All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JB]

I very much appreciate him calling for peaceful expression of views.

[Xheight]

Fox News is pretty much crowing and beating their chest. How can some people be upset at this verdict? This was the only right way for the trial to end etc... The facts rose above the liberal media hype and despite him having a trial that was not always fair the jury came back not guilty and thank goodness for that. The Show is John Roberts and Sandra Smith.

Crowing because the jury wasn't swayed by potential mob violence. I thought you celebrated that sort of thing.

I think Norm MacDonald said it best:
[/video]

I suppose killing someone in self defense of a form of legally sanctioned murder. But let's not get all motte-and-bailey about it.

I’d argue his presence there with a gun was grounds enough for people to feel threatened. Again, he showed up expecting a fight and prepared to kill anyone who gave him one. Whether he was running away at the time his expectations were fulfilled is a moot point. It wouldn’t be difficult to determine he hoped for a fight so he could get the chance to shoot someone since he drove out of his way to be in a dangerous situation.
As far as the driving analogies goes, the initial violation was him being 17 and traveling across state lines with a fire-arm. In effect, intentionally turning down a one-way street and fully understanding he could collide with someone and in fact, prepared to kill them. Actually, the assault rifle could be seen as a Mack truck in this scenario. He was driving a Mack truck fully prepared to kill people.
It doesn’t matter anyway. He got away with it.

Argue away - Civilians with guns aren't by definition a threat. Wisconsin in particular is a permissive open carry state, and you do not need the state license to use your firearm openly. He showed up to help according to his account - showing that you can defend yourself is not the same as showing up to fight , you're starting to sound like China complaining about our military exercises with Taiwan, - and it wasn't moot that his assailants were emboldened to pursue him as we heard that the jury reviewed that video evidence particularly. The state lines issue may yet be a federal charge looking for a pound of flesh but not in this case. What he got away with is being able to stand your ground when a mob comes to destroy and hurt people and the civil authority has failed. The Gov. pretty much admitted to such.

[babyblob]

Crowing because the jury wasn't swayed by potential mob violence. I thought you celebrated that sort of thing.

Its not the not guilty verdict. it is the he is a hero talk and the all important talk of the Next legal step for Riettnhouse being to file a bunch of Defamation lawsuits against people talk. I dont like the verdict but the jury came back not guilty and I have to accept that. He had a trial and the Jury found him not guilty. That is the system. But he damn sure aint a hero and he aint a victim. That is the stance a lot of people are taking. And that is what bothers me.

[Xheight]

Its not the not guilty verdict. it is the he is a hero talk and the all important talk of the Next legal step for Riettnhouse being to file a bunch of Defamation lawsuits against people talk. I dont like the verdict but the jury came back not guilty and I have to accept that. He had a trial and the Jury found him not guilty. That is the system. But he damn sure aint a hero and he aint a victim. That is the stance a lot of people are taking. And that is what bothers me.

I can see that - but nor is he a villain nor should he be victimized. I think besieged 2nd amendment advocates do have something to celebrate though in having the law go their way in its multiple functions in our society like protecting individuals from mobs.

[numberthirty]

I’d argue his presence there with a gun was grounds enough for people to feel threatened. Again, he showed up expecting a fight and prepared to kill anyone who gave him one. Whether he was running away at the time his expectations were fulfilled is a moot point. It wouldn’t be difficult to determine he hoped for a fight so he could get the chance to shoot someone since he drove out of his way to be in a dangerous situation.
As far as the driving analogies goes, the initial violation was him being 17 and traveling across state lines with a fire-arm. In effect, intentionally turning down a one-way street and fully understanding he could collide with someone and in fact, prepared to kill them. Actually, the assault rifle could be seen as a Mack truck in this scenario. He was driving a Mack truck fully prepared to kill people.
It doesn’t matter anyway. He got away with it.

Here is the incredibly obvious issue with that.

Out in actual reality?

Nothing even remotely like that ever took place.

I get why folks would be under the impression that it did. Saw the media flat out tell that lie on a few occasions myself.

Meanwhile? This is the actual reality of the situation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...es-in-illinois

Kyle Rittenhouse, Accused Kenosha Killer, Won't Face Gun Charges In Illinois

The white teenager accused of fatally shooting two demonstrators and injuring a third in Wisconsin in August will not be charged with gun crimes in his home state, an Illinois state prosecutor announced.

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, faces six criminal counts in Wisconsin, including first-degree intentional homicide. He allegedly used an AR-15-style rifle during protests in Kenosha, Wisc., that erupted after the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Police in Antioch, Ill., led the investigation. Antioch is Rittenhouse's hometown, which is located about 15 miles southwest of KenosLake County, Ill. State's Attorney Michael Nerheim's office said in a statement that an investigation conducted by local police "revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin."

"Additionally, there is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by Kyle Rittenhouse in Illinois," the state's attorney's office added.

Between that and the fact that the gun law that they did try to use is essentially a coin flip to try to get a gun charge under a specific set of circumstances?

There goes the supposed "Initial Violation..." that folks want to believe negates any attempt to plead self defense.

Do I think that the state should have charged with something they actually had a chance of convicting on?

Yes.

Do I think there should be a civil suit against a mother who drove her son to a city where riots were taking place?

Absolutely.

Neither of those things changes the reality that a lot of folks are attempting to deal use "Facts..." that never actually happened in this case.

[Kirby101]

The bigger you make the font, the less likely I will read it.

[numberthirty]

The bigger you make the font, the less likely I will read it.

It's about the facts.

Not if folks will be willing to accept them.

[thwhtGuardian]

The bigger you make the font, the less likely I will read it.

...it is the truth though, he apparently never had the gun in Illinois so there was no interstate gun laws broken.

[numberthirty]

I can see that - but nor is he a villain nor should he be victimized. I think besieged 2nd amendment advocates do have something to celebrate though in having the law go their way in its multiple functions in our society like protecting individuals from mobs.

Might want to see the film The Shootist.

Someone doesn't always get to decide when they will get to put the guns down once they have picked them up.

[Mister Mets]

You have to be joking?

Right?

There isn't any actual support for Gay rights in the Republican party...and a happy pride tweet from the head of the RNC doesn't change that. That's whole point of the GINO statement.

If you seriously think that there is an iota of truth to the statement, " Republicans believe in freedom and opportunity for all Americans...we are fighting to show that there is room in our party for everyone." then I'm a Nigerian Prince and I need your help, PM me for details!

And come on, you're really trying to say that's the objection to Sesame Street?

Heck, let's try and hash that out and see if it holds water, all you need to do is ask one question to yourself: do you seriously believe he'd be okay with Sesame Street using this Muppet to teach children that racism was wrong if she were blue instead of specifically being Korean American?

I have a pretty hard time believing that, and I don't think that's on me as the complaint goes on to specify that he's sick of Sesame Street pushing propaganda. How is simply having a Muppet with a defined race propaganda?

The answer?

Having a specific race isn't propaganda, but in the eyes of conservatives talking about racial equality IS propaganda. It's one of those things that made me leave the Republican party, how does one politicize basic human decency? Especially from the party that supposedly values Christian morality? And let's be clear, that is exactly all airing an educational bit about multiculturalism is, it's educating children on the topic of the basic human decency of accepting people of all colors and races as the same as yourself. That shouldn't be a hot take educational policy...but it is for some reason and it's why its laughable to try and claim that there isn't an inherent level of racism to conservative politics here in the US.

I want to be careful to note that I'm coming up with a good-faith version of a particular argument. I don't give a shit what Fox News, or anyone who is clumsy at articulating controversial opinions, says. Personally, I could see the argument for a Korean-American muppet, although it's still a little weird for me what exactly makes the muppet Korean-American. The specific comment I'm responding to is that the only reason for Republicans to be against it is racism. That is the specific goalpost.

With that said, it's a bit weird to think about muppets this way, but there is a history in fantasy stories of looking at bigotry through metaphor, like the Star Trek episode where an alien who was black on the left side of his face and white on the right side of his face hated a members of his species who was black on the right side of his face and white on the left side. So that could be done with blue muppets or something.

It gets into a whole different argument about making up a new context for bigotry that may be distinctive from what is faced in the real world. Looking at problems faced by blue muppets could be said to diminish the problems faced by real minority groups. I have no idea if the showrunners of Sesame Street have any plans to deal with anti-Asian animus, as that can get into some politically loaded questions. What exactly does racial equality mean and what does it look like? Does it mean everyone should be treated the same, or does it mean selective institutions should have quotas? I don't think Sesame Street will be dealing with the muppet's older sister being told her grades aren't good enough to get into a top college because her extracurricular activities are too stereotypically Asian.

As for GINOs, we do have to keep in mind how much things have changed recently. 13 years ago, Joe Biden had gotten elected to national office from the left as a guy who told people he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Now, gay marriage is the law of the land, and there is no serious political effort to reverse it. This is a good thing, partly the result of gay people and their supporters being constituencies for both political parties.

[thwhtGuardian]

I want to be careful to note that I'm coming up with a good-faith version of a particular argument. I don't give a shit what Fox News, or anyone who is clumsy at articulating controversial opinions, says. Personally, I could see the argument for a Korean-American muppet, although it's still a little weird for me what exactly makes the muppet Korean-American. The specific comment I'm responding to is that the only reason for Republicans to be against it is racism. That is the specific goalpost.

With that said, it's a bit weird to think about muppets this way, but there is a history in fantasy stories of looking at bigotry through metaphor, like the Star Trek episode where an alien who was black on the left side of his face and white on the right side of his face hated a members of his species who was black on the right side of his face and white on the left side. So that could be done with blue muppets or something.

It gets into a whole different argument about making up a new context for bigotry that may be distinctive from what is faced in the real world. Looking at problems faced by blue muppets could be said to diminish the problems faced by real minority groups. I have no idea if the showrunners of Sesame Street have any plans to deal with anti-Asian animus, as that can get into some politically loaded questions. What exactly does racial equality mean and what does it look like? Does it mean everyone should be treated the same, or does it mean selective institutions should have quotas? I don't think Sesame Street will be dealing with the muppet's older sister being told her grades aren't good enough to get into a top college because her extracurricular activities are too stereotypically Asian.

As for GINOs, we do have to keep in mind how much things have changed recently. 13 years ago, Joe Biden had gotten elected to national office from the left as a guy who told people he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Now, gay marriage is the law of the land, and there is no serious political effort to reverse it. This is a good thing, partly the result of gay people and their supporters being constituencies for both political parties.

There isn't a good faith version for thinking that making a Muppet asian is a bad thing. And my point was I can't see them being okay with it if it was a blue Muppet instead, and do you think quotas would be a topic on Sesame Street? It's going to be about how we're all the same despite surface differences and how knowing that greatly reduces racism. It's as simple as that. And there is no good faith argument against that idea that isn't racist. Period.

And there's no good reason to be Conservative and gay, as the Republican party is always looking to minimize the rights of minorities. Other than posting #Pride what law has been proposed, never mind passed, by a conservative that protected the gay community?

The Republican Party is the party that was against gay marriage, and still is, that was against allowing gay Americans from serving in the military, and still is, is against allowing gay parents to adopt, and is all about passing bills making it harder for non-cis gendered people to exist. There is literally no support for gay rights on the right.

[Mister Mets]

Mets is a conservative poster that is not called a troll regularly. Some don't agree with him and think he might be disingenuous but not that he is just shitposting.

This hearkens me back to the BatmanFans that kept getting banned. Praising Violence instead of the Masterful Trolling of folks like Trump and Putin seems to be the new flavor of the week.

There are some people who think I'm just shitposting, and they're not told they're wrong often enough.

I didn't say it was limited only that it was being applied in field where it has no place of bringing it. We want certainty and in the example provided about Law and Popper it shows that is an temporal illusion.
What you are really talking about is not a Fallacy but something Isaiah Berlin tried to address in his morality and pluralism discourse Do soldiers murder in war? And it was developed that Our freedom to move between the two is the very source of being able to adjust to reality and change our Laws and Attitudes for both good and ill. His possible solution was to think of positive and negative liberties but ran aground in Talmon's The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, where " both liberal-empirical and totalitarian tendencies were significant and influential in European thought by the time of the French Revolution. In particular, he held that key aspects of the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and lesser known radical Babouvist egalitarian Enlightenment figures such as Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, and Étienne-Gabriel Morelly, are best seen as a foreshadowing of twentieth century totalitarianism." It is why we hear so much about 'social contract' today to oppress.

As to not matching, that too is disingenuous as numbers of the cases brought cite the emergency aspect repeatedly even as they were hand waved away by the press and eventually the courts.
NPR




Like spam it is a numbers game not about truth values.
here is a funny one that the haters will enjoy
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-voter-f...202415861.html

I think you're really going away from the question about whether the 2020 election was stolen.

There are some specific claims.

If someone brings up Matt Braynard's lawsuit, we should look at whether that specific lawsuit has merit. Shifting goalposts is rather problematic, often exposing that election skeptics don't care about the specifics, but just have a larger sense that something was wrong.

There are some arguments for the skepticism. The first is that it's weird Joe Biden got more votes than Barack Obama ever did, although this is understandable in a high turnout election which includes many voters who were too young in 2012. Trump appealed to some communities in a big way, so people within might think it's suspicious that he couldn't win when he so obviously energized them more than McCain or Romney did, but this is just anecdotal evidence, failing to take account the response to Trump elsewhere. Ideological sorting means it's easy to avoid talking with people who think differently so someone may think unusual opinions are the norm. Trump did better than expected and it's easy to forget that underdogs sometimes outperform expectations and still come out short (a Football team expected to lose a football game by ten points is more likely to lose by three than win by three.)

In the likely event that the election wasn't stolen, everyone hinting at broad conspiracies is doing a bad thing. They're riling up lunatics and wasting the time of sensible people because they just don't understand the world and they can't recognize that they're wrong.

[Kirby101]

It's about the facts.

Not if folks will be willing to accept them.

Could you just type them like a normal person and not SHOUT THEM AT US!!

For me the bigger the type the less likely I'll read, if that is your intention, it has worked.

[Jack Dracula]

Here is the incredibly obvious issue with that.

Out in actual reality?

Nothing even remotely like that ever took place.

I get why folks would be under the impression that it did. Saw the media flat out tell that lie on a few occasions myself.

Meanwhile? This is the actual reality of the situation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...es-in-illinois





Between that and the fact that the gun law that they did try to use is essentially a coin flip to try to get a gun charge under a specific set of circumstances?

There goes the supposed "Initial Violation..." that folks want to believe negates any attempt to plead self defense.

Do I think that the state should have charged with something they actually had a chance of convicting on?

Yes.

Do I think there should be a civil suit against a mother who drove her son to a city where riots were taking place?

Absolutely.

Neither of those things changes the reality that a lot of folks are attempting to deal use "Facts..." that never actually happened in this case.

Yeah, I was wrong on that. In my defense, I have read report’s stating he’d brought it with him. Obviously, these were wrong.
Not really the most important part of my argument. I only brought it up in response to Knight’s statement.

[numberthirty]

Could you just type them like a normal person and not SHOUT THEM AT US!!

For me the bigger the type the less likely I'll read, if that is your intention, it has worked.

To put it plainly...

Some things need to be stressed.

Since I saw with my own two eyes and heard with my own two ears that the press was telling this exact lie well after it had clearly been disproved?

What the actual fact of the matter was does need to be stressed. Even more so when folks have seemingly bought into the lies.