I’m pretty sure this is one of the portents of the apocalypse in the book of Revelation


We’re doomed, y’all.

It’s true. The Republicans are falling all over themselves to praise a murderous little thug. I guess we should have expected that.

Comments

  1. Snarki, child of Loki says

    Arm wrestle?
    What a pair of pajama-boy wussies.
    REAL TRUE MANLY TrumPublicans would face off with high-powered firearms.
    Or flamethrowers, that’s good too.

    Make it so.

  2. Akira MacKenzie says

    Say what you will about the Republicans’ racist, theocratic, cut-throat capitalist agenda, but they certainly understand political theater far, far better than any liberal does.

    The Republicans–politician and rank and file voter alike–are essentially schoolyard bullies and are using their tactics on a national scale. Besides being a fuck you to anyone who thought Rittenhouse ought to be convicted, their shit-talk about giving the brat a internship is meant to elicit a reaction of shock and anger from all the people their supporters hate. To the bully. it’s a hilarious sign of weakness, getting all worked up over a “little joke.”

    The same can be said about Gossar’s Attack on Titan/AOC “murder” video. Getting Gossar censured will ultimately result in nothing; he’ll be exonerated once the Republicans inevitably retake the government in 2022 and 2024. AOC’s speech last week may have sounded brave to libs who still think government and politics is some sort of genteel kafeflatch where policy is debated over tea and scones, but to the Republicans and more than a few centrists she looked like a wimpy kid crying to teacher after the bigger kid stole her crayons. The latter ate her “liberal tears” with relish. It would have been far, far, better to have just ignored the video.

    I can hear the objections now: “Gossar’s video was advocating violence against AOC.” Really? AOC is human-eating giant and Gossar is plotting to come swinging in on grappling lines to kill her with a sword? REALLY? Grow the fuck up! Your complaints about it make you look like a bunch of hypersensitive crybabies, whining about a cartoon. Gossar’s punishment makes him look like a tough guy who was sent to detention for picking on the wimpy kid that no one likes.

    The libs fell right into their trap and they will use it to rally and recruit more bullies to enact their hellish designs. Great job!

  3. logicalcat says

    @3

    So because republicans like the kid hes automatically a republican? You know once upon a time nazis loved Taylor Swift because she was seen as perfect example of an aryan woman. Guess Taylor Swoft is a nazi now.

    I havent looked into his political leanings. Maybe he is or hes not. All i ask for is for some actuall fucking brain power to be used in assessing these things. Looks like we wont get that.

    @4

    If true this board doesnt care.

    @PZ

    To borrow from Chris Rock “I keep checking the mail waiting for my OJ prize”. If you get your prize for defending a false narrative let me know what it consist of so that I can see if abandoning your integrity was worth it. Good luck tho. The pushers of the false OJ narrative didnt get theirs.

    On a completely unrelated note I finally understand the value of the phrase “no more heroes.” Also lol at that link.

  4. call me mark says

    logicalcat @ #3: It’s not me making the assumption that Rittenhouse is a republican, it’s the repubs themselves talking about offering him a job (or internship).

    All i ask for is for some actuall fucking brain power to be used in assessing these things. Looks like we wont get that.

    Pot, I’d like you to meet the kettle.

  5. says

    @illogicalcat: no one is assuming that “because republicans like the kid hes automatically a republican”. We’re seeing that Republicans assume he’s Republican, because he loves guns and the police, which does make it likely he’s Republican-leaning.

    The narrative I’m pushing is that a punk kid went looking for a fight with an assault rifle at a protest, got one, and murdered two people and maimed a third. That the law let him off just means that the law is an ass. I don’t win a prize for that. The people who want to fire guns at protesters did.

  6. Walter Solomon says

    Apparently the little, homicidal thug has out publicly as a “supporter” of BLM, on Heer Carlson’s show no less.

  7. logicalcat says

    @8

    And that narrative is dishonest and misleading. Lets look at the facts.

    1) Rittenhouse lived 20 minutes away. Kenosha is where he spent most of his life, its where he worked at, and its where his family lives.

    2) after hours its not a protest, its a riot with buildings burning. Funny how you make it the onus of the man who practically lives there to justify his presence but not the rioters, most of whom are white and spurned on by another dishonest narrative regarding Jacob Blake (seriously. I fell for it too but the cops were justified in shooting him.) as an excuse to riot (as if we haven’t seen this before. Every time black people protest even when they riot there is a gaggle of white leftists instigating and making shit worse). Guess destruction and stochastic terrorism is okay if its with a leftist point of view.

    3) Rittenhouse wasn’t the only one there armed and defending property. Here’s an interview with one of the victims friend who is leftist and also defending property that night (although he was not armed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5fRp2OZYWM
    This is because…

    4)…the police were told to stand down and not intervene with the riots and the request for national guard was denied by someone higher up. I think it was the mayor but I don’t remember. Leaving the residents of the area as the sole defenders of the area of which I need to remind you Rittenhouse is technically one. What the fuck else do you want for them to use to defend themselves? Hopes and prayers? This is stupid.

    5) Having a gun doesn’t matter. It doesn’t forfeit your right for self defense. And I’m not even talking about legally but morally. Being armed doesn’t mean its okay to attack the armed person. I don’t like guns…okay I like guns in that they are cool, but my political stance is get rid of them all. Because they make the situation worse. Rittenhouse said he was afraid one of his attackers could use his own gun against him. Getting disarmed and having your weapon used against you is a legitimate fear and can happen. Having that gun made the threat of Rosembaum worse because remember, he attacked first. You cant change that fact. Especially since someone who attacks a heavily armed man is not in the right frame of mind to responsibly handle that shit. But making the situation worse by having a weapon does not negate your moral right to self defense.

    6) Rosembaum attacked first. Gotta repeat that apparently.

    7) We literally see in the various videos Rittenhouse clearly running away. Not standing and shooting, but fucking running away first in every single instance of his shooting its done in clear vision someone trying to de-escalate the situation by removing himself from the area. You see Rittenhouse run away, and then Zelinski fired a shot causing Rittenhouse to turn around which is how he spotted that Rosembaum got too close, close enough to reach out for his gun and of course that’s self defense. Not even from a legal point of view.

    In the earlier thread I was incorrect about saying that Zelinskis shot caused a panic. Well, technically it did, but from Rittenhouse only who reacted appropriately after. Any one of us would have done the same. I’m using empathy here (remember empathy?). If I was there regardless of being armed or not and I was running away from people one of whom threatened to kill me, then heard a shot, then turned around and saw that same unhinged person within attacking distance, I would have reacted negatively. So would you. Lets not beat around the bush here. If the political leaning (perceived leanings) were reversed you’d have no problem mustering up the empathy necessary to view the situation objectively.

    After Rosembaum he continued to run. Naturally in the chaos other people thought it was an active shooter situation and also reacted appropriately. If you are okay with his other two victims reacting how they did, you HAVE to concede that Rittenhouse was also in the right because its the exact same scenario.

    8) After Rosembaum the others reacting went as followed. Rittenhouse tried running away, failed, and was found on the ground. One man ran up to Rittenhouse (appreviated as RH because i’m tired of writing his name) and kicked him what appears to be on his head successfully, RH fired a shot as he got within his personal space and missed. One man ran up to him with a skateboard and attacked him with it successfully and RH shot and killed him as he got into his personal space. One man ran up to him, RH raised his weapon, man backed down, RH also backed down.

    These are the facts. Although I don’t remember if Skateboard victim (sorry don’t remember names) came before or after the man who backed down. The trigger discipline on this kid is amazing. He’s actually better than most police officers. In each clear instance he is only shooting when attackers got within 6 feet. One of whom backed down and lived. RH had him in his sights, and didn’t shoot. If he was a murderous thug he would have definitely shot and earlier.

    The last guy involved was man with gun who testified in court that he was only shot after pulling out his gun with intent to shoot RH. Clear and uncut intent to shoot only threats.

    9) I haven’t even gotten to the legal arguments. Ive been phrasing everything on moral grounds. But if you want to say the law sucks, demonstrate how. Its easy to demonstrate when a law is bad with effective argumentation. No one wants to do that here apparently.

    10) If RH is a murderous thug then you have to concede so is Trayvon Martin. I will never tire of bringing up this comparison. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman in self defense and was labeled a thug for it. And the right wing used the same damn arguments and lines of reasoning you are doing to justify that characterization.

    11) This is the most important fact. The fact that your (and by your I mean dishonest leftists) politicization of this even is why right wingers even give a shit about this case. Guaranteed. They are reactionary contrarians against anything the left spits out, including this event. You gave them their fuel and are to stupid to realize it. This is why I called it sunk cost fallacy. Its like all this anti-establishmentarian emotion was used and its too late to back down now apparently.

    You gave them the prize. Hand wrapped. I could go on but gotta sleep. Seriously. This is the stupidest leftist take than Jimmy Dore or “Ivermectin is horse dewormer lmao”. Don’t let the dumbest among us dictate the discourse, and do not let the dumbest among us make the old strawmans true actually true.

    Recently this board has attacked terfs. Ive seen terfs make some of the stupidest feminist claims like “all sex is rape” along with their usual anti trans bullshit. Imagine if we lost the ability to understand these are bad takes and let them manage the discourse of feminism. That’s how I feel here. We all let the dumbest among us write the story.

    If he was looking for a fight he wouldn’t have needed to run since he found that fight. Use your brain. If you are looking for a fight with the weapon you brought, and you found a fight, and heavily out gear the opponents…why da fuck run tho? This is not the behavior of someone looking for a fight. Especially when that “fight” he was looking for was against people destroying his community.

    @7 call me mark

    Chickenshit. You know damn well you believe it too. Its an assumption you believe in. Otherwise you wouldn’t have made that sarcastic joke.

    @9
    I saw that coming. No surprise here. He might still be right leaning but its stupid that the narrative being played was that hes a racist white supremacist who shot three black protestors. I’m glad at least this board didn’t get that stupid tho they got close. There’s a streamer who made a good point that if you are an impressionable 17 year old and one side had lies, deceit, and dishonesty while the other side had welcoming arms hes going to go to the welcoming arms (not that right wingers were being honest here, they never are). It was my hope that the kid stay somewhat grounded. Going on Tucker Carlson show and saying you support BLM is helpful. I haven’t seen the clip yet tho so we will see.

    My favorite take on this is the streamer Vaush saying “lets be honest here, we leftists are only mad at this verdict because right wingers get to gloat and we cant.” to paraphrase.

  8. John Morales says

    Relax, logicalcat. I expect someone will defend themselves against Killer Kyle in due course.

  9. John Morales says

    PS

    My favorite take on this is the streamer Vaush saying “lets be honest here, we leftists are only mad at this verdict because right wingers get to gloat and we cant.” to paraphrase.

    Heh. You’re clearly not mad about this verdict, so either the streamer Vaush is wrong or you’re no leftist. :)

  10. John Morales says

    PPS How to defend oneself:
    https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-10/forensic-pathologist-testifies-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-joseph-rosenbaum-at-close-range
    (my emphasis)

    The prosecution’s final witness was Dr. Doug Kelley, a forensic pathologist with the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s office. He says based on the autopsy report, Joseph Rosenbaum was shot four times by someone who was within four feet of him. Rosenbaum was the first man Rittenhouse killed.

    “Typically when you see gunpowder stippling, you’re looking at a muzzle-to-target distance of a few feet. But again, it depends on whether you’re talking about a handgun, a rifle or such,” Kelly said. “I would say that in this particular instance, we’re talking about something within a few feet, within four feet or so.”

    Kelley testified that Rosenbaum was first wounded in the groin, then in the hand and thigh, as he faced Rittenhouse. After that, Rosenbaum was shot in the head and in the back. Kelley testified the final two shots were at a downward angle.

  11. KG says

    Don’t let the dumbest among us dictate the discourse – logicalcat@10

    OK logicalcat, I won’t let you dictate the discourse. How exactly do Rittenhouse’s third and fourth shots at Rosenbaum – downwards, at close range, into the head and back of a man already hit by shots in the groin and thigh – fit into the concept of self-defense?

  12. call me mark says

    logicalcat: fuck you buddy.

    If RH is a murderous thug then you have to concede so is Trayvon Martin. I will never tire of bringing up this comparison. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman in self defense and was labeled a thug for it. And the right wing used the same damn arguments and lines of reasoning you are doing to justify that characterization.

    WTF? That’s not what happened at all. Zimmerman claimed to have shot Martin in self-defence. No-one knows what Martin’s side of the story would be because he’s dead. Martin was armed with a bag of Skittles and a soft drink.

  13. says

    So because republicans like the kid hes automatically a republican?

    No, stupid.

    If true this board doesnt care.

    Because it doesn’t matter whether it’s the real Onion account or not. Because you’re an imbecile, you are incapable of understanding when it does or doesn’t matter.

    Rosembaum attacked first.

    With a plastic bag of toiletries, you right wing maggot.

  14. says

    Zimmerman had a gun. Martin had a plastic bag. Zimmerman claimed self defense.
    Rittenhouse had a gun. Rosenbaum had a plastic bag. Rittenhouse claimed self defense.

    There are are lot of differences between the cases, but the similarities go against this stupid ignorant illogical lying piece of crap that insults cats.

  15. says

    KG@14

    I don’t think that argument amounts to much. From the video, Rittenhouse was running and then wheeled around and shot and killed Rosenbaum … all four shots occurred within a 1-2 second time frame. Either Rittenhouse firing the gun was self defense or it wasn’t. Since Wisconsin law only allows as much force as is needed to prevent illegal interference with one’s person (as opposed to stand-your-ground laws, which WI doesn’t have), it wasn’t self defense,

  16. says

    JM@13 Of course it was close range … Rosenbaum was chasing him, threw a plastic bag of toiletries at him, and appeared to attempt to grab or deflect the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle … being at close range isn’t an argument against self defense. That Rosenbaum was unarmed is.

  17. says

    JM@12

    That logic is beyond the comprehension of illogical noncat, but does follow from its use of a fallacious argument from authority. Who the hell cares what Vaush said, especially as paraphrased by the notcat. And “let’s be honest here” is usually followed by hyperbole, at best.

  18. says

    JM@20

    Not going to take yet another 24 min for this case, but from his pinned comment:

    “– “Being attacked” does not automatically mean you can use deadly force in self-defense. Your force must be proportionate and reasonable; you cannot use deadly force “unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”
    — By that same token, unarmed people can generate such a fear; being unarmed doesn’t necessarily mean no one can ever use deadly force against you (sorry for the double negatives!).”

    Yes, that’s rather noncommittal … and there’s a subtext: the second statement does not negate the “proportionate and reasonable” requirement.

  19. Kagehi says

    Honestly… Having seen some of the info, the video, etc. on this.. I am shifting my view a bit. Basically:

    The “adults” who should have had responsibility in this, and in him, decided to mix Home Alone and Hunger Games logic in putting him where he was. This meant him, alone, with a gun, confronting some nut, who its “suspected” (since being dead there is no way to say one way or the other) of wanting to blow up a gas station. He confronted the person, the person got pissed, and he “defended himself”. This is where state law turns it into a damn mess – see the above Legal Eagle analysis.
    There is evidence suggesting that he freaked after the first death, tried to call someone about it (possibly one of those missing “adults” who allowed him to “protect property” without them being their to support/help/or just f-ing be the ones doing it, instead of a kid. So… a killer and thug… maybe not. I suspect he badly needs counselling, possibly for PTSD of having killed people, and he isn’t going to get shit.
    Instead of getting the help he needs he is going to be used as an example, despite reason to believe that its possibly very inaccurate, and ethically questionable, as a poster child for what a screwed up gun nut looks like. This may be entirely unfair, and.. like I said, ethically problematic. But, he is “already”, due in no small part in the failure to find him guilty of “anything at all” and thus making it possible to either a) get him off the street, or b) get him help, as a grand example of the sort of gun nut poster child for “How real Americans protect their shiny property!” This is, if anything, even more unethical, and horrible.

    I am not sure anyone, handed a gun, told to “try to protect this”, and confronted with some nut trying to light shit on fire, while convinced that its “his job” to try to do something about it, would have managed to do any better, or had things go any less f-ing wrong. But.. I am honestly not sure its not the assholes that put him there that are the real flipping problem, while he, despite doing what he did, is not a victim of their negligence, and decision to leave him where he was blindingly obviously endangered. I would like to think I would have been smart enough, in such a situation, to just not go at all, and keep myself safe, but I know enough of the stupid thinking that goes into this to recognize that some underaged people would not have that sort of courage, or worse, “Would not be allowed to be such a coward.” Because, you know damn well that that is what some assholes out their would tell their kids, while handing them the gun, and telling them what they wanted them to do with it.

    All of that said… the “self defense” laws, and interpretation of them, is so easily abused, even in states in which its “technically” a requirement for the would be shooter to retreat, instead of retaliate, that this may have been an almost inevitable outcome. And, some states have screwed up the laws far, far, worse, to the point where, like Legal Eagle comments, its almost as though self defense is defined as, “Who survives long enough to claim it.”

  20. says

    Ok, I ended up watching it anyway (it’s quite good; thanks for the pointer), and found the subtext:

    Any system that incentivizes rule by the last person standing, that is, killing the only person who might dispute your claim of self-defense … that seems, well, suboptimal. … Vigilantism is bad.

    Indeed. Open carry laws lead to open killing.

    After running down the white vs. Black stats, he says “systemic issues like that weren’t on trial here.” Not in the courtroom or before the jury, no, but they are on trial in greater society.

    under the most favorable interpretation of the facts, Kyle Rittenhouse brought gasoline to a match party, and people are now dead as a result.

    Bingo.

  21. says

    Kagehi@23 I think you may be missing some of the facts, like that Rittenhouse arranged with his friend Dominic Black to (illegally) buy a gun for him, which Rittenhouse paid for. No adult handed him a gun and said “try to protect this”.

  22. Kagehi says

    Hmm. OK, I missed that point, and in that case.. yeah, he is one of the “gun nuts”, and the system is badly f-ing broken. Like we didn’t know that already.

  23. logicalcat says

    @25

    Actually the owners of the gas station asked for their business to be protected. They deny it now that they might be liable thanks to the incident, but its pretty clear they were very friendly with the armed militias that formed and one was caught in a lie when he said he’s never met Rittenhouse.

    You are right on everything else tho and the man who gave Rittenhouse his gun has been arrested and being tried for some felonies.

    @26

    Is Rittenhouse a gun nut? I don’t know but simply using a gun to protect property does not a gun nut make. Thats being stretched very thin. Hell everything is being stretched thin that’s very much the problem with leftist progressives today. Nuance is dying.

    I agree with your earlier comment that the kid will probably have PTSD for this. This is part of the reason why I am upset with PZ and others since calling someone who is clearly not a murderer a murderer is very damaging. But empathy doesn’t matter as much as the narrative.

    Btw some of the “assholes who put him there” are the leftist rioters. No one wants to admit it but that’s the truth. This shouldn’t have been a riot. Anyone who’s actually look into the Blake shooting can tell you that. Some of the assholes who put him there are us who may not been in the riot but stoked the flames that let to it. Including myself because I initially fell for the narrative.

    When I first saw the video I immediately went looking for justifications on why it was not self defense. it was semi conscious too. I knew I was building a false narrative in my head. Maybe being aware helped me shake out of it. Others clearly did not. Someone said Rittenhouse bringing a gun was him bringing gasoline, but naw. We brought the gasoline.

    You are also right that th system is broken but focusing on this case didn’t help fix the system. The opposite actually since it paints us as gullible idiots at best and deliberate liars at worst. Too much energy was wasted on this.

    @21

    SO im not leftist because I choose to actually care about reality? Cute. Also quoting Vaush is not an argument from authority you idiot. It would be If i said “Vaush says your argument is wrong so there case closed”. I didn’t did i? I just quoted something I thought was funny and true. And it is.

    @12
    You are literally the guy who defended the woman who tried to kill her boyfriend with a sword because he was playing too many video games. Yea I remember that thread and what you said. As someone who went through domestic violence I remembered that shit, and I see you still do not understand self defense after all this time. Also nice No True Scotsman.

    @14
    Rosembaum reached for the gun, that’s clear in the video (even if he didn’t connect). That means the possibility of being disarmed and having the weapon used against you is reason enough to allow deadly force. Its impossible to determine “appropriate force” with firearms involved. Real life is not a video game where you can selectively aim at limbs for non lethal shots (even tho I can tell you that getting shot in the limbs would probably still kill you). Especially when what prompted his turning around was Zelinski shooting as well, in the air but Rittenhouse wouldn’t know that would he. I love how all of you omit these facts. That alone makes the deadly force justified.

    An example of unreasonable force would be if you were awaken at night, there was an intruder and you shoot through the door in fear of the intruder before the intruder could even open the door to reveal themselves. Of course this is assuming a state that doenst have “castle doctrine” or that bullshit stand your ground. Another would be if someone attacked you and you drew a gun, then attacker backed down but you shoot him anyways. That’s self defense but unreasonable with unreasonable force. Notice that Rittenhouse did not shoot the man who backed down. Clearly this kid understands self defense better than you do.

    @16 and 17

    Oh so im right wing now? lmao you are a clown. I support medicare for all, free education, gun control, raise in minimum wage BLM, LGBTQ+ rights, believe in the reality of systemic racism and believe critical race theory should be allowed in schools. I’m against religion, dogma, and been called social justice warrior by idiots online just as much as the next lefty. I also vote democrat and progressives when the opportunity arises such as Sanders who I supported. I could go on.

    But believing in self defense THATS right wing I guess. LMAO. You are a stereotype of the irrational leftist who instead of being able to communicate rationally call anyone who disagrees with you “right wing” as if that alone is enough to render your viewpoint/argument true. Could be worse I guess. You could have called me a Nazi.

    Now for your Zimmerman comparisons. Sure if you focus on the superficial similarities and ignore the important similarities it definitely makes my point look bad. Good thing I’m not an idiot tho. You see Zimmerman chased Martin, and Martin acted in self defense. Rosembaum chased Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse acted in self defense. If Rittenhouse was a thug, then so is Martin by your logic.

    And I can prove it easily. Answer me this hypothetical: If Zimmerman chased Martin armed with his bag of skittles and in turn Martin pulled out a gun and killed Zimmerman would you justify Zimmerman’s actions? After all Martin doesn’t live there (just like Rittenhouse right, right?) and after all a minor shouldn’t have a gun right? So it should be okay to chase this teenager clearly, hell in this hypothetical I’m even granting you that hes open carrying. He definitely didn’t need to be there so late at night what was he doing there? Martin was a gun nut ( pictures of Martin holding a gun was actual evidence the defense used). Clearly he’s a murderous thug amirite?

    So to repeat the hypothetical, would you defend Zimmerman if Trayvon was armed and open carry and shot Zimmerman during their encounter?

    You know you guys can argue to high non existent heaven that he shouldn’t have a gun but that would only result in a grown man attacking a child successfully. You guys seem to be okay with that. Him having a gun was bringing gasoline? Lol I’d rather focus on the man who lit the match and his name was Rosembaum.

    Also since you guys are kinda dumb I gotta state my point bluntly. That the same justifications the right used to condemn Martin you are using against Rittenhouse and the same defense you are using with Rosembaums actions right wingers used them to defend Zimmerman complete with all their irrationalities.

    @14

    Because real life isn’t a fucking video game. I’m anti gun too but I at least make the effort to understand them. Try it sometimes. It actually helps you to make better arguments against them. When using any weapon multiple use is preferred in self defense whether its a gun or hand to hand training(where your body is the weapon) and everything in between especially considering the hectic and chaotic scenario of it all. This is why you see martial artists instinctively go for ground and pound most of the time even when their opponent was knocked out and no longer a threat in the UFC. I did say the kid had pretty good trigger discipline but what you are suggesting is such an unreasonable standard to be placed on a well trained man let alone a 17 year old.

    @15
    You missed the point. I made that point clearer in this comment against another user. Also fuck you too.

    @11 John Morales

    I propose to you the same hypothetical I gave Jim Blater about if Zimmerman was not armed and Martin was armed whether Martin would be justified in shooting Zimmerman.

    I proposed this hypothetical because despite the pathetic display here I still believe people like KG, Call Me Mark, PZ Myers, and even Jim Balter can see reason. But with you, that’s not why I want you to answer this hypothetical. Because I know you will just reveal yourself to be the asshole that you are because Ive seen you defend domestic violence before. I just want to read the stupid shit you will write.

  24. chigau (違う) says

    logicalcat
    Did you know that it is possible to address commenters by name rather than by @number?
    oh, wait
    why is John Morales special?

  25. John Morales says

    I propose to you the same hypothetical I gave Jim Blater [sic] about if Zimmerman was not armed and Martin was armed whether Martin would be justified in shooting Zimmerman.

    Stupid hypothetical. Zimmerman would not have stalked his victim had he not been armed, that much is clear, O “I like guns in that they are cool” specimen.

    Also nice No True Scotsman.

    <snicker>

    Because I know you will just reveal yourself to be the asshole that you are because Ive seen you defend domestic violence before.

    You can imagine whatever you want, but the reality is otherwise.

  26. stroppy says

    Hmm, looks like the longest multi-thread concern troll in Pharyngula history.

    logicalcat, I doubt the left’s reaction to the Rittenhouse trial has damaged them much. I think it more likely that the demographic you were worried about has been both-sidered back into indifference, and that what remains as a standout from the news cycle is the Arbery verdict.

  27. logicalcat says

    @30

    Call me a concern troll all you want but at the end of the day these people are promoting lies you haven’t disputed that, and cannot dispute it at that. If I cant be concerned about the concerted effort to repeatedly push lies and false narratives by the people whom I share ideological parity with then what can I express my concern with?

    I’m not concern trolling. I’m expressing my concern. But of course this is emblematic of what I’m griping about. The complete and total lack of nuance or understanding.

    If you think this hasn’t damaged the left then you truly are living in a bubble. The right called us liars and we were quick to prove them right. Indifference is a bad thing you know that right? We need them(the ones who on the fence or sympathetic) on our side. We don’t got the numbers without them.

    @29
    Nitpicking the hypothetical is a chicken shit move because you ignore the point because you are afraid to answer it. SO sure, lets add the necessary qualifiers. Maybe Martin was concealed carry, or maybe Zimmerman is brave/stupid enough to chase someone who was open carrying. Regardless the hypothetical still stands unanswered and unaddressed. Can you defend the grown man who attacked an armed child for no just provocation? Can you defend Zimmerman?

    And yes, you committed a no true scotsman. No true leftist. Or you can back up your claim that i’m not a leftist. That im right wing as you said. You wont because you are dishonest.

    And it seems i didn’t have to imagine anything since you delivered in that comment. Although I did expect it to be even dumber so there’s that at least.

    @28 Chigau

    Morales is special because i remember his fucked up attitude on another thread.

    Sorry If I’m using just numbers. I should have but didn’t. I got excuses like ADHD and shit like that and I overthink and am very forgetful. So it involves me constantly scrolling up to remember who I’m responding to. After a while I do start to remember the names but i also get used to just using numbers. Does this website have a thing where it notifies people who respond to you if you write out their name? Because it doesn’t happen with me so I assume it doesn’t otherwise I might have more incentive to do so.

    @Everyone else

    Address the hypothetical. Lets see which ones of you can be consistent with your beliefs or are just idiots lying about shit because you picked a side and are dogmatically defending it.

  28. John Morales says

    logicalcat:

    Nitpicking the hypothetical is a chicken shit move because you ignore the point because you are afraid to answer it.

    You imagine “Stupid hypothetical.” is nit-picking it? Heh.

    SO sure, lets add the necessary qualifiers. Maybe Martin was concealed carry, or maybe Zimmerman is brave/stupid enough to chase someone who was open carrying. Regardless the hypothetical still stands unanswered and unaddressed. Can you defend the grown man who attacked an armed child for no just provocation? Can you defend Zimmerman?

    Clearly, it’s not just your hypotheticals that are fucking stupid.

    And yes, you committed a no true scotsman. No true leftist.

    You don’t really know to what the no true scotsman refers, do ya? It wasn’t I who claimed you were leftist.

    And it seems i didn’t have to imagine anything since you delivered in that comment.

    I’m not the one blathering about how guns are cool. How cool?

    November 30, 2021 Oxford Township, Michigan Oxford High School shooting: A 15-year-old sophomore was taken into custody. 7 people, including a teacher, were injured, and 4 died. An investigation is ongoing as of December 1, 2021.[428]

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States)

Leave a Reply