“I regret using Dolly as the example for the point I was making in the article,” she told Yahoo! Entertainment Saturday. “As I wrote in the piece, I love her and think she does some incredible things for the world. We all make poor choices in how to frame things sometimes. This was one of those moments for me! Dolly is one of the few people who is beloved by all and who loves all. The world is lucky to have her.”
You don't get to pretend that it was an error in framing your message. You meant what you said and the only thing you regret is the backlash. You picked on an angel and everyone else rightfully gave you shit for it.
That's the convenience of Christianity. Commit a sin, ask Jesus for forgiveness, get forgiven automatically just because you asked, commit another sin, the process repeats until you die.
I immediately get my guard up when I learn that about someone. Never trust a person that can assuage their conscience with 10 seconds of talking to their bed.
The piece, titled “There’s Nothing Loving About Dolly Parton’s False Gospel,” [...]
“Parton’s version of love, which includes condoning immoral sexual behavior (‘be who you are,’ she’s said), is unaligned with God’s vision for humanity,” Andersen writes.
This is not a "Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, I just framed it wrong." This person meant exactly what she said.
They don't even follow their own religion. Christianity is about being nice and kind to people. Which seems somewhat incompatible with these peoples world views. Of course it was also incompatible with the whole religious crusade thing, so perhaps it's not surprising that they still think like this.
It's generally the atheists who know more about their religion than the religious.
If all or even most of Christianity's followers were actually kind, generous people, it would be harder to criticize, but it's so blatantly just another hateful cult like the rest of them.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic high school. People like this honestly amaze me. If there's one message that's repeated over and over in the new testament, it's "love everyone, regardless of anything about them, and treat them with kindness." People like this are somehow unashamed to say "Loving everyone is wrong because it condones sinful behavior." And so many will nod their heads with that.
I'm happy to see that when they use a person like Dolly, who actually lives the values, as an example of what they mean, people will say "Hey, wait a minute..."
The flaw in the Christ stories, said the visitor from outer space, was that Christ, who didn’t look like much, was actually the Son of the Most Powerful Being in the Universe. Readers understood that, so, when they came to the crucifixion, they naturally thought, and Rosewater read out loud again:
Oh, boy–they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!
And that thought had a brother: “There are right people to lynch.” Who? People not well connected. So it goes.
It’s only an apology as far as ‘I regret the blowback’. essentially they are only sorry to themself for doing a dumb dumb. Not to Dolly. And not to LBGTQ
Anyone else notice how often the party who won't shut the fuck up about "personal responsibility" whenever social services and such are discussed accepts absolutely zero "personal responsibility" when they are the ones who need to display some?
It seems to be a universal across countries and cultures. Those who spend their entire time telling everyone else how to behave are never able to behave themselves. Perhaps it's simply that everyone with any brains isn't stupid enough to say that sort of thing. At least in a public forum.
I still think it's you. A lot of foreign actors want the U.S. system to collapse. Maybe you're not, but your earlier comment sure sounded like it. People are downvoting me bcz they misunderstood what my comment was directed at. I actually agree with the sentiment, but ignoring all of our laws outright is a good way to have no government at all.
Doesn’t it make you feel like the law is less important when all these rich cunts are breaking laws left and right, that would send you to jail real fast, and no one seems to do anything about it?
God it feels good knowing we can actually say the solution to the world's ills out loud here. You'd get banned from Reddit and YouTube for saying the people ruining our planet need to stub their toes.
Feel free to say #eattherich rhetoric all you want there. I don't put up with .world's blatantly obvious corporate shill shit.
EDIT: From the modlog, here's the deleted comment.
If by breaking laws you mean setting the financial district on fire with executives still in those soulless highrise pieces of shit than yes, it kinda does. Imagine the world without what we are told to call “elite”.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !benjamingetthemusket
You wouldn't download a car, a House, two beautiful women or their chi...you know a highrise I mean. You wouldn't download a highrise or a jet plane or two really hot babes. right?
I don't know, have you guys developed the quantum teleportation reflux trackrowave transmission elometer yet? Cuz you're gonna need at least three of those in a bisiouscope to download anything of value really. And if you're looking at porn, dude, zoom out until the entire body is in view. It's a warning you must heed. Otherwise you better figure out how to get rid of body parts if you know what I mean.
I once mentioned to my father that most people are likely felons without realizing it because everyone will have violated a whole slew of laws they are unaware of or that are obscure/unenforced. He, being a conservative, became angry with me.
I can probably come up with a dozen felonies and goodness knows how many misdemeanors I’ve committed in my life, and I’m definitely not a menace to society.
Exactly. The worst thing that most people do as far as common laws are concerned is speeding.
The real bad things that happen that are rarely enforced is spousal and child abuse, religious abuse, abuse from certain authorities, etc. These destroy lives.
Empty political promises are one thing and par for the course. Literally getting away with high treason on several documented accounts and still being able to run for president is another.
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.
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
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.
If that’s the case, it’s sad then that he apparently doesn’t seem willing to return the good will and unconditional support, if he’s refusing to help them with rent. Abandoning the one person who would always have your back…
I'm not going to fault a mother for standing by their child, no matter what he did.
You can stand by your child by always having room in your home for them. You can still condemn their action and say they might not know any better or something like that.
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.
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.
Smear? Just pointing out she raised a piece of shit, encouraged shitty behavior, and she doesn’t deserve sympathy that her piece of shit son isn’t supporting his piece of shit mom.
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
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…
"Leopards Eating People's Faces Party refers to a parody of regretful voters who vote for cruel and unjust policies (and politicians) and are then surprised when their own lives become worse as a result. It has been commonly used to parody regretful Brexit and Trump voters."
A CNA does not earn money, it's pretty much a minimum wage job. This person did not have the necessary intelligence or drive to attain their bachelors and become a full nurse--it's as simple as that.
My sister in law, bless her, is really one of the angriest persons you will ever meet. She hates everything out there and the world is bad, blah blah blah. I asked her why she became a phlebotomist. She told me she wanted to be a nurse but could not pass English 101. Seriously.
I hate to defend Kyle's mom, but man, shouldn't a CNA or a phlebotomist be able to afford to survive in the area they work? In their case, I guess you reap what you sow.
Yea being a cna is tough and underpaid. My ex is one, takes a couple months of study and passing a test. I, with a highschool degree made 6 dollars more than her when her job was 3 times tougher. It's criminal. She worked harder and longer hours in a dangerous place with people who could and would harras and harm her. The harrasment was mental, verbal, physical and sexual as well. Fuck boomers.
You remember businesses calling everyone who worked a low appreciation job heroes? CNAs got the shittiest end of the stick on that I think.
Giant banners calling you heroes greet you as you drive on the lot of the nursing home, and you look at them knowing you're going to get physically shit on by the patients, and proverbially shit on by the higher level nurses, the administration that now works remote, the family of the patients, and of course the patients again as well. For $12/hr. And you're extra short staffed because anyone that could find travel work did. Brutal shit for them.
Holy hell if you aren't right. I recall her getting all of those things at her work too and a measly 40 cent raise lul. All those banners and pins and lanyards and little gift bags if tiny hand sanetizers and candy. I think she made like 16 here in cali at the time, I recall hearing there's a laaw that was gonna be passed or already passed to get them up to like 20 or 21 at the minimum. Crazy to think that's what mcDonald's employees earn here now while plenty of cnas in other parts of the state earn less still.
On the Dollop podcast if you've ever heard of it, one of the hosts is named Gareth. Gareth points out in an episode that in American culture we only ever call "heroes" the people we deem 'expendable'. I have been unable to find a counterexample to that claim ever since I heard it.
It's no different than public school teachers, I suppose. It's not a field you get into unless it calls you for some reason--you're certainly not in it for the money.
We really need to reprioritize how we fund things around the world.
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.
No, she should have social supports, education, a safety net, retirement and security. The exact things people like her piece of shit brother actively try to deny others all the time. Society tried to help this person.
Now on an individual level before I would ever help her, I’d want to know if she ever saw a cent of Kyle’s blood money.
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.
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?
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
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?
Man, you're missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but I'll say it again: I don't believe he deserved to get attacked, and I believe he was defending himself. Clearly the person who attacked him were not justified in doing so. In the analogy you're quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and she'd be justified in shooting him.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she'd get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.
Do you also defend Westborough Baptist Church? Remember them? Group who would protest at soldier's funerals, shout some really inflammatory shit with the intent of baiting the funeral-goers to attack them, then act like innocent victims and sue their attackers? Legally, they were in the right, too, but that doesn't make them any less deplorable for doing it.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.
But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if you're actually being objective, and looking at the facts of the matter. He cleaned graffiti off a high school, then he showed up, he handed out water bottles, gave basic medical attention on request (literally walking around yelling "medic! friendly!"), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward 'hoping he'd get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone'.
Firstly, everything started going south because of an event nobody could have predicted: a guy who set a fire earlier had it put out by Rittenhouse, and his response to that is literal homicidal rage (?!) (later, we learned that he had literally been released from a mental health facility for a suicide attempt...looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think it's reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to 'murder by cop', but I digress).
Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didn't he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming "I'm going to kill you", so it'd be a very strong self-defense argument to put him down right there as he charged at Rittenhouse. But instead, he ran away, and continued to run away as Rosenbaum chased him. This course of action makes NO SENSE for someone who is 'hoping he'd get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone'.
He also didn't shoot when he got cornered and was no longer able to flee. At that point, Rosenbaum had not only threatened his life, but had chased him down, leaving NO question he was intending to make good on his threat. Rittenhouse could have very justifiably shot him dead then as well. But he didn't.
Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum had COMPLETELY closed the distance between them, and was LITERALLY trying to wrestle the gun of someone he had just threatened to kill, out of his arms. Objectively speaking, he did everything he could to keep the situation from escalating to the point of using his weapon.
His actions toward his other two attackers was similar--no aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didn't 'take advantage of the opportunity to shoot someone'--instead, he fled. Consistently. Every single person he shot had literally put him in a position where he had to choose to either protect his life, or forfeit it. And he never used his weapon a moment before he was in that position, all three times.
The argument that Rittenhouse was 'hoping he’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone' simply does not hold water.
First off, I want to be clear that I'm not the one down-voting you; I haven't voted (up or down) anywhere in this thread, but it always makes me self-conscious when I'm having a disagreement with someone and the posts I'm replying to consistently have 1 downvote at the time I'm replying.
Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
He claims he went to the protest "to protect businesses" if I recall, which seems reasonable on the surface, except that:
He was a staunch supporter of the 'blue lives matter' movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and...
He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
I'm not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to "protect businesses" at? Where was he during any non-politically-polarized national tragedy where his services could have been used?
Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place?
You could argue that it's "just in case" - which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way to a very specific protest with a very specific population that had already become very heated. If he felt he needed a gun "just in case", a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
He (to my knowledge) didn't have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
This is like me going down to the local Walmart with a gun to protect it against people protesting big box stores.
Since the incident, he's used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity, and he's really milked that celebrity status:
His likeness has been used to sell memorabilia, including guns.
He's been a guest of honor (or equivalent, I'm not sure what the term is) at GOP rallies.
He's got at least some kind of association with the Proud Boys (though I'm not sure what the nature of that association is.)
If he was truly an innocent good Samaritan who was caught up in something unfortunate and regretted what happened, wouldn't he be speaking out against any of this, rather than letting them hold him in high regard because of it?
He's basically earned celebrity status because he shot people. And I realize it's not his fault that people are doing that, but he's playing right into it. Profiting off of it, even. That is not something a remorseful person does.
The result of all of this, in my eyes, is that he went to an awful lot of trouble to put himself in a situation where I feel a reasonable person would have believed they would end up in an altercation, and he made sure he had a rifle with him at the time. I will accept that he could have used it sooner than he did, but I, as someone who actively does not want to have to shoot someone, wouldn't bring a gun to a Trump rally while publicizing that I was there to keep the peace and enforce local noise ordinances. That'd just be asking to get attacked. To be put in a situation where I'd need to use that gun.
Of course, if I was going to go to that rally, and I was hoping I'd have to shoot someone, I'd make damn sure I made it look like I had only the best possible intentions.
It's not me, you're literally the only one I'm actually having some sort of actual dialogue with.
Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
Not true--Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
He was a staunch supporter of the ‘blue lives matter’ movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and…
He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
And yet, he didn't do a single second of counter-protesting, nor did he act to inhibit the protesters in any way--in fact, it was primarily protesters who received his handed out bottles of water and basic medical aid.
The only real argument you can make that he was antagonistic is if you argue that cleaning up after and putting out the fires of rioters (those not protesting, but just running around creating havoc and destruction) is antagonistic toward them--I guess it is, technically, but...I mean, come on. No way my conscience would let me fault someone for undoing rioters' damage.
He is on record stating he supports BLM, for what it's worth.
I’m not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to “protect businesses” at?
Because it's his community, so it makes perfect sense he's more compelled to take action in his own neighborhood. He has friends in Kenosha, his father lives there, he worked as a lifeguard there, etc.. He had spent lots of time over the course of his life in that area, and had ties to it. If he had gone to one protest, and it deliberately WASN'T the one in Kenosha, that's what would look potentially suspicious, imo.
Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place?
You could argue that it’s “just in case”
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason--he's even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, "for my protection".
which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way
Not really a long way at all (20 miles), especially not unusually long for him, who had made that exact trip countless times before. This was literally his regular commute to his lifeguard job, and spending time with his father, etc.
a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
And if one isn't starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
He (to my knowledge) didn’t have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black's offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
Since the incident, he’s used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity,
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It's no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren't doing that. Wouldn't be nearly the first time such a thing has happened, sadly.
Still, this is beside the point--it doesn't matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views. All I'm talking about is what I know about, and that's the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)--as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a 'random' civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
I speak from a position of knowing the facts, and being frustrated that, even though the facts are so readily available, there are still so many people saying things the facts don't agree with, and drawing conclusions that make zero sense in the face of said facts.
Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn't really something I've paid much attention to in the past, I don't know, 3 years, but I'm fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Is it that it's illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that's the short-barreled clause? I'm not sure of the specifics.
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.
And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
I don't know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn't happen frequently, so maybe that's part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they're doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they're a protester themselves, they're just inviting police violence and if they're not a protester, my perception would be that they're doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that's an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can't imagine that there weren't plenty of people there who share that perception.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it'd take is one who didn't to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can't speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Not really a long way at all (20 miles),
Maybe 'a long way' was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn't live there; it's not like this was happening in his town.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.
Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.
It's relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I'm not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don't know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I'm certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it's pretty clear from the trial that he isn't legally guilty. However, I do think he's morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, if it hadn't been for that last bit, I'd probably hold a different view, and...
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.
Maybe you're right, and he's a product of the circumstances, but he didn't, and doesn't (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He's going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.
I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn't literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn't taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.
All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don't think it's surprising at all that everyone's perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
not reading this (fully) so ignore me if you already mentioned this, but the during the rittenhouse trial both charges against rittenhouse and the person that sold him the gun were dropped, rittenhouse i think specifically because of a loophole that made it "technically legal to own" and the person that sold him the gun, because reasons, i guess, i don't remember.
More than likely persecution was focusing on the other charges and didnt want to spend time on these charges as they seemed rather inconsequential, as well as the fact that the other kid was out of state, and so iirc that was a separate case entirely.
regardless he should've been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasn't hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.
I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.
I myself also would be very nervous around someone being armed like that in public. But I don't live in an open carry state, either, so it would be very out of place for me, as well.
That said, you don't have to imagine. Just look at the facts of the matter:
He was obviously and visibly armed from the moment he showed up
There was no freakout over his arrival, nor over the extended period of time he was walking around doing things, obviously and visibly armed the entire time. There is plenty of video of him there while armed, and it's clear he is not drawing any more attention than the average person in any of the footage up to the point where Rosenbaum put himself and Rittenhouse at the center of attention with his mad raving.
Given those facts, it is clear that Rittenhouse was not armed to an extent that those around him found more than mundane.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Generally speaking, if someone goes to a dangerous place to try and improve the situation there to the best of their ability, despite the potential risks to their own safety, one would consider that courageous and admirable, not foolish. I'd say it's very arguable that only pre-existing bias is preventing Rittenhouse from being perceived similarly, given that every single action he's known to have taken in Kenosha that day was either morally neutral (I consider defending your life to be human nature, and not a moral or immoral act), or morally good (cleaning graffiti, extinguishing fires, handing out water bottles on request, giving basic medical aid to the extent he could from his lifeguard training).
Being as objective as possible, and going by the facts, what can one realistically argue that he did that was immoral on that day? This is a genuine question--I can't find a single actual act that merits criticism, and I've found consistently that everyone criticizing his actions either straight-up gets facts about what he literally did incorrect, and bases their conclusion on that, or colors his decision to be there as malicious in and of itself (though, again, though obviously we can't read his mind that day, the actions he took that day simply do not support that assumed malicious intent at all, quite the contrary in fact).
But that's not even all of it--his most ardent supporters on the extreme right are getting it wrong ALSO, and do ridiculous things like claiming his shooting of people we later discovered were actually pretty shitty people was itself a morally good act, and completely ignore the things he did that day that actually WERE objectively morally good (graffiti cleaning et al, as mentioned above). This is ridiculous, and focusing completely in the wrong place--he didn't 'do the right thing' by shooting people, he protected his life against a few crazy and violent individuals, and that's obviously neither 'good' or 'bad'.
Although I will say, that one video did demonstrate that Rittenhouse's trigger discipline is admirable (immediately after shooting Grosskreutz, his finger was off the trigger and around the guard, as he carefully got back up to his feet, and overall, he didn't fire a single shot that struck anyone other than his intended target, no spray and pray, no wild shots, he used his weapon to the absolute minimal extent necessary to neutralize each of the people who tried to kill him)--if every cop's in the US was as good as his, we'd probably have a lot fewer police scandals in this country.
the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.
But again, he had family and friends there--while he may not have lived there, I'd say it's very fair to categorize Kenosha as part of 'his community', considering how many ties he has to it, and how he regularly spent time there.
It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there.
I don't really find that relevant though. Suppose we knew for a fact that he was a straight-up racist and/or adherent to all sorts of extreme right-wing political views. Let's say he was literally the far-right stereotype.
The facts of the matter are still what they are--he took not a single action in Kenosha could be fairly/objectively described as an expression of such views--he did nothing that you could look at and say 'oh, it's because of view far-right political stance X that he decided to do this action Y'. He's on video at one point saying he was there "to protect this business, and part of my job is there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.”
Hypothetically, if someone goes their whole life hating a certain race of people, but throughout their life, never actually mistreats anyone of that race, then the end result, as far as real-world consequences, is the same as if that person did not have those views.
Frankly, I don't really care what his views are. I care about what he did.
he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there.
I don't think he should feel remorse. Remorse is for having done things wrong. I don't think he could have handled the situations Rosenbaum et al put him in any better than he did. I literally can't think of a course of action from the moment Rosenbaum began to charge at him that's different from what he did, and also inarguably better/smarter.
But regret? He clearly regrets that things went down the way they did. The crying he did as he relived those events during the trial, that left-wing ideologues love to mock him for, and callously claim are crocodile tears, instead of a 17 year-old coming to grips with the kind of day's events that would traumatize ANYONE for life, are a clear show of that. Frankly, just talking about this particular bit makes me feel disgusted all over again, at all of the things I saw and read around that time, on Reddit. People who pretend to be champions for mental health instantly abandon their supposed virtues because they've dehumanized Rittenhouse to such an extreme degree that they can't even fathom that he is a normal human being who just might be traumatized by having to look death in the face not once, but THREE times in a day. It's sickening...but I digress.
Now, after the fact, he has on at least one occasion I know of, poked fun at himself with that same infamous image of him weeping. But humor is a common coping mechanism, especially for young males in this country, who are scarcely allowed to deal with trauma in any other way without being criticized for it (see above). I would not look at things like that and conclude 'oh, he actually just didn't give a shit' or anything like that. We also don't know what things are like for him when he's not in public view. Hell, he likely still has nightmares about that day...
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit;
That's for sure--even post-verdict I saw Redditors claiming "Rittenhouse's victims" were all black, and that it was a racially-motivated crime.
I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly.
Maybe not surprising, but it's all the more reason that it's important to push back against misinformation, especially when it's ideologically-driven. It deserves nothing less than relentless calling out, in my opinion.
I genuinely appreciate that you've actually been reading what I'm writing--much better than "fuck off fascist loser" and the like, which you will find in this thread, not too far from this comment chain.
The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
I haven't read this statement, I'm going to look it up real quick and quote bits I find 'interesting':
Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police <-- Oh, there's a lie in the very first sentence, lol. At the very least, it's confirmed that Rosenbaum was NOT protesting. He'd just been released that very day from a hospital after a suicide attempt, went to his 'girlfriend's house, where he was turned away due to a restraining order against him (yeah...), and basically ended up in the mix in Kenosha by apparent coincidence. Witness testimony described him as "extremely aggressive"--one quick example before moving on.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two. These are the simple, tragic facts. <-- Holy shit, lol. "Vigilante mission" is pure assumption, not a fact, the police allowed EVERYONE to "roam the streets", so that's meaningless to point out, and "ended up shooting three people and killing two" is technically a fact, but is a MASSIVE lie of omission to just say he "ended up" doing that, it completely ignores all of the other relevant events before, during, and after. The ACLU clearly had a narrative they went to great lengths to push, and were more than happy to ignore any inconvenient truth that might get in the way of that narrative.
Not trying to dredge this all up again or restart this conversation, but I thought you might like to know... I went and watched some of the videos and read some of the accounts you've referenced (none of which I'd seen previously), and I can safely say that you've at least in part changed my view on this insofar as it applies to his intentions that day. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.
Okay, just going to finish up skimming the ACLU statement, which has already demonstrated itself to be shamelessly dishonest, and call it a night:
the protests that Rittenhouse took it upon himself to confront <-- Rittenhouse did zero counter-protesting, and did not inhibit any protester's protesting in any way--ironically, the primary recipients of the water bottles and basic medical aid he dispensed were protesters. To frame him going to Kenosha as him deciding to 'confront the protest' is a shameless lie.
Oh, I guess there wasn't that much more about Rittenhouse in there. Oh well, don't feel like randomly truncating bits here and there in my previous comment to fit this in, so second comment it stays.
Thanks again for actually being open to new information, and actual discussion. An admirable and increasingly-rare trait these days.
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?
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.
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.
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.
when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.
And he needed a rifle for that, did he? His stated purpose for being there was vigilantism. He literally said as such during the trial. He stated he was there to "protect property" and he brought a rifle to do so. Unless that was a water pistol, he was there intending to use lethal force.
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.
Yeah, except for the people that evidently did. And obviously you don't need to immediately freak out if you see something not considered "mundane".
digusting that you're trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure
I'm literally not. Don't put words into other people's mouths. As stated by Rittenhouse himself, he came to Kenosha, armed, in order to at the very least intimidate the protestors/rioters (whatever tickles your fancy) there. Rosenbaum, who is not exactly a stable person, was not intimidated by these attempts. In a previous encounter, Rosenbaum threatened someone Rittenhouse was with at the time.
Instead of deescalating and leaving the scene, which Rittenhouse could have easily done, he decides to risk a confrontation and sticks around. When he runs into Rosenbaum again, something triggers Rosenbaum to chase him.
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
Well the tooth fairy didn't decide for him. I don't need forensics to see on the video used in the trial that after being shot once, Rosenbaum falls over and graps the barrel briefly, after which Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. Oh, and this is after Rittenhouse decided to stop running, turn around and shoot him.
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
Some would call them heroic after they saw Rittenhouse kill someone and tried to neutralize the shooter.
The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going on his vigilante-stint. He could have gone unarmed if he was only going to provide water and medical assistance, but that wasn't why he went there. While the legality of his actions can be disputed, the morality of his actions is clear: what he did was deeply wrong, and he's responsible for two people dead.
Oh look, you completely ignored being pressed to support your ridiculous 'he was pointing his gun at people for no reason repeatedly, before anyone attacked him' claim. You prove you're just another narrative-clinging ideologue who will throw as much bullshit at the wall as possible, hoping something sticks or isn't challenged.
You're a waste of time.
The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going
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.
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.
Waving a gun around is intrinsically aggressive and provocative, no matter how much you insist that it isn't. Rittenhouse did literally everything wrong that merited the disarming attempt on him thrice that day.
it should be noted that afaik, nobody has died from BLM protestors so a "fear of dying" in the encounter should indicate a deeply troubled mind. So a competent prosecuter could probably have convinced a jury that Kyle's fears were largely irrational and could have probably stuck manslaughter charges on him.
After all, if you start marching around with a gun in front of your neighbor's house then shoot him when he approaches you yelling to get off his sidewalk or whatever, its a bit insane, if not premeditated.
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.
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.
She didn’t drive him there. It’s been factually proven. Dudes a fucking murderer for sure, but his mom didn’t drive him to kill people. He did that shit on his own.
Regardless of whether or not the parents were around the ability for a body to be forcibly pulled into the machinery is an obvious failure in operating a safe pool.
“[It] appears right now the pump was put in there, and it was probably malfunctioning because of the open pipe that she ended up in was supposed to be pushing water out.”
Fuck sake that was a hard read. That poor mother. I can't even comprehend the purpose of that pipe. They describe it as a lazy river so I'm assuming it's some sort of equalizer pipe to the other side. Water flows in one direction around the pool and I think what they're saying is the flow of the river was reversed for whatever reason. There would be quite a strong amount of suction through there, even if it wasn't a direct intake line to the pump.
Edit: oh this is old news, months old. Looks like it was indeed an outlet:
“Her poor little body was contorted when she was sucked into this hole and pipe 20 feet back. Her body was inside of the motor when she had to be extracted," he said. "They had to break up concrete in order to extract her, cut pipe. It was absolutely horrific.”
Pump's flow was reversed for whatever reason.
Elsewhere I read the pump actually did have an entrapment system engaged and shut off, but by the time she blocked the pipe and sensors detected the obstruction, she was already wedged 20 feet into the pipe.
This has been a known problem for decades. I remember watching videos about it on Discovery channel back when they still ran education content. One case, a person had their intestines sucked out.
The solution has always been to have multiple intakes for the suction line and have the kill switch in clear view of the pool.
You can say that again. Growing up in Florida, I've been in a lot of swimming pools and water parks, and I have never seen anything like what is shown in the video attached to this article. That opening is huge. user224's link says the pipe is 30cm (almost a foot) in diameter. Even in giant public pools I've been in, I can't recall seeing an opening or fixture that size. That, coupled with a lack of any cover on it, seems so obviously dangerous. God, what an awful way to go.
Seems like litigation is still ongoing but most recent articles I've read state that pump was either recently repaired or replaced, and flow was in the wrong direction. If it was outflow, nobody could swim in there if they wanted to (but if it was off, a small child still could, so a grate still should've been on there). They suspect hole was installed later to probably align with flow requirements for the new pump.
It sounds like Charles Edward Littlejohn is a fucking badass and overall rad dude worth celebrating. Additionally, if he gets the maximum sentence of 5 years, that will be drastically longer than many of the January 6th rioters. I can't change the outcome for him, but I do wish him luck.
That’s exactly my point. Now people want more. Escalate it. Same bullshit as Israel/palestine. Well the first guy did “x” first, then the other guy says but you did the other thing first, etc., etc…
The height of stupidity, there is no end of the blame game of grievances, manufactured or real.
No, I’m not saying “both sides”, one side is objectively better (even if marginally), I’m saying a war of escalating tit-for-tat justifications is useless.
E: in comparison, according the following comments who apparently haven’t a clue and completely misrepresent my intent and argument: Biden should release any democrats from prison or reinstate democrats in positions after they left due to any impropriety. That’s the war of escalation I’m talking about, not simply following the law.
It doesn't matter if it's your point or not, it's still a wrong-headed way of thinking about the situation because the world doesn't revolve around fearing what Republicans will do if a Democrat pardons a righteous man. He should be pardoned regardless.
You are creating the us vs. them situation you're accusing you opponent of engaging in specifically by making that argument. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We do not simply stop doing what is right because some assholes might pardon evil people in retaliation. We do what is right regardless, because that's the whole point of righteousness.
Republicans will pardon their own anyway so it doesn't even matter. We need to do the same.
My point doesn’t matter? So you discard my point to make yours? What the heck kind of argument is that? My point wasn’t about right vs wrong, it was about taking knee-jerk retaliatory action devoid of nuance or reason.
You accused me of making it about fear of republicans, that’s doing what you accused me of doing by “creating” the argument. I said nothing about appeasement or letting them have their way to avoid trouble.
In no way shape or form do I think actual and real harm should remain unaddressed. Bullshit must be met head on, but with measured and real responses. But just knee-jerk reaction? No.
Your point is irrelevant, because it is a fundamental misrepresentation of the situation you are imposing because you have an ideological agenda. One which we will not be bullied or manipulated into submitting to.
You're not even really reading or thinking about what I'm saying, you're just repeating what you said before like a robot. And I don't argue with robots.
Misrepresentation of the situation I’m imposing…wow. Way to twist my words. I make a point, stick to it, and you accuse me of bullying because you’d rather I bend a knee to you? Fine. Feel free to engage in your tit-for-tat war. I’ll just hang over here to you finally set each other on fire while screaming “the other guy did it first”. What a fucking waste of time.
Are you willfully blind to what happens if you let your opponents oppress and abuse you without fighting back in kind? I am not going to the gulag. Have fun there.
That seems like a rational take and I agree with you. Curious why the down votes? Because you're alluding to Biden having shortcomings at all? Or because it's perceived as a both sides are the same argument?
It's hard to accept we're living in such a tribal world. There's no more nuance or middle ground in the majority it seems.
He's getting down voted because most people in this thread are foaming at the mouth.
I hate trump as much as the next guy. What this guy did, tho, is currently against the law. Should the law be changed? Should he have gone through a whistle blower process? Questions to be asked.
But as of today, you can't purposely get a job at the IRS to leak information that the IRS wasn't ready/allowed to release. Full stop.
The folks arguing here that he should be pardoned or who are enraged that he is even being charged are presenting childish arguments. There's a theme on Lemmy that I've noticed. Tribalism is strong as fuck.
The problem with those sorts of niche communities is that they need constant (sometimes heavy-handed) moderation to remain on topic. The Fediverse is not really good at that yet.
That and there needs to be a core of dedicated posters producing new, and good, content.
Reddit made a lot of it easy. Good(ish) mod tools (if you used third party apps or browser extensions) and communities that were large enough to keep people interested in the niche subs.
Paul: "How could you eat MY face?"
Carl: "It's quite simple actually: I took a look at your face, found it tasty, tool a little bite and ate it."
Paul: "That doesn't answer my question!"
Carl: "I remember you specifically giving me permission to, and i quote, 'eat all these faces'."
Paul: "Yeah, i was hoping that you wouldn't eat MY face! The face of your buddy, your best friend, your... soulmate."
Carl: "You could have been a bit more specific then. Now your face is gone. I ate it. And it was quite delicious."
Paul: "... Caaaaaarl."
Carl: "Really delicious! Yum!"
Fuck that. Biden should make them regret this decision. If his candidacy is as DOA as everyone is pretending it is, then there's no incentive to play by the rules. Move fast and break stuff and get some shit done for a change.
Also,
Biden, under intense pressure after his disastrous debate performance against Trump last week
They just had to get it in there. Not a mention of Trump making shit up the whole time, or the raving lunatic shit he's saying on the campaign trail. 90 minutes of Biden being low energy and it's all over. "The other guy is too old, maybe we can do a little fascism. That will be OK, right?"
It’s crazy that this is the kind of shit we’re counting on now. It used to be the Guardrails and then it was the Wheels of Justice grinding exceedingly fine and now it’s Maybe Something Good Will Happen at the Last Minute
I’m just saying with this ruling Biden could do something really weird in the transitional period and it probably would take the rest of his life to go to court for it.
At this point, I'm hoping for an Iranian-style helicopter crash for Trump, Bannon and a few others, Harlan and Thomas get killed in a hurricane wile vacationing abroad, and the other conservative supreme court justices all get get incapacitated by some disease or something.
If the entirety of the heritage foundation could get hit by a fridge-sized meteorite, that would be great.
Almost every article I saw posted following the debate touched on Trump's falsehoods.
But also, Trump lying is not news. He lied all the way to his 2016 win, and lied decades before that, and still lies now. Absolutely no one new is going to be convinced that he's bad because he lies. If absolutely anyone is thinking of voting of Trump at this point, him lying is not going to be the deciding factor.
I think it should be hammered to death because a person in power should not ever be allowed to get away with lying. I know morality isn't in law, but it should be, IMO. The world is so fucked up in so many ways because no one puts morals in law.
Because Trump lies. It's old news. There was no way that debate was going to play well for Biden. He had nothing to gain. People voting for Trump are voting for Trump, people not voting for Trump are either Voting for Biden or staying home. Biden has to convince people not to stay home, not convince people not to vote for Trump.
The people that vote for Trump are people so sick of the current state of politics they want to burn it all down. Very few actually think he's a great president. He's a troll vote. Biden's performance made more people want to watch the world burn.
No, not insane. 100% expected. This is the danger of electing an obligate serial liar. We have all been accustomed to his bullshitting. About the size of crowds, about how much money he has, about how fucking oppressed he is, about stolen this and unfair that, etc. No one has the energy to give a fuck anymore. It’s all old news.
Sorry, are you suggesting that the media is against Biden? Cause they’ve been for him for months. Any apprehension about his future prospects have nothing to do with Trump being a lying sack of shit. I won’t apologize for Biden sucking. I do like the idea of him turning the scotus ruling on them.
What media have you been looking at? The only thing I've seen about Biden for months has been about how he's too old. And occasionally a bit about him supporting Israel, whether that's presented in a positive or negative light.
Every time Biden had that "confused" look on his face during the debate, he was reacting to some absolute bullshit tRump had just said and the media turned it into "Biden confused". Biden WAS low energy, what was trump on? It is also easier to spew bullshit, when there is ABSOLUTELY NO PUSH BACK, then it is to remember ACTUAL facts. Watching the follow up I felt like I was being gaslit on what I actually watched
I do wish he had been president, but I also wonder how much of his agenda he could have gotten past congress, even if Democrats were in charge. Most Democrats are, at best, about preserving the status quo and I hate having to vote for them just to stop the people who will make things even worse.
I voted for Bernie every chance I've had, but I genuinely doubt he could have achieved the current level of success much less something better.
Without a Congress full of like-minded people, it would have been a struggle. I think we can have someone like Bernie for president one day, but it's people being passionate and engaging with every vote and every election.
Undoubtedly they would've sabotaged Bernie every chance they got, just like the labour party sabotaged Corbyn in the UK. Both of those parties are glad they only had to sabotage during the elections.
I voted for Bernie and he would have been great, I always find myself thinking about Gore winning more often. I have more respect for Bernie for sure but we’d have been in such a better place by 2016. Jesus, there’s a non-zero chance that the 9/11 warnings don’t get ignored and the US definitely doesn’t invade Iraq or Afghanistan. The housing bubble would probably still have burst in a bad way but I doubt it goes down the same way. Supreme Court wouldn’t be as full of neocons and zealots.
Yeah, this was always my big one too. I'm a green at heart, but I learned a brutal lesson then, that I'll carry inside of me forever. A lesson that has only gotten reinforced by the slow march of modern fascism.
Democracy requires dialogue, patience, empathy and compromise. The alternative is authoritarianism, and the unavoidable power struggles that come from too much centralized power in a world with ambitious humans. We need to remember that, and dialogue and compromise with our, in many ways younger-self progressives, instead of trying to corral them. We can do this. We are not too afraid.
DNC lawyers argued that the Democratic Party doesn’t owe anyone a fair process and that it has every right to disregard its own rules or interpret its rules how it wants because it is a private organization.
Not just that if Gore had won and 9-11 would have still happened we would have likely seen a push away from oil starting in the early 2000s. I think Gore could've turned that into an opportunity to say "to hell with these middle east authoritarians and their oil, we can do better for ourselves and better for the planet."
Unfortunately I was 6 when 9-11 happened so I didn't have much say in these matters.
It's possible we'd be in a better situation now. Lots of obvious things like not tossing out known facts about terrorism efforts and having a climate change awareness leadership. There's much that would still be the same, like the system of consumerism that is the core of much of our problems. One person in a limited power seat can't fix that, I'm not sure anything can outside of failure of the system itself. But I do think we would have at least avoided that one historic turning point that revved back up the military drive of the US. Even GWB's administration was looking into ways of reducing the military into smaller, more mobile parts until suddenly we went into revenge mode. Or useful crisis mode.
With an election coming up, the Schrodingers Leftist dilemma is in full force, even on Lemmy -
Where we're simultaneously both powerful enough to be personally behind every Republican win of the past 20 years, and also so insignificant that we must be ridiculed and bullied at every turn to remind us that we have NO PLACE in their party they blame us for not backing.
The best part is that most of the time people hit both sides of the coin in the same comment.
Centerists, or people who voted for Biden in the primaries tell progressives and leftists we're minority viewpoints within the Democrat party. Implying that we have no business trying to influence the direction of the party. These same centerists also blame us when their garbage candidates don't win in the general election and tell us things like "Biden was a good compromise" or "You got pretty much everything you wanted" despite neither of those things being true.
Centerists got so comfortable winning elections on their own they forgot how to compromise and accuse anyone else trying to negotiate as "throwing a tantrum".
It wasn't just Bernie who got the screws from Democrats. Henry Wallace got the same shaft from Democrats. On the other hand, Republicans don't have populist fliers, they have fascists fliers who are promoted to the top.
It doesn't sound to me like he thought he was above the law. He seemed to know the consequences. He just didn't think that Trump should be above the law. Or, at the very least, above presidential decorum.
TST is not a super great org unfortunately. They do stuff for great headlines but apparently little in the way of effective advocacy. I've also heard that there are pretty bad issues with misogyny among the upper echelons. While it's extremely long at 2hrs, Dead Domain's video on the subject goes into great detail.
It's really unfortunate, I wanted to believe they were fighting the good fight but I don't know if I can in good conscience anymore
… it’s not really an opinion piece? It’s mostly a breakdown of the church’s dubious history and leadership. I’m sure they also do video game stuff, but that feels like it has no bearing on the actual facts presented.
I don't know how this has become a seemingly valid method of argument for an altogether too-large segment of the internet. Make some contrarian comment and then post a stupidly long video by some random that they seem to think is valid and useful evidence.
No one is going to watch this shit. Anyone who has two hours to waste on some random dude's opinions interspersed with commercials needs to reexamine their life priorities.
I linked it because I recall it having a lot of cogent points and being relevant, and because I don't remember off the top of my head the specific allegations, I didn't want to dig through a two hour video I've already seen at the exact moment of writing because I only had so much time and research to dedicate to a Lemmy comment. It's valid to be annoyed by a long video linked as an argument, but my comment was a "too long didn't watch" version of it... that actually left out some details like the founder also being a fucking eugenicist.
I also use an adblocker, and the vid has some opinions obviously but was mostly going over evidence, recordings, and related allegations.
You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I linked it as a secondary source. While primary sources are preferable and it might have been a good idea to do the legwork myself, I wanted something posted quick to maybe make people think twice on the "donate to TST" call to action in the initial comment.
If the entirety of the video is summarized by the three whole sentences of context you wrote in your initial comment, it sounds even less worth a watch than I initially thought.
From what I can find in actual sources, there's two founders, and I'm guessing your claim on the eugenics is about Greaves, who certainly sounds like an asshole if not explicitly a eugenicist, but weirdly it didn't take a two-hour anything to read about it.
The rest of it seems to stem from something a former spokesperson wrote in a Medium article and a bunch of other asshole stunts by Greaves, who yes totally seems like an asshole. None of this took more than ten minutes of searching and reading, maybe thirty if you read slowly.
I get that you're not the only person in the world that does this, but if you actually care to make people think about something even once, like you claim to, maybe make the one thing you link to more accessible than a two-hour slog by some random YouTuber that I'm sure is super well-known to you and all their other followers but has no recognizable credibility outside of that tiny niche.
This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from "friends".
This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-
Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.
Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.
Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.
McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.
Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.
Snyder - Kickbacks aren't actionable. <- We are here.
Where we failed is that $120k was supposed to be a middle-class income when living costs this much. The fact the median is 63k is a sign that all the excess value has been sucked out of the masses and funneled into the coffers of the billionaire class.
It's both. If the price of homes aren't reflecting an affordable price, you have to ask, who's buying them? It's not the average family - it's corps sucking up homes as investment assets, driving up prices to sell to each other and the "lucky" family or two that get to empty out their retirement fund just to have a place to live. That's not reflective of a natural, reasonable increase. That's the result of hedge funds destroying the housing market for the rest of us, just to pad their bank accounts.
That may be true in some of the lower priced Midwestern markets, but I sell real estate in Boston and I don't see big corporate interests in the single family or owner occupied 2-3 family market. as much as big corporations have ruined a lot of things in this country, I don't think we Dan just wave our hands and say "corporate buyers" and explain away our housing market problems.
We have a confluence of decades of exclusionary zoning and restrictions on building that make meaningfully adding to the supply of housing almost impossible. We have a huge deficit of qualified workers in the building trades, in part because all the work dried up after the great recession and people left the field and in part because we've pushed more and more kids to go to college. We have a mortgage system that's nearly unique worldwide that allows homeowners tremendous advantages in keeping their housing costs low, but inversely provides tremendous disadvantages to having them move around more often and free up housing stock (so lots of aging singles and couples in big houses better suited for young people with kids). We have a society that's bizarrely fixated on single family living even though we desperately need more density in most markets. And we have the problem of wage stagnation. None of those things are directly attributable to corporate ownership of large numbers of houses.
I'd love for there to be some silver bullet where we could just say "disincentivize corporations from owning small housing stock" and solve the problem, but it's nowhere near that simple.
You're right, it's more complicated than just blaming corps, and I don't want to imply an issue this complicated could be completely solved with one change. They're definitely exacerbating the issues we already have, though, and dealing with them could only help.
In the late 70s around 23% of US corporate revenues went to pay salaries. By 2012 that had fallen to 7% - in other words, just before neoliberalism really took off almost 1/4 of the money workers spent buying goods from US companies was almost directly back in workers' pockets, whilst by 2012 less that 1/14 of what workers spent buying goods from US companies ended back in workers' pockets.
All that excess money that doesn't get recycled back to workers anymore has got to be pooling somewhere.
I read it ages ago when I was still frequenting a certain finance discussion forum (whose name totally evades me now, and I did just try looking up such forums but failed to find it) back in the post 2008 Crash years, hence why the end date in that statistic is 2012.
This is the best I found on the subject. Note that the numbers are quite different from the statistic I quoted since they're not the same thing (it's about labour share of income in the whole Economy, rather than the corporate labour to revenue ratio) but you can see the very same trend I mentioned in this report and what's used there is almost certainly a better statistic to get an overall view of what's going on.
a certain finance discussion forum (whose name totally evades me now...)
I used to frequent a few finance forums too; maybe I can help. Was it a personal finance/FIRE forum (e.g. bogleheads.org, forum.mrmoneymustache.com, etc.), or some other kind?
Nah, it started as a forum made by an ex-edge fund guy which in the beginning had quite a lot of people over there with a background in Investment Banking like me, but it kept getting more and more american goldbugs and preppers and was eventually swamped by simpleton Libertarian politics.
The problem is you need to be a couple to have a house.
In the 80s and even 90s the mother of the house probably didn't work. I know mine didn't. Now they have to. The prices have gone up to match this "new normal" because there simply aren't enough houses. Or at least not enough houses in the places people want to live.
The free markets have settled on the idea that a house should cost two incomes. The government needs to step in to build affordable homes and get them into the right hands. No landlords scoffing them all up.
Are conservatives activists so concerned with information related to living under Nazism because they don't want young people to be able to recognize the steps if those steps occur to young people today?
Not it's 100% tied to the resurgence of white supremacy. These conservatives groups are backed by humongous PACs that fund groups that push their agenda. Just like with turningpointusa and groups like that. Don't mistake careful planning masked by racist zealots as idiocy.
Fair enough. All the actual humans I know that vote for these numbnuts are some flava of misplaced Jeebus worshipper. They don’t agree with racists (do they vote for them? Every time - while explaining how the candidate isn’t really racist) but they try not to do and say racist things. They don’t really know what fascism is in this context. Still they willingly hand over political power to those that do.
The actual racist / fascist shitheel who supports this garbage will do the Wavy-Jesus-Hands when they pray ostentatiously, but don’t really believe that crap, it’s just an important part of the grift for “the weak-minded”.
News
Top