By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel said:
IvorEvilen said:

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.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  Nothing I have written has defended or justified the actions taken by the rioters or looters regarding the destruction of private property.  In fact, I have said the exact opposite.  That being said, the tales of widespread rioting and destruction through out the US was LARGELY exaggerated.  My point was that to those who did experience losses, there were financial windfalls through insurance, government aid, and/or civil lawsuits.  "Destruction of their way of life" is just hyperbole.  I would much rather rely on the legal system to sort this out, rather than vigilante justice.  I value lives more than property.

---

There's a pretty obvious explanation for why the Rittenhouse trial has garnered so much attention.  It is controversial.  There are two sides, not everyone agrees, and everyone felt there was a lot at stake in the trial.  I hear about Ahmaud Arbery in the news every day, so I do not know what you are talking about there, but I would agree the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was perceived as much higher stakes.  But I also notice much less controversy in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial... most people seem to agree it was murder.  Also, just in case it needs to be stated, no one is saying that every black police suspect or black criminal is killed by police... it's about the statistics.

---

I hope you are not saying white supremacists are not real?

---

The Nick Sandmann case is interesting, but it did not highlight media bias.  Like many other cultural flashpoints in America these days, the story originated from a video that was widely spreading on social media.  Obviously the media had to report on it as well, but they were reporting on a video that did not contain all the context.  As the days went on and journalists were able to do more digging, they discovered more information and revised their narratives.  There was no cover-up.  A lot of people were duped, and it did not help that the key witness, Nathan Phillips, either lied about what went down or was equally oblivious.  The biggest criticism I have is against media personalities who jumped on the story without waiting a day or two (but that's not how media works).

You say this can all could be resolved with the even the smallest amount of research, but hindsight is 20/20.  Even the March for Life rally (the reason Nick Sandmann and his classmates were in Washington DC) released a statement that criticized the students for their behavior, before walking it back a few days later.  Every lawsuit filed by Sandmann was either dismissed or eventually settled.  That does not imply guilt, but it is often cheaper to settle than to pay for lawyer and court fees.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to media companies to not just run stories on random internet videos with political agendas, without stopping to ask if there is more to the story.