Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Phoenixmgs]

People want to rush to convict this kid or absolve this kid due to their political leanings. Whether it's Gun Control, Far Right, Far Left, BLM, Anti-Woke, Stance of Vigilantism... whatever. It's all political. He's a dumb kid that listened to some stuff, figured he should do something, and created a situation where he had to defend himself from another dumb kid that listened to some stuff, figured he should do something, and made a decision that cost him his life.

He will become a Demigod to some, and a Devil to others. He is now another Fracture Point for this Nation. And he will profit from legal loopholes and taking another person's life, even if it was self defense. This whole trial meant only one thing: American Unity was just going to be dealt another loss.

People seem incapable of separating things from politics, it's really bad. Everything is some ideological war now. It's almost like we're living during the Cold War and it's the Domino theory all over again. If one thing falls for the other side, then you'll lose everything else so the smallest perceived hit to the armor is a figurative killshot to your entire ideology. Kyle was just a kid that did stupid things (and so did others involved) and he's not guilty because stupid things aren't against the law. This is not some win for the right or a loss for the left, it's got nothing to do with politics. It's just a case decided fairly by 12 people.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's an... "interesting" take on things.

Political violence in Weimar Germany was rife. There was borderline civil war at the end of WWI, but as the country stabilised in the early 20s political violence was overwhelmingly continued by right-wing paramilitaries associated with the conservative nationalist DNVP, and later by the Nazis when they eclipsed the DNVP.

Leftist elements ramped up street violence significantly later ~1930, because of the near impunity with which the DNVP and Nazi party were invading left wing areas of cities to brutalise and intimidate them, and the associated rise of the Nazi Party. Thus never mind the element of community self-defence in their mobilisation, the communists deciding street violence was effective has to viewed in light of the Nazis already demonstrating that it was effective.

You know what one of the tactics of the Nazis was in relation to said violence?

They sent operatives to other political parties meetings and local chapter meetings to start fights and violence then turn round and frame said parties as having violence following them round and being inherent to them and hoping people would see violence connected with said party and think of them as the violent ones and the ones responsible for the violence, not the agitators who went there to start violence. Just felt I should bring that up for no real reason......

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

People seem incapable of separating things from politics, it's really bad. Everything is some ideological war now. It's almost like we're living during the Cold War and it's the Domino theory all over again. If one thing falls for the other side, then you'll lose everything else so the smallest perceived hit to the armor is a figurative killshot to your entire ideology. Kyle was just a kid that did stupid things (and so did others involved) and he's not guilty because stupid things aren't against the law. This is not some win for the right or a loss for the left, it's got nothing to do with politics. It's just a case decided fairly by 12 people.

A good explanation of why this is going on can be found here

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate…

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Specter Von Baren]

People seem incapable of separating things from politics, it's really bad. Everything is some ideological war now. It's almost like we're living during the Cold War and it's the Domino theory all over again. If one thing falls for the other side, then you'll lose everything else so the smallest perceived hit to the armor is a figurative killshot to your entire ideology. Kyle was just a kid that did stupid things (and so did others involved) and he's not guilty because stupid things aren't against the law. This is not some win for the right or a loss for the left, it's got nothing to do with politics. It's just a case decided fairly by 12 people.

These are my feelings on this as well. There's no reason for us hoi polloi to go along with what the political types do all the time and turning everything into a battle of sides. Leave that to the politicians whenever possible and focus on the facts.

 

[Silvanus]

He was appointed Chancellor... because the Nazi party had the political leverage to make that happen... because they won lots of seats in the elections.

Right, so you're referring to the Federal election rather than the Presidential, in which the Nazis won a plurality of seats.

Why doesn't this logic apply to the two prior elections in which the SDP won a plurality?

 

[Agema]

These are my feelings on this as well. There's no reason for us hoi polloi to go along with what the political types do all the time and turning everything into a battle of sides. Leave that to the politicians whenever possible and focus on the facts.

It's a total load of bollocks thinking that this can be separated from politics though. The perception of just about everyone on this case is informed by their politics, or by a set of values that informs both their opinions on this and their politics, which amounts to the same thing.

This is not artificially divisive because some extremists and political leaders interfered, it's intrinsically divisive because it strikes at competing visions for how society should function. On the one hand, unhappiness with perceived unfairness of militias taking the law into their own hands and police killing people with impunity, and on the other gun rights, self defence and the rights of civilians to impose social order themselves.

"It's just the law" is garbage. The exercise of the justice system should be neutral, but the statutes of a jurisdiction are definitely not. These statutes are made by politicians for political reasons to best represent the interests of their voters (and anyone who disagrees is expected to suck it up). The decision to let untrained 17-year-olds take lethal weapons into places they shouldn't be and end up shooting people is a political decision. It's not "facts", it's not "objectivity", it's the way some voters at some point wanted it and so was codified. It is perfectly reasonable for other voters to think that letting them do this is a crock of shit.

 

[tstorm823]

That's an... "interesting" take on things.

Political violence in Weimar Germany was rife. There was borderline civil war at the end of WWI, but as the country stabilised in the early 20s political violence was overwhelmingly continued by right-wing paramilitaries associated with the conservative nationalist DNVP, and later by the Nazis when they eclipsed the DNVP.

Leftist elements ramped up street violence significantly later ~1930, because of the near impunity with which the DNVP and Nazi party were invading left wing areas of cities to brutalise and intimidate them, and the associated rise of the Nazi Party. Thus never mind the element of community self-defence in their mobilisation, the communists deciding street violence was effective has to viewed in light of the Nazis already demonstrating that it was effective.

Antifaschistische Aktion ramped up street violence in the early 30s, but that was after Roter Frontkämpferbund was banned in 1929, and that was founded in 1924 because the Proletariat Hundreds was banned in 1923 (much like the Nazi Party). Leftest street violence, or more specifically Stalinist violence, was prominent in Germany from the day that Soviet Russia became the Soviet Union through to Nazi Germany. And the only real distinction to be made between then and even earlier is that before Stalin started dictating the tactics, the German Communists had delusions of grandeur, believing themselves capable of a full scale revolution.

The one thing I may concede, is that the whole thing may not deserve to be referred to as leftest, per se. Because the violence from the German Communists after the failed revolution was no longer even intended to grab power for people. They were coordinating with the Kremlin, who saw the moderate factions as bigger threats. They knew and understood that their actions against the stability of the Weimar Republic were advantageous to the Nazis, they decided they would rather the Nazis take power than allow the status quo to continue, because the end goal from the Kremlin was for the USSR to absorb Germany, and they figured the Nazi government would be a joke they could just bulldoze over.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

It's a total load of bollocks thinking that this can be separated from politics though. The perception of just about everyone on this case is informed by their politics, or by a set of values that informs both their opinions on this and their politics, which amounts to the same thing.

This is not artificially divisive because some extremists and political leaders interfered, it's intrinsically divisive because it strikes at competing visions for how society should function. On the one hand, unhappiness with perceived unfairness of militias taking the law into their own hands and police killing people with impunity, and on the other gun rights, self defence and the rights of civilians to impose social order themselves.

"It's just the law" is garbage. The exercise of the justice system should be neutral, but the statutes of a jurisdiction are definitely not. These statutes are made by politicians for political reasons to best represent the interests of their voters (and anyone who disagrees is expected to suck it up). The decision to let untrained 17-year-olds take lethal weapons into places they shouldn't be and end up shooting people is a political decision. It's not "facts", it's not "objectivity", it's the way some voters at some point wanted it and so was codified. It is perfectly reasonable for other voters to think that letting them do this is a crock of shit.

It becomes political bullshit when one decides that, regardless of the facts and the actual laws, that the decision must be changed to suit some other agenda. I've said it before, I despise manipulation. Everyone choosing to deliberately ignore what caused this incident, Rossenbaum, because they want to score points for something else are despicable, opportunistic, weasels. One can argue for those things, it's right to debate over things like vigilantism or gun laws, but twisting and distorting the facts so that one can turn this into a conversation about that is dishonest and I do not like it.

 

[Agema]

Everyone choosing to deliberately ignore what caused this incident, Rossenbaum...

This incident was caused by many things, but as a non-exhaustive list:

General social discontent is a base, with more specifically persistent police brutality particularly against black people. The divisive and inflammatory attitude and rhetoric politicians, especially then-president Donald J. Trump. Rioters going into a city in an ill-formed notion of protest to tear shit up, and perceived failure of the police to control them. Then activist militias seeking to take the role of enforcement themselves, encouraging an untrained child to put himself in a position where he was a danger to himself and others, and finally one guy with a mental health disorder being belligerent.

So in fact the person choosing to deliberately ignore what caused this is you, which is worth considering before you start throwing around terms like "opportunistic weasels".

 

[Dreiko]

This incident was caused by many things, but as a non-exhaustive list:

General social discontent is a base, with more specifically persistent police brutality particularly against black people. The divisive and inflammatory attitude and rhetoric politicians, especially then-president Donald J. Trump. Rioters going into a city in an ill-formed notion of protest to tear shit up, and perceived failure of the police to control them. Then activist militias seeking to take the role of enforcement themselves, encouraging an untrained child to put himself in a position where he was a danger to himself and others, and finally one guy with a mental health disorder being belligerent.

So in fact the person choosing to deliberately ignore what caused this is you, which is worth considering before you start throwing around terms like "opportunistic weasels".

None of these issues are a valid reason to try to attack and harm someone who didn't do anything to you though. Like just because you have an earthquake and a house falls and crushes 10 people you don't get to shoot the 11th person who tried to get out and say "well if there wasn't an earthquake the 11th person would still be in the house so I wouldn't have been able to kill him, it's the earthquake's fault!".

No. You still shouldn't have done that, despite all of those factors. None of them justify it. They may explain it but they don't validate it as a rational course of action. Meanwhile Kyle's actions were actually justifiable.

Both parties were swayed by the forces you reference in being there, but only one side acted without justification when on the stage.




Here's the difference in the most succinct way possible, cause it just crystalized for me. Some people think that rioting is less bad than being at a riot as a protective force/vigilante unit/whatever. And some people think rioting is the worse thing. And upon here lies all the difference. If you think the rioting is fine you will see the people trying to stop it as bad, and if you think the rioting shouldn't have happened in the first place you will place the blame on them since they initiated the issues in the first place and necessitated a vigilante response.

 

[Ezekiel]

One of the dumbest arguments I've read and watched on the "news" is that he wouldn't have been acquitted if he was black. What kind of a justification for a conviction is that even? It's like they're admitting that they don't care if he is guilty or not and just wanna see him go to prison. Yes, black people being wrongfully convicted is bad. No, convicting Rittenhouse wouldn't right that wrong.

 

[Agema]

Antifaschistische Aktion ramped up street violence in the early 30s, but that was after Roter Frontkämpferbund was banned in 1929, and that was founded in 1924 because the Proletariat Hundreds was banned in 1923 (much like the Nazi Party). Leftest street violence, or more specifically Stalinist violence, was prominent in Germany from the day that Soviet Russia became the Soviet Union through to Nazi Germany.

The context of this is that the Communist Party (KPD) was routinely subjected to violent attacks not just by right-wing paramilitaries, but the police as well. The groups you are talking about did engage in activist street violence, but their primary role was a sort of "event security", and more defensive in nature.

Again, it is simply absurd to pick out the communists for political violence, both with the atmosphere of 1920s Germany and given the far more serious offenders.

 

[Dreiko]

One of the dumbest arguments I've read and watched on the "news" is that he wouldn't have been acquitted if he was black. What kind of a justification for a conviction is that even? It's like they're admitting that they don't care if he is guilty or not and just wanna see him go to prison. Yes, black people being wrongfully convicted is bad. No, convicting Rittenhouse wouldn't right that wrong.

That's either admitting that all black convictions are totally fair, or saying they want to imprison him unjustly. Not sure which option is worse.


Call me crazy but I think they should release the innocent black prisoners, not imprison more white innocent people to even the race quota.

 

[Silvanus]

One of the dumbest arguments I've read and watched on the "news" is that he wouldn't have been acquitted if he was black. What kind of a justification for a conviction is that even? It's like they're admitting that they don't care if he is guilty or not and just wanna see him go to prison. Yes, black people being wrongfully convicted is bad. No, convicting Rittenhouse wouldn't right that wrong.

That's not the point of that argument. It is a perfectly valid point that defendants are treated differently depending on their ethnicity. And regardless of any argument one may want to make about this specific case, that is an injustice.

 

[Ezekiel]

That's not the point of that argument. It is a perfectly valid point that defendants are treated differently depending on their ethnicity. And regardless of any argument one may want to make about this specific case, that is an injustice.

It IS the point of that argument, depending on who you ask.


It clouds their judgement.

 

[Dreiko]

That's not the point of that argument. It is a perfectly valid point that defendants are treated differently depending on their ethnicity. And regardless of any argument one may want to make about this specific case, that is an injustice.

If they are treated differently, but no more innocents go to jail, there's no injustice, and we are all against the injustice of innocents going to jail (outside of those who wish Kyle would go to jail I guess), so where's the issue?

 

[tstorm823]

The context of this is that the Communist Party (KPD) was routinely subjected to violent attacks not just by right-wing paramilitaries, but the police as well. The groups you are talking about did engage in activist street violence, but their primary role was a sort of "event security", and more defensive in nature.

Again, it is simply absurd to pick out the communists for political violence, both with the atmosphere of 1920s Germany and given the far more serious offenders.

Is it really defensive to protect a group that seeks to destroy the existing nation at the behest of a foreign power? If a political party in the UK wanted to see the existing UK government fall to pieces, so they deliberately sowed chaos, in coordination with the CIA, with the expectation that the US would annex whatever was left over, would you call their enforcers "defensive in nature"?

 

[Agema]

Is it really defensive to protect a group that seeks to destroy the existing nation at the behest of a foreign power? If a political party in the UK wanted to see the existing UK government fall to pieces, so they deliberately sowed chaos, in coordination with the CIA, with the expectation that the US would annex whatever was left over, would you call their enforcers "defensive in nature"?

In a democracy, people are entitled for form parties that represent their political beliefs and campaign for election, even if those beliefs are antithetical to the current principles of the nation. If those parties gain a democratic mandate, they are also entitled to enact those changes, up to and including dissolving the nation.

It is far from ideal for those parties to use violence and coercion to take power. But in the context of other parties and societal powers violently suppressing them in turn, it's at best six of one and half a dozen of the other. And let's be clear here: communism was suppressed throughout many countries not because it intrinsically threatened the nation and its people, but because it threatened the interests of societal elites, who held the power of the state. As a parallel, one can look at the French Revolutionary Wars, which were chiefly an attempt by European monarchies to suppress republicanism for no other reason than that they disapproved of the very idea a country could get rid of its monarch.

 

[Silvanus]

If they are treated differently, but no more innocents go to jail, there's no injustice, and we are all against the injustice of innocents going to jail (outside of those who wish Kyle would go to jail I guess), so where's the issue?

The difference in treatment quite obviously makes it more likely that innocents will be more likely to go to jail if they're not white.

 

[Silvanus]

It IS the point of that argument, depending on who you ask.

Except Jacob Blake clearly gives several other reasons for why he believes Rittenhouse should've been convicted, and they all relate directly to his own actions. It's entirely false to say he doesn't care if there's guilt or not.