Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Never understood the absolutely twisted psychology of people who defend this gutter sludge of a human.
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, but the misinformation around the event only makes our side look like imbeciles. There is plenty of video footage and witness testimony. The whole trial was recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the points being brought up in this thread. Kyle was a dumb 17 year old that should never have been there with a rifle.
Remember: the whole Kenosha riots started because of misinformation. The victim turned out to be a guy wielding a knife and running away in a car with two kids he was in the process of kidnapping. But, because of all the other events going on in the country, the narrative got twisted really fast.
There is plenty to criticize Kyle for. Idiot 17 year old at the wrong place and wrong time with a rifle. Repeating misinformation helps no one. I know social media is one big game of telephone and we can believe whatever we want since we all live in our own epistemic bubbles now but we gotta do better.
The person I responded to is a defender of conservatives in general. I’m not sure why you’re lecturing me about spreading misinformation, as I did nothing like that.
Lemmy in general I’ve noticed has a disregard for facts and really likes the overt sense of virtue signaling. Sure, Kyle is an awful human being, but there has to be a way to analyze the facts of the matter without resorting to using so much emotionally charged language. It comes off as really hollow and meaningless.
There is plenty of misinformation on the left in general surrounding the actions of that day. I noticed you are exclusively concerned with the ethical analysis of the situation while the person you are arguing with is clearly discussing the legal justification under American law. This type of game leads to a continuous back and forth in which wrong facts keep bubbling to the top. The Kenosha riots themselves were started because of the false assumption that another innocent black man was being targeted by law enforcement just off the tail of massive protests in MPLS a few weeks earlier.
Okay. There’s nothing unfactual about saying no one should be defending Rittenhouse.
Again, I never made any comment except that defending Kyle Rittenhouse means the commenter is shitty. Because he is. I’m not diving into the details because 1) I don’t need to 2) I don’t really care about the details of the case – I heard enough about them years ago.
There has to be a way to discuss whether an action is justified regardless of who the perpetrator is. Context matters. If we just go on these endless tirades attacking people nothing of substance is being accomplished except perhaps trying to score feel good points, and if that’s your goal then you do you. I personally find it’s more effective to counter their arguments with stronger counter arguments rather than calling conservatives “pathetic for being victims” or using ad-homs non stop.
So what if they’re defending Hitler? Were on Lemmy, we have mountains of facts and arguments for why Kyle was in the wrong. Let’s analyze those arguments and show a better way. I’m sorry if I come off as tone policing. I’m just tired of this inability to form strong counter points even though we know Kyle was not justified in being there with an AR-15 on that day.
You’re still acting like I was engaging in spreading misinformation. Seems you cannot read.
Just engage with the arguments instead of attacking people. Why is that so hard?
Conversely, why is it so hard for people to not defend shitbags?
You’re projecting–it’s people like you who are the armchair psychologists convinced of your assumptions of his motives, even when the facts directly contradict them.
All I’m doing is stating the facts. If they contradict your narrative, that’s because the narrative is wrong. Period.
Your motivations aren’t hard to ascertain.
You’ve proven beyond a doubt in this thread that your ability to ascertain motives is severely impaired.
Example: if you think my motive is to do anything but correct misinformation, you’re wrong (again).
And yet I’ve tagged you for supporting other conservatives specifically in the past… must have been total coincidence lol
Sounds like conservatives are more likely to get lied about around here, lol.
The fact that you tag people for reasons like that just tells me that you’re just another of the people who cares more about “supporting” a political team, than you are about finding and defending what’s actually true, regardless of which ‘team’ that truth may make look good or bad.
When you find me spreading the kind of easily-debunked falsehoods I’m correcting here, you might have an argument that holds some water. Don’t hold your breath, though.
It tells me that you defend conservatives habitually. Because, like a lot of things conservatives want to make complicated, it’s not
Stopped reading at the first sentence.
If I do, it’s because people here lie about them habitually. I defend the truth from lies, wherever I see it happening. The political ‘alignment’ of the one being lied about means nothing to me; no matter how desperate you are to project your partisan tribalism onto me, I’m not like you.
Yep what a good little “moderate” 😂