The US Politics |OT|

[thismeintiel]

IvorEvilen said:

iron_megalith said:

Three people who actually came at him within 3 feet or less, with clear intent to harm, got shot.

Did he intentionally shoot anyone else that was going else where?

Also, you ignored my example of idiots like Binger who do not know how to handle a gun. This may come as a shock to folks like you but you can have something dangerous and yet wield it properly if you have proper training.

This is how I got banned from before but I'm gonna say it again. If Hiku or some other moderator twists what I say again and decides to ban me again, so be it. I barely give any shit what happens to my account on this forum.

So I'm going to hypothetically speak about this circumstance again. This is the same argument I gave last year.

Once again, when people burn down things that I've worked so hard for years, earnestly through honest means, and is my main source of keeping me financially afloat, they best put a bullet into my head while they burn it down or else I put one on theirs.

Just because these are "material" things that got lost doesn't mean it may not drive me into so much hardship that I may as well want to be dead. This is not an act of god that I can just let it slip. This is some fucking self-righteous idiot thinking he has the right to do it when I had nothing to do with what he's "protesting" about. Then again, I guess someone committing suicide because of such is the best outcoming these asshole would want.

IvorEvilen said:

Sarcasm aside, I see a lot of "the media lied about Kyle" posts here and on social media.  The notion that the media lied about Kyle is propaganda.  I consume a lot of media that is marketed towards centrist and left-wing audiences, and other than reporting on the limited information that was available at the time, I do not recall any sensationalist articles claiming he was a murderer that went out hunting for protesters (although Kyle did make some statements prior and post the incident that certainly did not help his case in the court of public opinion).  I do recall a few sensationalist posts shared on Facebook around that time (as well as cringy far-left content creators trying to capitalize on the outrage), but I saw the opposite misinformation from my conservative friends and family too.  It really ran the whole gamut.

That's not to say there weren't distasteful editorial or opinion pieces from more mainstream sources, or the occasional reporting of information that later proved to be factually inaccurate.  But anecdotally, I did not encounter any of those.  And that's part of the insidiousness of the claim.  It's nigh impossible to refute or support, but people believe it because the narrative is convenient.  Someone can compile a list of "problematic articles", but people are going to just disagree on the nuance of language, for example, crying bias over Kyle being referred to as a "killer".

And all of this is just an excuse to claim it's the medias fault, rather than acknowledge that half of the country's outrage is actually being fueled by differing opinions on the roles guns should play in society, the value of life, and the intersection of race/justice/police (I acknowledge that last point is loaded, because people are quick to point out that everyone was white in the Kenosha incident, but the contrast of the incident is hard to ignore considering the cultural climate the event took place in).  To put it more simply, people are not okay with the idea of vigilantes with guns policing our towns.  People are not okay with them getting to use the law as a shield when they get into trouble with people who are not okay with them being vigilantes.

It's not about differing opinions when you have the media with a very broad viewership or readership are preaching things that never happened in the trial. All just to keep the narrative alive. Not to mention race baiting by injecting inexistent racial elements into this case. It's not even the media only doing this. Hollywood personalities, sports athletes, senators, the fucking POTUS. They all keep making statements as if there were racial factor in this god damn incident when it's 3 white men that got shot. Even The Independent made a Freudian slip and made it so that Kyle Rittenhouse incident involved 3 black men getting shot.

So please. Spare me the bullshit.

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home.  Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

---

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.

---

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

Yes, and society can also judge the actions of those trying to destroy that property.  And sane people do not have much sympathy for people destroying property of people that have nothing to do with whatever BS thing you are rioting over and will instead sympathize with those who are trying to defend that property.  It's also pretty elitist to just assume everyone can afford and has insurance on their houses and businesses, just so you can justify that destruction in your head.  It's not just things to them, it's the destruction of their way of life.  Of course, people who like to say its just things have no empathy for those people, pr people in general, but sure as HELL wouldn't be saying the same when the riots come to their house.  That's why those bastard mayors and governors who tell the cops and National Guard to stand down have a quick change of heart once the rioters get a little too close to their families' homes.

Sadly too many people are guided by the biased media and don't look at the actual facts of the cases, or the number of cases, involved to realize that rioting, or even protesting, has no basis in reality.  There was no coverage of the black school shooter in Texas who was out on a bail of $75K less than 24 hrs of him shooting inside a school.  Shouldn't he have been shot on sight if the narrative was true.  A case in Georgia that may actually have to do with racists killing a black man hasn't gotten nearly the same coverage as the Rittenhouse case, which involved no one of color.  Why?  Because stripping law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves is more important to them than actual racism.  They also know that if the facts of the case definitely point to them being racists, the vast majority of people will agree and come together on it.  Can't have that.  Not good for ratings.

And you guys keep that White Nationalists/Supremacists narrative alive.  It's just going to make it easier for Rittenhouse to sue the ass off of these media companies, just like Nick Sandman.  The kid you guys were saying was a racist White Nationalist/Supremacist who harassed a Native American.

And if you can't see that the media is biased, then that is most likely because you yourself are biased. Too many people think that black people were shot.  That Kyle had the gun illegally.  That he crossed state lines with it, not that I think that is even illegal.  That he was marching up and down the streets all day pointing the gun at people.  That his mom drove him, which I have no idea what that has to do with anything.  Hell, people actually think Jacob Blake, the piece of garbage that the riots were even started over, is dead.  Even after the trial, some people, including people who should know better like politicians and celebrities who supposedly were following the case, were saying these things.  Why?  Because many media outlets were reporting them as pretty much fact.  They only slowly started walking it back when it was proven wrong in court and they know they have a chance of being sued over it.  These are ALL things that could have been debunked with just the smallest amount of research.  But, that wouldn't fit their agenda, so they just ran with whatever they wanted to be true, just like the Nick Sandman incident.  Again, if you can't see how biased that is, that's all you.