to look into that can give you any idea of what a future risk is or isn't.
I'm not sure we agree on what meets burden of proof then (shocker). I've just seen claims about the future. Not sure how you'd prove that out. I'm listening.
I take issue with you claiming I'm okay with white people dying because they're white. Especially a white woman. As a black man I value few things in life more than I value a white woman.
And yet we both know that's how it is used. I'm asking if you'd like to differentiate your claims or views from the commonly-used ones. Are you denying the overlap of conservatism and whiteness? Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles - right? (MOST.... most)
A great many 'mass shootings' are in fact gang related. But I'd rather not get into the semantics, but big-picture data that gives a true understanding of risk. Black people by and large are simply not targeted for their race, by the layman or police, and the data shows that.
If you're law-abiding, and not engaged in high-risk activity, you're not ANYONE'S target. You have a greater threat of driving, or bee stings, or shitty diet, or almost anything else than the (mostly white) boogeyman. Statistically, you're more likely to die from someone of your own race either way.
Wait, you weren't one of the ones claiming the (non) 'victims' in the KR case were black initially were you? I'm not digging back to 2020, but I'd bet my Klan-Kard (tm) points SOMEONE here did, as that is still being widely disseminated...
How's this for anecdotal: how many times have you been killed from a gun-toting white guy, other-race conservative, or ANYONE for that matter this year?
Probably a gorillion, since that's what the data would say, right?
Be careful. I just watched a Vice video the other day that essentially said memes that mock the left are inherently, automatically racist. (and thus meme-ing itself in the process)
This has nothing to do with capability, I'm choosing not to engage in the topic with you. I prefer to do my "race-grifting" with people who are more impressionable, it's far more fruitful.
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.
By this logic, no trial is necessary because a criminal investigation will impartially yield results that prove whether someone broke the law or not. That's not how the justice system works nor is it how it's designed to work. Not for nothing, but I don't think I would characterize what happened in Kenosha as something that "happens all the time" either.
You said it yourself - it's up to locale and the prosecution's discretion. If you wish to chalk Rittenhouse being charged with crimes up to someone with political motivations then how am I supposed to respond to that? The AG's office doesn't determine who commits a crime, the courts do.
I'm confused as to why you'd be under the impression that I don't think he was within his rights.
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.
Why do you feel that I needed to address it? You replied to a joke by invoking double jeopardy, while seemingly not understanding how it's applied.
I wouldn't associate with someone like Rittenhouse, regardless of their relation to me.
Okay maybe there won't be? That has nothing to do with whether him being charged federally for the same incident is something that can happen or not. Speaking of precedent, like I said before, the Supreme Court has deliberately chosen not to overrule the dual sovereignty doctrine despite numerous calls to do so.
Fruit?? I went back 3 pages before commenting. You guys were downright solving world peace in here! If there's fruit here, it's poisoned, or long-rotten in the 400+ pages I haven't been a part of. Maybe I missed out totally respectful, fruit-bearing parts of the thread. They haven't been apparent in the recent, surface-level glimpse if you weren't a part of the mob. Mob fruit perhaps?
By this logic, no trial is necessary because a criminal investigation will impartially yield results that prove whether someone broke the law or not. That's not how the justice system works nor is it how it's designed to work.
Clear-cut investigations of obvious self defense - CLEARLY what I'm alluding to and discussing here, do not require trial, no. That component of the justice system is being curiously disregarded in your responses. Part of the system includes the discretion to not even go to trial.
Self-defense cases happen all the time. Self-defense INSTANCES - that don't result in charges - happen all the time. I was in no way saying this case was a sole representation of every case before and after it. I'm merely pointing out that self-defense situations do not, in fact, necessitate charges nor trials.
Sure, right, there is no political component to this case at all. And the solicitor is totally apolitical, the investigators are apolitical, and Mayor Antaramian totally has no dog in this fight, no stake, and totally isn't related to anyone involved in investigating or charging Kyle (other notable Antaramians). Oh, and they're totes not ALL Democrats either. A political hit-job, particularly with pressure from a then vice-president running as a lead candidate for the Dems, could never happen. Not in America.
Not 100% true (well, technically true). The prosecutor has the discretion enough to determine if someone is 'innocent' enough to avoid actual trial. In the case of guilt, sure - determined by courts. I'm pointedly referring to instances where they determine not to go to trial due to ample evidence against needing to go to trial - or in the total absence of evidence that could result in a guilty verdict. Either end of those extremes can easily result in charges not being brought up and filed to indict.
You've made it clear you think he was in his rights. I'll be clear this time because apparently I wasn't enough before... WHEN did you come to that conclusion?
Multiple a justice disagree with you. Once again, the CONTEXT was not being the target of a politically-motivated federal power. Something that you continue to avoid addressing. I wasn't making a formal defense of Kyle not being charged again in a federal case. Because that's EXACTLY what it would be at this point (politically motivated that is). And while potentially legal (Nadler 'looking into it' and all), it wouldn't fit the spirit of criminal acquittal. Why not have every overt Democrat that wins acquittal be brought up on federal charges when the next Republican administration is in, right?
That's not what I even remotely said or implied. I know you're intelligent enough to know I'm talking about a situation where the shoe is on the other foot. Continue deflecting or whatever this is, dancing around the actual issue/question. SOMEONE THAT IS NOT KYLE RITTENHOUSE. There... clear?
Okay maybe there won't be? That has nothing to do with whether him being charged federally for the same incident is something that can happen or not. Speaking of precedent, like I said before, the Supreme Court has deliberately chosen not to overrule the dual sovereignty doctrine despite numerous calls to do so.
Yes, it's quite the contentious issue even in the SC, with multiple justices agreeing with my assessment, so I'm in great company. Including the darling of the left, RBG, of all people, among others. And the dissenting opinions are only interested in the definition of sovereigns in respect to... you guessed it, double jeopardy (so, yes, I'm certainly barking up the right tree by invoking DJ, as many including myself think these two doctrines are at odds with each other). But, I think Gorsuch said it best, and anyone who is concerned about the small guy getting smashed under the jackboot of fascism should agree:
"When governments may unleash all their might in multiple prosecutions against an individual, exhausting themselves only when those who hold the reins of power are content with the result, it is the poor and the weak, and the unpopular and controversial, who suffer first—and there is nothing to stop them from being the last."
I'm sure you're all for a big hammer being used against the little guy. Just 'cause, right? (when it's someone you don't like, it's cool!)
Why do I get the feeling that is the total opposite of *what I can only assume* you are about: big gov or big corp versus average Joe, particularly classically oppressed segments of the population. Have you seen Rittenhouse's PWT family? Or is it because he's white... or conservative... or both?
Or I guess I should check back the next time some poor minority is being charged twice by an R regime just because they can.
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.
Outliers? But this is how self defense cases in the US consistently play out. The law is set up so that you can claim self defense with as few barriers as humanly possible. It's the natural conclusion of the lobbying that has been done over the past 60 years for gun rights and the second amendment. I am not the one banging his head here lol, this is super easy... I mean, looking at the facts and video evidence of that night... are you telling me that if the shoe was on the other foot and any of the 3 people that kyle shot had killed kyle instead they wouldn't have had as good a case or an even better one than kyle when claiming self defense? I suppose it's important to stress that the people kyle shot weren't any better or substantially better than kyle in this regard, this entire case is a clash of the stupid and kyle's only merit is that he survived.
Outliers? But this is how self defense cases in the US consistently play out. The law is set up so that you can claim self defense with as few barriers as humanly possible.
I still think the law's set up so white people can claim self defense as long as it's not against white supremacists or wealthy people. It's not really just claiming self-defense that'll help as much as skin color would.
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group.
www.history.com
Basically the laws and politicians will work in whatever way necessary that doesn't give Black people advantage. Had a Black person survived meeting the cops armed, they'd have likely been shot by cops after self-defense, no question asked. By some crazy chance they survived that, they would have been charged as guilty, and the arguments used to acquit Kyle would have likely been ignored or somehow turned over.
I still think the law's set up so white people can claim self defense as long as it's not against white supremacists or wealthy people. It's not really just claiming self-defense that'll help as much as skin color would.
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group.
www.history.com
Basically the laws and politicians will work in whatever way necessary that doesn't give Black people advantage. Had a Black person survived meeting the cops armed, they'd have likely been shot by cops after self-defense, no question asked. By some crazy chance they survived that, they would have been charged as guilty, and the arguments used to acquit Kyle would have likely been ignored or somehow turned over.
Welp, the law is definitely not set up that way. But that is a different thing from colored folk being treated differently at any point during a comparable event. And yeah, I genuinely believe that if black people (even more than other colored folk at the US) started taking advantage of their second amendment rights then there would be a swing in favor of gun control, even if small. The part of the rittenhouse case that particularly stuck out to me was when kyle was running at the police while carrying his gun and saying he killed someone... I wouldn't bet on a black person surviving that.
The law is definitely set up that way though, always has been otherwise white people who kill Black people would be punished, and Black people wouldn't be in jail for selling weed, or still be in jail when companies are selling weed now.
The law is definitely set up that way though, always has been otherwise white people who kill Black people would be punished, and Black people wouldn't be in jail for selling weed, or still be in jail when companies are selling weed now.
You won't actually find any law that is written in such a way. The issue is in how the law is implemented or how minorities are perceived... And still, this specific case involves kyle, a white dude, shooting other white dudes. While he did show up to a riot over the death of a black person to the police, none of his victims were black...
