927
Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by students
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
927 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
5501 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This seems to be the canned response to all "uncomfortable" topics.
It seems that right-wing "debates" are not about arguing a point or another, but bringing up the "right" talking points, and backing out the wrong ones.
Please don't normalizing hating on people for not knowing something. If you think he actually knows kirk said these things, then please provide the proof. But if you are simply attacking him for admitting he doesn't know something, then you're part of the problem.
There’s a very simple way to answer this sort of question that was posed — by condemning the blatant racism of the statements themselves while acknowledging he didn’t know if Kirk had said them — and he decided not to do that.
The issue is he couldn't know at that moment if what the students said or their portrayal of it is accurate. Furthermore, people can't just instantly reach informed conclusions about things, a lot of people need, yk time to think. If I try to think about something on the spot I'll just stutter and not make any sense
"I am not aware of these comments or their context, but if said—yes, I agree they are racist." Not hard.
That's easy to say in retrospect, it's hard for a lot of people to answer something they didn't expect on the spot, even if they know the answer
Rittenhouse isn't some random dipshit that got cornered (ironically, a favourite of the likes of Crowder and Shapiro until they realised even students embarrass them) - he's the Daily Wire's spokesperson for crossing state lines to manufacture a situation to murder your political opponents. He chose to speak in front of that crowd, chose to field questions, and chose to run (presumably because he didn't have a gun to kill those he disagrees with).
Yeah what your saying is he is not famous for his speaking skills, which are normal person levels. So I don't see why this is surprising
It's literally his job - he's a paid spokesperson on a speaking tour.
Yes, that doesn't change what I said
Do you consistently defend people that you admit are unqualified for their job and incapable of doing it - even when it's as essential as bragging about crossing state lines to procure a gun and manufacture a flimsy legal pretext to kill your political opponents, or is this an outlier for you?
I try to understand everyone's situation and actions
Everyone does that - unlike you, most people are also capable of progressing to conclusions from straightforward situations or answering simple questions.
This has strong neo-Nazi-style "just asking questions" energy. If you're capable of drawing conclusions, own them. If you're not, you've got nothing to contribute here.
Do you mean baseless assumptions?
This is your reaction to me saying it's not surprising that a young adult is awkward and doesn't handle unexpected confrontation well.
Edit: Most of this is way off topic in response to an entirely different dipshit.
~~No - I mean obvious conclusions - you know, like seeing HD footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians and concluding they're drone striking obvious unarmed civilians. Never mind the rhetoric of their government or the IDF, or the track record of either. Baseless is pretending it's plausible they're Hamas.~~
Nope - this is in response to you seeing clear, entirely unambiguous evidence of warcrimes and saying we can't possibly know what's happening. I know how old I am, and some ~~genocide denying~~ dipshit telling me otherwise isn't going to change that.
~~Just to drive the point home, I'll ask the question we know you can't answer one final time - where's your evidence these civilians are Hamas?~~
Um I think you're writing the wrong argument, this is about Rittenhouse
My mistake - I'll return to the question you haven't answered.
Do you consistently defend people that are clearly unqualified and incapable of doing their job as they fail woefully, or is this an edge case for you? I suppose that unlike most, the likes of Rittenhouse and Kirk aren't doing anything of value - it's not as though they're performing surgery, driving a bus, or flipping burgers.
I'll repeat what I said, I empathize with people. They are not just their utility. He is not famous for his speaking skills, but TPUSA are clearly trying to capitalize on them, whatever not my problem. Anyone who paid to see him knew what they were getting
You're empathising with the same thing the audience went to see - the extreme right's posterchild for killing your political opponents. The analysis is super-straightforward and backed by studies - this is simply ignorant hate, fear, and disgust stoked by the likes of TPUSA. The fact that you can't progress to synthesising straightforward conclusions is a massive red flag.
I will empathize with everyone. It's not an optional thing for me.
You're very empathetic - that's entirely unremarkable. One can empathise with Hitler - but only a mentally deficient or monstrous person would stop at empathy and be incapable of synthesising conclusions like he was a bad guy that did bad things. It's like reading without comprehending.
Why can't you advance past the insistence you empathise with Rittenhouse toward an opinion? Are you deficient or dodging?
What is there to have an opinion on? He's socially awkward? I said that. What more is there to draw from this? Also remember insults and uncivil behavior are not allowed
Here's mine.
Travelling interstate to put yourself in a position to shoot 3 people, killing two of them is incredibly stupid at best. Proceeding from that to a job for a transparently dishonest media org that has hired you primarily to celebrate your killings demonstrates a total lack of remorse, and incites similar politically motivated killings in what amounts to pretty clear-cut stochastic terrorism. If we take him at his word, he's done no research into the media company that hired him, and has been on stage at events where openly racist nonsense has been celebrated without him noticing - if this is true, he's deficient enough that he should be in assisted living. The reasonable conclusion is that he's some degree of comfortable with the racism.
So we have a remorseless killer, stochastic terrorist, propagandist (or useful idiot) that doesn't care about or actively embraces racism.
It has been several years, and he did cry a lot when it happened, but I'm not sure remorse is necessary if it was in self-defense. I'm also not sure what other opportunities he has.
Nobody tries to find problems with the hand that feeds them. Honestly, with everything said about people like Dennis Prager and TPUSA, from his perspective he can just think "leftists hate and lie about them like they hated and lied about me".
He's not new to the circuit, and he cried when it looked like he might wind up in prison. None of this is remorse.
True - though I'd say it seems common. Either way, crossing state lines to procure a firearm to take to that protest to create the pretext to shoot people was not self-defence. That's premeditated.
I won't be losing any sleep over someone having some extra difficulty finding employment after getting away with what he did. There's no shortage of people that support him - finding a job that doesn't involve bragging about killing 2 people isn't a big ask.
This simply isn't true. I've turned down lucrative job offers (e.g. 70%+ more than what I was on at the time plus significant chunks of equity and benefits) because I had concerns about the ethics of the prospective employers. I've also spoken out about issues with my employers that have cost me multiple jobs (and chasing me out rather than listening buried at least one of those businesses). I don't hold others to standards I don't uphold myself.
I'm not going to make excuses for him dismissing the endless, quantified criticism of a transparently dishonest, racist propaganda outfit and the parade of absolute scumbags he chose to work alongside.
I think you have a point. However, you're referring to later in the exchange. The poster imt responding to is attacking him for claiming he didn't know whether Kirk had said those things. But if multiple people were shouting at him at that point, I can see why he reverted back to "no comment."
Asking whether those things are hate speech is a yes/no question. Pretending to not know Kirk is a racist sack of shit was obvious deflection. Good on the students for calling out this bs.