Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
No problem. Just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.
Huh. Have any of them considered a job? If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state to murder some people, I bet she could drive for uber or something. Or be a getaway driver for other criminals, idk.
You are spreading misinformation: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-255510715179
The spreading of that, along with medical issues, is why they are having troubles.
Did you read the rest of the thread? I already acknowledged that I was wrong about that part, but they’re saying they can’t get work because of him while still refusing to condemn him. The GoFundMe says he was “involved in a tragic shooting incident,” which is a pretty weasely way to say he killed people.
I also question that it really has anything to do with him. He’s certainly not having any issues making money, and there are a concerning number of people who consider him a hero, or at the very least aren’t bothered by what he did (see the comments on this post for a whole lot of evidence). Surely some of them are hiring.
So, here’s the thing.
He shouldn’t have gone there. Being there, being armed, there to protect property, was taken to be provocative by the people that were protesting cops shooting an unarmed man.
But the narrative that we got in the news wasn’t how things actually went down. The first person confronted him and tried to grab his rifle when he wasn’t threatening anyone. The second person that was shot had just chased Rittenhouse down and struck him with a skateboard. The third person was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm. Source.
Given that he was not directly threatening anyone there, it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. Yeah, I don’t like it that a shitty person walks away, but he walked because he wasn’t guilty of a crime in defending himself. Is he still a right-wing shitstain that’s supposedly too dumb to get into the military? Yeah. But self-defense is a right for everyone.
There’s a certain type of person who thinks work is beneath them. That’s who the Rittenhouse family is.
…what? What are you basing this on?
When the children were small, Wendy and Mike worked various jobs, including machine operator, housekeeper, and cashier.
…
Wendy had become a certified nursing assistant, but she continued to struggle financially. The family was repeatedly evicted.
…
In 2018, shortly after another eviction, Wendy filed for bankruptcy. She developed a gastrointestinal bleed that required hospitalization, and Faith was also hospitalized, after an attempted overdose involving over-the-counter painkillers
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante
Gotta love a conservative family that votes to undermine all the social services they’d need in situations like this. But they seem to be able to afford guns…
Yeah, exactly. Fuck them all.
According to the article his sister has been hospitalized and both her and their mother have a hard time getting work because of being associated with Kyle Rittenhouse. BTW the mother did not drive him that’s a fallacy
Fallacy is a fault in logic, not a falsehood.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it therefore because of it) is a fallacy. Or an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
a false or mistaken idea
You’re thinking specifically of logical fallacies.
Ok then I retract the part about driving. But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her being unable to get a job. She’s repeatedly defended him and said she stands by him, and she allowed her 17 year old to buy a gun he couldn’t legally have and to drive without a license. Being associated with him is her doing. I have a family member who was a teenage white supremacist piece of shit (who was thankfully stopped by the FBI before he killed anyone), and you can bet nobody thinks I’m associated with him because I make it very clear where I stand. If I said he was a good person and I’ll always support him, I wouldn’t be shocked if employers said nah.
Sure, but she’s also his mother, not a random family member. I’m not going to fault a mother for standing by their child, no matter what he did.
She didn’t let him buy anything, but she couldn’t make him get rid of it because it wasn’t in her house. It was locked up at a friend’s house in a different town.
She was also ill, poor, dyslexic, and a single parent dealing with a difficult child. She doesn’t seem to have much in her life but her children, I’m not going to condemn her for not banishing him from her life. It’s not an easy thing for a mother to do.
Yeah absolutely fuck Kyle Rittenhouse but Kyle lied to his mom that night about what he was up to, and the mom clearly had no intention of being a willing accomplice to murder.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. She’s the reason he owned the gun.
Dude I really, really don’t like or support this dude but that’s not true. He didn’t keep it at her (his) house because he specifically knew she would not permit him to have it. She literally tried to parent, and he snuck around her by keeping it at a friend’s house.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Kyle lied to her about everything he was doing that night.
He did. The gun was never in her home, she couldn’t do anything about it. It was locked up at his friend’s house because his mother wouldn’t have permitted him to have it.
Yeah, but she’s related to him and loves him because he is her son, and we hate him, so obviously she should suffer too. Justice and empathy? Fuck that. We’re outraged and out for some suffering.
Says the person simping for a murderer
If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state
She didn’t do that.
It’s really sad how many people are still so completely ignorant of even the simplest facts of that case. Whatever your ideology declared was the truth, you just swallowed, facts and truth be damned.
Pitiful.
P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.
P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.
What Kyle did wasn’t self defense. I don’t give a damn what the court said, he went looking for trouble with a gun in his hand.
If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?
That’s not how it works, goofball.
It’s not bear season, and a hunter doesn’t have a hunting license. He takes his gun and drives out to bear country, and starts walking around bear dens waiting for a mother bear to attack him, then he shoots her and claims self defense.
Was he justified, or did he intentionally set up a scenario where the bear was likely to feel threatened and attack him, so he’d have an excuse to shoot her?
The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouse’s arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaum’s dumpster fire, makes that not really the best analogy, lol.
He did literally nothing that merited the aggression upon him. Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.
Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.
It’s literally identical, logically, to “She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.
Look, I want to be clear: I’m not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also don’t believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed they’d be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasn’t hoping he’d draw some aggression so he could “defend himself”. It’s unfortunate that it happened, and I do believe he was defending himself, but I also fully believe that it went down exactly like he was hoping it would.
The fact that he’s been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.
He can be “not guilty” and still be a piece of shit.
“She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.
I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to “come onto her”, lol.
You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after she’s chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed “I’m going to kill you” moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.
Zero chance you’d be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think you’re kidding?
If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing. I wouldn’t have a lot of sympathy for the KKK guys, because fuck them, but it’s pretty obvious at that point that the guy is playing vigilante.
It’s also worth noting that the first two people he shot were unarmed, and everyone who was in the vicinity thought he was an active shooter.
If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing.
Nope, this analogy fails, by implying that Rittenhouse was armed in a place where being armed is an unusual thing (ironically, one of his attackers was in possession of an illegal handgun, while Rittenhouse was perfectly allowed to be in possession of the rifle he had).
Kenosha is in an open carry state. There is a reason that although Rittenhouse was obviously and visibly armed with a long rifle, nobody reacted negatively to him arriving at the protest ‘area’. He walked around with that big rifle on his person for literal hours with nobody giving a shit.
It’s obvious you either don’t live in an open carry state, and/nor do you have the empathy to understand why it was no big deal for him to be there while visibly armed. His mere presence there while armed means nothing.
Again, the first person to react negatively to him at all was a psycho who literally screamed death threats and then tried to make good on them, in response to Rittenhouse extinguishing the flaming dumpster he was trying to wheel into a gas station (wanna take a few guesses why Rosenbaum was trying to move a large flaming object to such a specific place?).
You wanna argue that putting out a fire is provocation? lmao
Putting yourself in harms way hardly justifies “self defense”.
If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?
That’s not how it works, goofball.
If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle and sat there provoking the KKK members, I’d argue he probably went there to stir up a fight. Not that I have any sympathy for KKK members or their actions.
If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle
I didn’t say he was armed, but fine, let’s have this hypothetical happen in an open carry state, same as the state where the Rittenhouse stuff happened. Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.
and sat there provoking the KKK members
Rittenhouse provoked no one (the irony of implying he did is that he literally spent a good amount of time walking around shouting “medic! friendly!” while he was offering basic first aid to whoever wanted it, lol…pretty much the literal opposite of provocation), so your analogy becomes a false analogy, here.
I didn’t say he was armed
Rittenhouse was, so that’s what my analogy is using too.
Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.
Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all. If it’s police it’s a minor cause for concern, if it’s an untrained civilian who looks underage, it’s much greater cause for concern. If he’s walking around at a protest to supposedly “protect businesses”, he’s a clear and direct danger. What the law says doesn’t change what he can do with a weapon like that, and thus what threat he poses.
Rittenhouse provoked no one
You’re unaware of the basic facts of the case. Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly. This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him. After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense. He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).
You can’t expect to go to a protest, heavily armed, pointing your gun at people and expect people to be all okiedokie about that. It’s a clear provocation.
Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all.
In Wisconsin (because it’s legal), and particularly on that day, in that area, it is demonstrably/provably so that it was considered mundane, evidenced by the fact that although Rittenhouse was openly and visibly armed with that long rifle the entire time he was there, he received nary a second glance from anyone, much less an overtly negative response, neither when he showed up, nor when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.
Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.
Ironically, even his ATTACKERS didn’t give a shit, and charged at and chased him despite being, literally, SEVERELY outgunned.
Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly.
Link the full video (so fullest possible context can be seen), with timestamp(s)
This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him.
Oh, please, this is nonsense (and frankly digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure, considering all we know about him both on that day, and prior to it):
"Ryan Balch, one of the armed men patrolling the streets of downtown Kenosha along with Rittenhouse, told the court that 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum had appeared “aggravated” that evening and had been seen shouting “fuck you” to various protesters in the crowd.
“Every time I encountered Joseph Rosenbaum, he was hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” Balch testified. “He was always having to be restrained by someone.”
Another witness, Richie McGinniss, testified Thursday that Rosenbaum had chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot of a car dealership and lunged for Rittenhouse’s AR-15 rifle before the teenager opened fire.
Though both Balch and McGinniss had been called to testify by the prosecution, they each emphasized that Rosenbaum had appeared to pose a threat to Rittenhouse.
But Balch said that at one point that evening, prior to the shooting, Rosenbaum had clearly grown enraged with Balch, Rittenhouse, and a third armed member of their group.
Balch testified that the other member of his group had at one point prevented Rosenbaum from lighting something on fire. Rosenbaum then began shouting at Balch and Rittenhouse when Balch tried to calm him down, according to Balch.
“When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming,” Balch said. “I said, ‘Back up, chill, I don’t know what your problem is.’ He goes, ‘I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to fucking kill you.’”
When Binger asked Balch to clarify that Rosenbaum’s remarks were directed at both Balch and Rittenhouse, Balch responded, “The defendant was there, so yes.”
After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense.
Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off, and then enough time passes such that it would even be possible for Rittenhouse to think ‘hm, he’s not a threat anymore, but you know what, I’ve decided I want to kill him’ and THEN shot him dead.
What a pathetic straw grasp. Laughably absurd.
He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).
I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse with his illegally-possessed (unlike Kyle’s rifle, ironic considering how many people still accuse him of having possessed it illegally) handgun, which was literally pointed at Rittenhouse’s head when Kyle pulled the trigger and shot his arm. The fact that Kyle’s reaction time was faster is the only reason Grosskreutz didn’t succeed in his attempted murder.
Very interesting that you happened to omit every single fact that contradicts the narrative you’re trying so desperately to construct.
Unfortunately for you and your precious narrative, I’m familiar with the facts, and see right through you.
Why did you just bring in race? That was unnecessary.
It was to steelman the other person’s argument, actually. My analogy involved a situation where it was MUCH more clear that the victim was deliberately entering known ‘hostile territory’ (black guy into a KKK meeting), than the Kenosha situation was (fact is, if it wasn’t for Rosenbaum going nuts and starting the domino effect, Rittenhouse would have gone home that day conflict-free–after all, he was there for hours BEFORE Rosenbaum freaked on him, with no incident at all). Race itself is not really a factor–‘person existing in a dangerous place’ is all I’m conveying. I didn’t “bring in race”.
He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen. He put himself in a situation where deadly force would just be on be on the line of justifed.
Duty to retreat includes duty to not show up. It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did. We are creating a last man standing justice system.
A provokes B. They fight. B is murdered. A claims self-defense
provokes B. They fight. A is murdered. B claims self-defense
What does it say that the argument works both ways? No other crime operates this way.
It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did.
LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.
He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen.
‘She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’
Victim blaming. Wisconsin is an open carry state.
What does it say that the argument works both ways?
Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.
LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.
Personal attacks. And of course they chased down the guy waving a gun around.
She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’
False analogy. Rape is never justified, stopping a gunman is.
Wisconsin is an open carry state.
What might technically be lawful is not always sensible.
Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.
Showing up to a riot with a gun is aggressive by its nature. Just like if I stood with a gun in front of your house at all hours.
- He didn’t “wave a gun around”
- attacking someone unprovoked just because they are armed, especially when legally so, is ALSO never justified
- existing while armed is not intrinsically aggressive/provocative, no matter how much you insist it is. Rittenhouse did literally nothing that even remotely merited the murder attempted on him thrice that day.
Conservative values at work. Make a boatload of cash doing the grift circuit after murdering somebody, then hoard it and refuse to help your family.
He didn’t even make much cash, lol. After the initial attention everything dried up and now he’s got a hard time getting normal jobs, lol
gotta be honest, i wouldn’t hire him
I will not hire anyone who so much as smells conservative.
Eh, thats pretty lame.
Holy shit some of you really suck if you dont understand how lame it is to not hire people who disagree with you. Im not conservative by any measure, but who wants to live in a world where you cant do a job if you slightly disagree with your coworker? Thats insane.
Just because of the whole murder thing? It was legal!
Typical leftist cancel culture. You commit just one white supremacist terror attack, and all of a sudden you’re a pariah!
Source?
why does this kid look like a toilet seat
He looks more like what goes inside a toilet to me.
water?
Uhh… What’s brown and rhymes with snoop?
the answer is dr dre. this is a well-known dad joke that plays on the similarity between the names “snoop” and “dr dre”.
they need to cross state lines to kill more unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
https://youtu.be/Bv21bE9PWtE?t=10366
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at [Rittenhouse] — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” the defense said.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard! The other guy literally just had a bag (lol dumbass).
See this is what’s so great. Circumstances don’t actually matter, you can go looking for blood equipped with a weapons meant to kill as many people as fast as possible, and as long as someone flinches, you can just murder them! It’s completely legal. I fucking love america.
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard!
Yeah, try to minimize this after you let someone whack you on the head full swing with a skateboard–that is, if you survive. They weigh over 10 pounds on average, did you know that? Very literally a potentially lethal weapon. Also, he actually WAS hit by a full swing of said skateboard, on the head, before he shot at that guy, who was clearly trying to kill him by doing so.
you can go looking for blood
Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.
and as long as someone flinches
Trying to kill someone is not a “flinch”. This is some absurd fantasizing you’re doing.
Everyone shot by Rittenhouse was actively in the act of attempting to kill him at the moment they were shot. The first LITERALLY screamed “I’m going to kill you”, and after chasing him down, tried to wrestle his rifle out of his hands (gee, wonder what he might want to do with it if he got a hold of it?). The second tried to cave his skull in with a heavy, blunt object. And the third was only shot after he pointed his handgun at him–luckily, Rittenhouse was able to react fast enough to stop him.
In not familiar with exactly what happened that night but just an uneducated guess:
All of the threats that Kyle encountered was in response to the fact that he was playing Timmy Toughguy and actively strolling around with a gun…
If he was just wandering around being an unarmed cunt then the chance of being swung at is still not zero but pretty damn close to it.
If at any point he ran - and kept running, or dropped the gun and ran, fully retreating from the crowd I doubt he would have been chased too far and the need to shoot would have been eliminated
In the same way he (correctly) saw others as a threat, the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle that was a 50x larger threat well before they threatened him. Even if he intended to do nothing with it, he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it and he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat - of course they would try and disarm him at a bare minimum.
The threat to Kyle at this point was genuinely high because most adults in the US - or anywhere - instantly recognise what a random civilian in public with an assault rifle means - mass shooting. This is exactly the message Kyle intended to send in order to scare rioters off. If he wasn’t there just to scare people off then he was there to actively murder people. At this point I could put it down to a dumb kid making a really stupid mistake. Maybe worth a few years in jail for gun charges or inciting violence?
But he didn’t retreat as he was being threatened - a fraction of what he was threatening others. He chose to attack instead and it’s at this point he deserves to spend the rest of his days rotting in jail. He tried to send a message, that message wasn’t received so he murdered those who were fearing for, and attempting to protect their own lives.
Kyle choose to be the aggressor - and much greater threat to anyone there - from the start. He wasn’t protecting his own family, house or neighbourhood, he crossed state lines to be an aggressor. Kyle continued to act as the aggressor at every stage of the encounter.
Fuck Kyle.
This is a lot of words to say that you don’t understand that nobody freaks out about someone open carrying in a state where open carry is legal.
No one felt threatened by his presence. No one reacted to him showing up. No one had any problem with him walking around doing his thing for hours, while the rifle was strapped to him the whole time. If him merely existing with a rifle on him was such a threat, why is that? How come no one gave a shit about him except for a crazy guy who set a fire that Kyle put out?
Funny how this question never gets an answer, because there’s no way to answer it honestly without piercing a massive hole in your argument.
Pfft , so if he didn’t kill everyone that night, obviously the people he victimized were the only ones who had any issues with him open carrying. Looks like someone is projecting massive argument holes.
the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle
This is simply objectively bullshit, and you obviously don’t live in an open carry state. Nobody gave a shit about his rifle. There is video of him walking around, rifle in plain view, and nobody is even giving him a second glance.
he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it
More bullshit–even if he was trying to ‘send a threatening message’, he clearly failed, see referenced video above
he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat
Another lie. NOBODY “responded” to him being armed. He was attacked by a maniac for putting out the dumpster fire said maniac set. Had literally nothing to do with his rifle. And that attack is what caused the two other idiots to try to kill Rittenhouse, and in turn reap the consequences.
Your delusion that he was this menacing, threatening presence just by existing in Kenosha while having a rifle strapped to him is pure fantasy, period.
Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn’t have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn’t have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don’t think he was “looking for blood.”
That being said, the guy didn’t just “have a skateboard” we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just “flinched.” They were both clearly aggressors.
Was he justified in shooting them? I’m not so sure. I tend to lean towards “no.” But the fact that you’re grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn’t feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.
If you try to Defend yourself from a Random Person with a Gun you DESERVE TO DIE!
The guy is an idiot, but I don’t think he was “looking for blood.”
Except that there’s a recording of him saying he wanted to shoot people
Typical librul carin bout facts
Never understood the absolutely twisted psychology of people who defend this gutter sludge of a human.
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, but the misinformation around the event only makes our side look like imbeciles. There is plenty of video footage and witness testimony. The whole trial was recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the points being brought up in this thread. Kyle was a dumb 17 year old that should never have been there with a rifle.
Remember: the whole Kenosha riots started because of misinformation. The victim turned out to be a guy wielding a knife and running away in a car with two kids he was in the process of kidnapping. But, because of all the other events going on in the country, the narrative got twisted really fast.
There is plenty to criticize Kyle for. Idiot 17 year old at the wrong place and wrong time with a rifle. Repeating misinformation helps no one. I know social media is one big game of telephone and we can believe whatever we want since we all live in our own epistemic bubbles now but we gotta do better.
The person I responded to is a defender of conservatives in general. I’m not sure why you’re lecturing me about spreading misinformation, as I did nothing like that.
Lemmy in general I’ve noticed has a disregard for facts and really likes the overt sense of virtue signaling. Sure, Kyle is an awful human being, but there has to be a way to analyze the facts of the matter without resorting to using so much emotionally charged language. It comes off as really hollow and meaningless.
There is plenty of misinformation on the left in general surrounding the actions of that day. I noticed you are exclusively concerned with the ethical analysis of the situation while the person you are arguing with is clearly discussing the legal justification under American law. This type of game leads to a continuous back and forth in which wrong facts keep bubbling to the top. The Kenosha riots themselves were started because of the false assumption that another innocent black man was being targeted by law enforcement just off the tail of massive protests in MPLS a few weeks earlier.
Okay. There’s nothing unfactual about saying no one should be defending Rittenhouse.
Again, I never made any comment except that defending Kyle Rittenhouse means the commenter is shitty. Because he is. I’m not diving into the details because 1) I don’t need to 2) I don’t really care about the details of the case – I heard enough about them years ago.
There has to be a way to discuss whether an action is justified regardless of who the perpetrator is. Context matters. If we just go on these endless tirades attacking people nothing of substance is being accomplished except perhaps trying to score feel good points, and if that’s your goal then you do you. I personally find it’s more effective to counter their arguments with stronger counter arguments rather than calling conservatives “pathetic for being victims” or using ad-homs non stop.
So what if they’re defending Hitler? Were on Lemmy, we have mountains of facts and arguments for why Kyle was in the wrong. Let’s analyze those arguments and show a better way. I’m sorry if I come off as tone policing. I’m just tired of this inability to form strong counter points even though we know Kyle was not justified in being there with an AR-15 on that day.
You’re projecting–it’s people like you who are the armchair psychologists convinced of your assumptions of his motives, even when the facts directly contradict them.
All I’m doing is stating the facts. If they contradict your narrative, that’s because the narrative is wrong. Period.
Your motivations aren’t hard to ascertain.
You’ve proven beyond a doubt in this thread that your ability to ascertain motives is severely impaired.
Example: if you think my motive is to do anything but correct misinformation, you’re wrong (again).
And yet I’ve tagged you for supporting other conservatives specifically in the past… must have been total coincidence lol
Sounds like conservatives are more likely to get lied about around here, lol.
The fact that you tag people for reasons like that just tells me that you’re just another of the people who cares more about “supporting” a political team, than you are about finding and defending what’s actually true, regardless of which ‘team’ that truth may make look good or bad.
When you find me spreading the kind of easily-debunked falsehoods I’m correcting here, you might have an argument that holds some water. Don’t hold your breath, though.
Another “family values” type doesn’t seem to give a shit about his own family. Bet he has strong opinions on abortion though.
I don’t think he ever said anything about family values
Isn’t the right all about “family values?” Being “good” christians and whatnot? It goes with the territory.
There are plenty of right wing atheists…
what? there are plenty of right-wing atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc
So, you a bot? You replied twice and neither make sense if you read my comment…
Yeah you a bot.
You claimed being right wing was limited to something unrelated to it. 2 responses because I didn’t know if one was uploaded because of crappy internet. But sure continue to believe a conspiracy about everyone who disagrees with you.
deleted by creator
Their complaint is that he isn’t sharing his murder tour money.
deleted by creator
Is it possible that maybe he’s a piece of shit?
I mean, maybe? But other than wild speculation, is there any evidence?
Fucking /s because those of you that don’t get it are dumb enough to think The Boys got all anti-you all of a sudden too.
But other than wild speculation, is there any evidence?
He did drive up to Ohio to shoot people.
those of you that don’t get it are dumb
I wish I didn’t know people who would say that shit entirely unironically.
No no, see he shot a registered sex offender (which he couldn’t have possibly known at the time)!
Well you see, that guy was trying to kill him
“That guy” being Rittenhouse who specifically went there with a firearm with the intention to stir up shit? He was absolutely hoping he’d get to murder someone, and surprise surpise – he did exactly that
Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?
The problem is, we will never know now.
the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters
Literally a lie, lol.
There is video, you cretins, stop making claims directly contradicted by the evidence.
How do you know it is “literally a lie?” Because all the footage I’ve seen starts with him already being chased.
Let’s see this video of what he was doing directly before the chase started.
all the footage I’ve seen starts with him already being chased.
Look harder.
I can’t tell you how happy this makes me. I hope the whole family of human-shaped rodents spend the rest of their lives unhomed and living in refrigerator boxes.
compassionate left
No tolerance to racist murderers and their supporters.
I disagree, even mass serial killers should be tolerated, they shouldn’t be executed. Even the people I most strongly disagree are still human.
Also, how is Rittenhouse racist?
I disagree, even mass serial killers should be tolerated, they shouldn’t be executed. Even the people I most strongly disagree are still human.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
The piece of shit is being a total piece of shit? shocked pikachu
While shitty, what does him helping them financially have to do with anything? He shouldn’t be responsible for them. There are many people in the US in worse situations, and they don’t get special treatment because, I guess, they aren’t family with a famous murderer.
In this case (according to the donation page), he is part of the reason they are in this mess, as his mom is unable to find employment since everyone thinks she drove him to the protest where he shot those people.
Sounds like the town knows something we don’t or are they just punking this woman on a trust me bro.
Funny how society will act like this here but then we have Cathlic pedos living in the community and nothing happens.
People as a community have some weird sense of morals
I don’t think I would want anything to do with her either. It’s not fully rational or fair but it’s the way it is. Her position as his mom means she pretty much has to defend her son’s multiple murder and there are 8 billion people on earth, I don’t have to spend a minute with someone who would do that.
Plus if I was going to hire her I would wonder how much crap this is going to cost me. It’s not a heavily populated area and the name is rare enough. At best she is going to be neutral at worst she is going to attract the kind of people I don’t want around or infuriate other people.
I am a parent myself. If you don’t like my kids I don’t like you.
How do you feel about people who feel neutral about your kids?
Umm what does that even mean? How can anyone feel neutral to another human being? All I am picturing is you know someone exists but any amount of pain or pleasure they feel doesn’t impact you. Like if you could push a magic button to make them happy you wouldn’t bother since that would require effort and you are neutral.
I don’t know any people who are wired this way.
Umm what does that even mean? How can anyone feel neutral to another human being?
I just meant indifferent really.
All I am picturing is you know someone exists but any amount of pain or pleasure they feel doesn’t impact you.
There are a lot of people that currently exist and are in pain but it has little to no impact on me even though providing help would require nothing more than some more time and manpower.
Like if you could push a magic button to make them happy you wouldn’t bother since that would require effort and you are neutral.
This, I think provides for an interesting thought-experiment. Do we know how long it takes to press a button? Is the button-press speed limited by the latency of the circuitry it’s connected to? Exactly how many people are currently in pain? It’s obviously lots but can we come up with a relatively specific number? With what frequency does the number of suffering people change?
Then there are also some questions with more relative ethical implications that might also be: How many hours a week should a person spend pressing this button? How many people should press this button? If all previously suffering people are getting their buttons pressed then how will we know when someone is happy and flourishing? Isn’t suffering an implied opposite of flourishing? What other implications of the anti-suffering button are there?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, but you have certainly given me lot’s to ponder.
[edit][post] On further research I guess this sounds kind of like Negative Ultilitarianism which appears to be a subset of Utilitarianism.
Something something pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.
