US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands

[Darryk]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

This situation and the aftermath could not happening any civilised society. You lot are fucked. Even our shit show is a storm in a teacup in comparison 

Yeah no offence to the Americans here (my brother lives in Los Angeles and married a girl from Houston, Texas after all) but damn, it feels like the country is a powder keg. The political division, the strikes, the economic inequality, the predatory healthcare system, the attitude toward guns...it all just makes it feel like there's gonna be some kind of revolution or civil war on the horizon.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Darryk said:

Yeah no offence to the Americans here (my brother lives in Los Angeles and married a girl from Houston, Texas after all) but damn, it feels like the country is a powder keg. The political division, the strikes, the economic inequality, the predatory healthcare system, the attitude toward guns...it all just makes it feel like there's gonna be some kind of revolution or civil war on the horizon.

The strikes are the one positive things going on around here lately.

[Darryk]

29 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The strikes are the one positive things going on around here lately.

Agreed they're a positive thing, I mentioned them cause they reflect the struggles a lot of people are enduring

[SFDanny]

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The only people he shot were white.

I am well aware of that fact. Reread my post. It says nothing about the "race" or nationality of those who were shot by Rittenhouse. Only that we now invite more violence by those who are emboldened to carry weapons of war to demonstrations in order to confront those which they disagree with politically. Yell at little boys playing soldiers in their militia gear and they can kill in the name of "self-defense." A right-wing thug with a AR-15 can kill if they think anyone moves "aggressively" in their vicinity. Two systems of justice. One for supporters of police violence against people of color and another for those who protest against it.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Yell at little boys playing soldiers in their militia gear and they can kill in the name of "self-defense."

The scenarios you cite really have nothing to do with the facts of the case. Are you aware of that? Is this deliberate hyperbole, or has epistemic closure simply left you disconnected from objective reality? You would hardly be the only one -- Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted some untrue things about the case after the verdict, and she's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the New York Times; if she can't find her way out of the morass of ideological confirmation bias, what hope do most people have?

Maybe when you're in the U.S. and you only get news from television and social media, and you see how diametrically opposed representations of facts are, it heightens the paranoia and makes you prone to treating every single thing that happens as some sort of crisis. A few months ago there was a Matthew Yglesias piece which I think was very astute in explaining both why this happens and how we can be mindful of it, and I highly recommend it. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

The scenarios you cite really have nothing to do with the facts of the case. Are you aware of that? Is this deliberate hyperbole, or has epistemic closure simply left you disconnected from objective reality? 

Just to be really clear here - you are aware that the prevailing and largely more successful political viewpoint in the US is entirely based around complete disconnect from objective reality, right?

The argument that the interpretation of the case doesn't meet the facts does not really matter when those interpreting the case are uninterested in the facts. The right is currently using the Rittenhouse case - already - as further fuel for their grievance and to push for more militias in cities and more 2nd amendment rights. What @SFDanny is describing is literally what is happening, and you appear to dismiss it because that interpretation isn't supported by facts.

That is the really scary part for me personally. Things like illiberal governance and authoritarian rule trends, climate change being a real thing, covid being a real thing - these are all things that are supported by facts and are being entirely ignored or worse, twisted into inaction or negative action. You seem to think facts are going to convince people somehow to change, when the opposite is true. 

Put it another way - go look up how the militias are treating the Rittenhouse verdict. See how fox and Carlson are treating it. Then ask yourself if they care about the facts. 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

The backwards takeaways from this murderer being let off scott-free are breathtaking.

SFDanny is exactly correct. We have somehow arrived at a place where the mentality is that its okay for scared, paranoid, armed freaks to have carte blanche freedom to kill anyone that scares them. Which is a pretty high percent of us (that scare the manbabies) apparent by the tremendous insecurity needed to arm oneself to the teeth in the first place.

Scared of anyone that's a little different, intimidated by someone more physically imposing than yourself, then just get yourself an assault rifle and bag yourself a boogie man. You can feel like a great big badass man in the good old U.S................

PATHETIC!!

[Ran]

38 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

We have somehow arrived at a place where the mentality is that its okay for scared, paranoid, armed freaks to have carte blanche freedom to kill anyone that scares them.

Rittenhouse had 22 bullets left when he tried to turn himself over the police. There were many, many people he could have killed who had been chasing after him. There were people who punched him and threw rocks at him before he fell to the ground that he never once tried to shoot.

He literally spoke with Gaige Grosskreutz, the man who later pointed a gun at him, at close distance as he was running, a guy that had mocked him and called him a "fucking stooge" earlier that evening, and never trained his weapon at him because Grosskreutz was not assaulting him. When he was down on the ground, he did point his gun at Grosskreutz as Grosskreutz advanced on him... and then he stopped pointing at him when Grosskreutz backed away.

If your false rendition of reality was true, he would have shot Grosskreutz rather than letting him withdraw and tried to claim self-defense. But he did not.  He saw Grosskreutz as a potential threat. He warned him away. Grosskreutz responded by backing away. Rittenhouse was in the process of getting up again when Grosskreutz tried to take advantage of that charge at him with pistol pointed. He suffered the consequence.

He manifestly did not kill  "anyone that scare[d] him", he fired on people who attempted to assault him or brandished a weapon at him when he was in a position where he was not able to retreat -- trapped between cars, or down on the ground.

I've decried right-wing paranoia and disconnection from reality, but this thread is showing the exact same thing just from the other ideological spectrum. It's genuinely shocking how unwilling most people are to not hyperbolize, to not catastrophize.

More generally, here's the lesson people at the scene of civil unrest should take out of this: do not interfere with other people's freedom of movement and personal space unless they have done that first. It's literally the Golden Rule.

See someone trying to set a fire? Try to ask them not to do it, if you care, but don't try to physically intervene. See someone trying to put out a fire? Try to ask them not to do it, if you care, but don't try to physically intervene. Very easy, simple rule for how to remain civil with your fellows during a riot.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Ran, all that being fine and well in some sense, at the end of the day a teenager brought a gun he couldn't legally have and open carry (fuck what the judge said, that is nonsense to throw out the charge because of some hunting statute) to a protest, broke curfew and was there to illegally protect private property, if you're to believe him. And then he killed two people and got off with basically nothing, and he might be able to get rich off of it. 

Again, the law and justice are two separate things, just sometimes they overlap and when they don't over and over again people lose faith in the system and get angrier every time. Just another drop of gasoline on a country that's ready to explode. 

[gruff one]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ran, all that being fine and well in some sense, at the end of the day a teenager brought a gun he couldn't legally have and open carry (fuck what the judge said, that is nonsense to throw out the charge because of some hunting statute) to a protest, broke curfew and was there to illegally protect private property, if you're to believe him. And then he killed two people and got off with basically nothing, and he might be able to get rich off of it. 

Again, the law and justice are two separate things, just sometimes they overlap and when they don't over and over again people lose faith in the system and get angrier every time. Just another drop of gasoline on a country that's ready to explode. 

So, someone who looked young (to you) and dressed provocatively (carrying a rifle) opens him to attack? And property that can't be protected by the police is forfeit to a mob?

[illrede]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ran, all that being fine and well in some sense, at the end of the day a teenager brought a gun he couldn't legally have and open carry (fuck what the judge said, that is nonsense to throw out the charge because of some hunting statute) to a protest, broke curfew and was there to illegally protect private property, if you're to believe him. And then he killed two people and got off with basically nothing, and he might be able to get rich off of it. 

Again, the law and justice are two separate things, just sometimes they overlap and when they don't over and over again people lose faith in the system and get angrier every time. Just another drop of gasoline on a country that's ready to explode. 

This verdict was a fire going out; not gasoline poured on a fire. The animus towards gun possession and the nature of lawful self defense had a life independent of the facts of the matter, and did not much interact with them.

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The scenarios you cite really have nothing to do with the facts of the case. Are you aware of that? Is this deliberate hyperbole, or has epistemic closure simply left you disconnected from objective reality? You would hardly be the only one -- Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted some untrue things about the case after the verdict, and she's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the New York Times; if she can't find her way out of the morass of ideological confirmation bias, what hope do most people have?

Ran, can you be a little more specific in your criticism? What scenarios are you talking about? The militia movements are very real in this country. As is the so-called "2nd Amendment" gun nuts lobby (NRA and others) who would have open carry of any type of weapon legal in our streets. If you want more examples of this let me know, but I suspect a person as smart as yourself knows this background. So, my point is these organizations and the politics they espouse have everything to do with people like Rittenhouse showing up with weapons to political rallies they disagree with. It is a growing powder keg  cheered on by people who openly support a second civil war in the US. The growth of political violence is extremely dangerous, and the results of the Rittenhouse verdict only makes it more so.

As to the "facts of the case," let me just say the facts tell me Kyle Rittenhouse killed two unarmed people and almost killed another unarmed man with a gun he couldn't legally own. Those three people's right to life and to express themselves in political protest ended because, supposedly the well armed Rittenhouse felt "threatened." I don't believe him, and even if one person did make the threat Rittenhouse alleges, he did not have the right to kill him. He had every opportunity to go to the police nearby and report the threat, and they should have dealt with it, not young Kyle's itchy trigger finger.

Ran, as to Nikole Hannah-Jones's tweets, I haven't read them. I will try to find them and respond to your criticism, but just let me say I'm flattered to be mentioned with her in your response. Which doesn't mean I agree with something she said that I have no knowledge of.

[Knight Of Winter]

There is a curious, if not outright bizarre, relationship that many protesters and their ideological supporters here on forum have with violence. They'll cheerfully kick, punch, loot, burn, demolish, threaten and whatnot else; they'll escalate the violence to any degree they're comfortable with; but they'll frightfully withdraw and start to complain the moment equal or greater amount of violence is done onto them.

Actually, it's even worse than that. They'll seem blissfully oblivious to the very idea of other people - ones they're looting or kicking for example, are even capable of returning violence with violence of their own. If you trash and loot stores and gas stations, you should expect their owners will call upon armed men (Rittenhouse being one of them) to defend them the next time it happens. If you tackle an armed man with a rifle and try to take away it (Rosenbaum) - and fail - you should expect being shot at (and consequentially, don't do so unless you're really willing to risk your life). If you aim your loaded gun (Grosskreutz) at someone who has already shown himself as capable of killing twice; well, don't throw surprised Pikachu face when he shoots at you first.

And hell, I don't even like Rittenhouse. The kid is obviously responsible for many reprehensible things: illegally owning a weapon and needlessly carrying it to a protest, parading it in front of protesters etc. He was looking for trouble and he found it - in a very tragic way. And his choice of company with which he chose to associate himself with in the aftermath also says quite a lot. Were his morality on the trial here - he'd serve solid amount of time in some kind of moral jail. However justice system deals with legality - not morality-  of defendant's actions - and in this case I honestly fail to see how the verdict of self-defense came as such a shock to anyone. 

Let's for a moment switch sides here - let's hypothetically assume that exactly the same scenario played out with opposite team colors. Let's assume of was armed black BLM protester who came upon Proud Boys mob - who attacked him first (not the other way around), chased him the whole time (and not the other way around), verbally incited violence against him, kicked him, tackled him, tried to take his gun, threw projectiles at him and pointed gun at him at various points in time; during which he shot three of his assailants, two of them lethally. I'd be willing to bet my kidney that people around here would ecstatically jump to his defense. He would be hailed as a hero; painted as a brave and selfless soul who acted out of purest motives. He would appear in hashtags, rallying to his defense. Memes would be made, articles would be written and money would be collected to cover his attorney, culminating in joyous uproar when judicial system would eventually set him free. And the right? They would behave in exactly the same way most of posters are behaving now, decrying (to them) unjust and biased system which enables (to them) terrible murderers to get away scot-free.
 

Because, this whole ordeal was not about justice, in fact it ceased being about justice long time ago. It's pure kulturkampf, unadulterated ideological war between two parties. Rittenhouse is not guilty because he did or didn't break some law; he is guilty because he is "theirs" and he killed two of "ours". That's all there is to it.

[TrueMetis]

24 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Ran, can you be a little more specific in your criticism? What scenarios are you talking about? The militia movements are very real in this country. As is the so-called "2nd Amendment" gun nuts lobby (NRA and others) who would have open carry of any type of weapon legal in our streets. If you want more examples of this let me know, but I suspect a person as smart as yourself knows this background. So, my point is these organizations and the politics they espouse have everything to do with people like Rittenhouse showing up with weapons to political rallies they disagree with. It is a growing powder keg  cheered on by people who openly support a second civil war in the US. The growth of political violence is extremely dangerous, and the results of the Rittenhouse verdict only makes it more so.

As to the "facts of the case," let me just say the facts tell me Kyle Rittenhouse killed two unarmed people and almost killed another unarmed man with a gun he couldn't legally own. Those three people's right to life and to express themselves in political protest ended because, supposedly the well armed Rittenhouse felt "threatened." I don't believe him, and even if one person did make the threat Rittenhouse alleges, he did not have the right to kill him. He had every opportunity to go to the police nearby and report the threat, and they should have dealt with it, not young Kyle's itchy trigger finger.

Ran, as to Nikole Hannah-Jones's tweets, I haven't read them. I will try to find them and respond to your criticism, but just let me say I'm flattered to be mentioned with her in your response. Which doesn't mean I agree with something she said that I have no knowledge of.

Just as a point of clarification, the one who survived did actually have a gun. Of course as I've said before if him having a gun is reason for Rittenhouse to feel threatened then that goes both ways.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, illrede said:

This verdict was a fire going out; not gasoline poured on a fire. The animus towards gun possession and the nature of lawful self defense had a life independent of the facts of the matter, and did not much interact with them.

See the Atlanta airport right now? Thankfully it was just an accidental discharge, but still,

 

[Toth]

22 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Because, this whole ordeal was not about justice, in fact it ceased being about justice long time ago. It's pure kulturkampf, unadulterated ideological war between two parties. Rittenhouse is not guilty because he did or didn't break some law; he is guilty because he is "theirs" and he killed two of "ours". That's all there is to it.

I feel like that needs some emphasize in that sentence there because I find it bizarre how you tried to phrase it in a way that makes it sound like killing people you are ideologically opposed to is such minor offense nowadays that we shouldn't be outraged about it.

Also so many people are upset about this outcome specifically because they did go through your hypothetical version in their heads and came to the conclusion that a BLM protestor shooting someone would have either gotten lynched then and there or faced all the manslaughter charges imaginable.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Rittenhouse being one of them)

To be clear he wasn’t called on by any store owner, and initial confrontation was with a man who probably suffering a psychotic episode.

 

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And the right? They would behave in exactly the same way most of posters are behaving now, decrying (to them) unjust and biased system which enables (to them) terrible murderers to get away scot-free.

Essentially yeah. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

He literally spoke with Gaige Grosskreutz, the man who later pointed a gun at him, at close distance as he was running, a guy that had mocked him and called him a "fucking stooge" earlier that evening

Why is this "fact" relevant?  Are you saying because they spoke earlier and Grosskreutz called him names that helps justify Rittenhouse's self-defense claim?  If anything, seems to me this suggests a motive for shooting Grosskreutz independent of self-defense.  And why did you omit the "fact" that the mob - along with Grosskreutz - was chasing him because he just shot somebody?  Isn't that "fact" relevant for why Grosskreutz was so intent on trying to take Rittenhouse's gun?  Doesn't that - along with the fact Grosskreutz was already armed - undermine Rittenhouse's "reasonable" belief that Grosskreutz was going to kill him if he disarmed him?  For someone so intent on emphasizing "just the facts" and maintaining objectivity, you sure seem to be selectively tailoring them to support your narrative.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

More generally, here's the lesson people at the scene of civil unrest should take out of this: do not interfere with other people's freedom of movement and personal space unless they have done that first. It's literally the Golden Rule.

See someone trying to set a fire? Try to ask them not to do it, if you care, but don't try to physically intervene. See someone trying to put out a fire? Try to ask them not to do it, if you care, but don't try to physically intervene. Very easy, simple rule for how to remain civil with your fellows during a riot.

And what's the lesson for people trying to disarm an active shooter?  I mean, obviously it's don't - and for me personally I would add run the other way - but it seems your "Golden Rule" here is if you try to disarm an active shooter and get shot doing so like Grosskruetz, you've "suffered the consequences."  How far does this line of reasoning, or rule, go?  If the people that tackled Sirhan Sirhan and disarmed him were shot, would they have "suffered the consequences?"  How about the people that attacked Jared Loughner while he was reloading?  Seems to me the main lesson here is the standards for justifying lethal self-defense in this country are completely insane.

[Zorral]

Just for perspective -- right now, where I live, we're overrun with cops sitting, standing around, smoking, drinking coffee, no masks, fleets of helicopters circling over us endlessly -- just in case somebody here overtly demonstrates unhappiness with yesterday's verdict. And NOTHING is going on except the usual pre-Thanksgiving weekend shopping, eating and drinking by hordes of people who don't live here.  The bars and restaurants are as packed as they've ever been on such a weekend pre-pandemic.

However, those cops were nowhere to be seen when real criminals rant rampant and looting our neighborhood in the spring of 2020. Their 'retaliation' for the BLM protests that were utterly peaceful.

Nor is there anything going to happen to the SWAT cops who went into the wrong house and killed a 13-year-old girl.  Her family isn't even allowed to talk about!

https://www.aclu.org/other/7-year-old-girl-accidentally-shot-swat-team

Then this -- cops killed a girl but the people they were after are the ones being charged with murder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59337964

We can go on and on and on.

Why would anybody in this country have any faith in the police?  They should all be fired in a national housecleaning, and start over. THEY are a huge part of why we are having a civil war.

No laws on the books and no rational, gentle warnings or presentation of facts will change any of this, that this country is drowning in guns, and there are massive numbers who want to use them, mostly on people like me, who don't own one.  They are more excited to do so everyday because everyday they SEE there is no penalty, only awards for killing innocent and unarmed people.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

hy is this "fact" relevant?

Because it demonstrates that Rittenhouse wasn’t just firing on anyone who showed him any degree of hostility.

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

If anything, seems to me this suggests a motive for shooting Grosskreutz independent of self-defense.

So you think the first thing that came in Rittenhouse’s mind when he had a gun pointed at was “HAha, now I get a chance to shoot someone who called me a bad name earlier!”

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Isn't that "fact" relevant for why Grosskreutz was so intent on trying to take Rittenhouse's gun?

Did he know the parameters of the altercation?