What created Kyle Rittenhouse

[Dogmaphobe]

Point taken. What should I call them? I try to remember to call them leftists, but maybe that isn’t enough. Perhaps Hard Leftists? I refuse to call them “progressives” as that implies they are doing something positive when in fact that are destroying the very fabric of our nation. How about “destroyers”? Or Marxists?

I have pretty much settled on the term "Stalinists", myself.

One of the main reasons I like to distinguish is because of the way people become attached to the name and not what it represents. I am 67, so can remember when liberals wanted a color-blind society and wanted to expand personal freedom rather than restrict it. This new brand of Stalinists stand for the absolute opposite.

In distinguishing between the two, it makes it clear that a comment is addressed to the latter group and not the former.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

liberal.

That the term liberal has been stolen by the left may be annoying BUT we, individually, do not get to determine what words mean. They are defined as they are generally used and the modern meaning of liberal is already set.

If anything, we should ensure that we are not calling things in the past liberal which do not comport with the meaning of the word today. For instance, calling the founders liberal is a meaningless endeavor. You will not communicate the proper information by doing so.

Disagree. I consider myself liberal but it has little to nothing in common with today’s democrats.
Liberal is a complete misnomer when referring to democrats.
Can’t acquiesce to word hijacking because you’ll end up never meaning what you say.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

liberal.

That the term liberal has been stolen by the left may be annoying BUT we, individually, do not get to determine what words mean. They are defined as they are generally used and the modern meaning of liberal is already set.

If anything, we should ensure that we are not calling things in the past liberal which do not comport with the meaning of the word today. For instance, calling the founders liberal is a meaningless endeavor. You will not communicate the proper information by doing so.

In a world where a woman isn't defined by anything that exists in reality, but merely what a person thinks of themself, I suppose the term liberal can be treated in a similar manner. There is an entire body of work by various political philosophers, however, that says otherwise., as people like John Stuart Mill and John Rawls have detailed the various tenets of liberalism, and these provide details of the underlying principles and values. I do not believe in calling a man a woman just because he feels like one any more than I believe in referring to some of the least liberal people on the planet "liberals".

In both cases, it isn't what people imagine themselves to be, but what they ARE that is in question.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Not so much ignorance but rather an incredible belief that feelings take precedent over facts and even render facts invalid. That in turn creates and unleashes not Rittenhouse but rather the cretins he was dealing with.

I see it as a case of people identifying with their own. I am a productive member of society, run a small business, am involved in my community and so I identify with those in Kenosha being victimized by BLM/ANTIFA terrorists. They are my people. Likewise, those who only identify with child rapists and repeat criminals are identifying with THEIR people.

These are some remarkably primitive people we are dealing with, here. Everything about the politics they follow is downright tribal. Facts or principles do not matter to them because all that does matter is identity. Everything they write and everything they say stems from this same sense of tribalism where it isn't the content of a person's character than matters, but the color of their skin, sexual identity or any of a number of other traits. Since this is their fall back position on all matters, it makes perfect sense that they are identifying with their people, because everything in their little world is about shared identity.

What is particularly ironic is how they actually derive a sese of moral superiority from all of this. In a way, that, too makes sense, as those living on the fringes of society and offering nothing of value to the world NEED that false sense of virtue as the crutch that helps them avoid taking a good look at why they are such failures at being a human being and replaces the sense of failure with this smug feeling that they are actually better than others, instead.

 

[FA_Q2]

In a world where a woman isn't defined by anything that exists in reality, but merely what a person thinks of themself, I suppose the term liberal can be treated in a similar manner. There is an entire body of work by various political philosophers, however, that says otherwise., as people like John Stuart Mill and John Rawls have detailed the various tenets of liberalism, and these provide details of the underlying principles and values. I do not believe in calling a man a woman just because he feels like one any more than I believe in referring to some of the least liberal people on the planet "liberals".

In both cases, it isn't what people imagine themselves to be, but what they ARE that is in question.

It is. However, language is all about communicating ideas.

If you were to walk up to someone and state 'I am a liberal' what assumptions do you think would be made about your political positions?
If you think demanding that you are actually a liberal and that the democrats are not, you are just wasting time that could have4 been saved in the first place by not trying to put a label where it no longer belongs.

In the man/woman thing:
If you told someone that a man was going to walk through a door, what assumptions would that person make about the person about to walk through that door?
You know they would be expecting a man. That word has not lost its meaning... yet. Hence it really is entirely different from the liberal label.

It you want to communicate effectively, the purpose of language, then demanding the liberal label is asinine. You are not achieving that goal. Labels do not matter, ideas do. Focusing on the former just muddies the latter.

 

[FA_Q2]

Disagree. I consider myself liberal but it has little to nothing in common with today’s democrats.
Liberal is a complete misnomer when referring to democrats.
Can’t acquiesce to word hijacking because you’ll end up never meaning what you say.

You are several decades to late. Fighting a war you have already lost is just pointless. Ask anyone what liberal means today, the VAST majority will associate it with democrats and almost no one will associate it with ideals you hold.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You are several decades to late. Fighting a war you have already lost is just pointless. Ask anyone what liberal means today, the VAST majority will associate it with democrats and almost no one will associate it with ideals you hold.

Not my problem. I still believe up means up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not my problem. I still believe up means up.

It is your problem if you want to be understood when communicating.

It is not your problem if you do not care that when you say one thing everyone around you hears something else entirely. At that point though, I do not know why you are bothering to say anything in the first place.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It is your problem if you want to be understood when communicating.

It is not your problem if you do not care that when you say one thing everyone around you hears something else entirely. At that point though, I do not know why you are bothering to say anything in the first place.

If I don’t say what I mean then I’ll never mean what I say.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It is your problem if you want to be understood when communicating.

It is not your problem if you do not care that when you say one thing everyone around you hears something else entirely. At that point though, I do not know why you are bothering to say anything in the first place.

I see that you are entirely unfamiliar with the parable of the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[Care4all]

Care4All- I never meant to imply that you made this a racial issue nor did I mention anything about race. The source I linked, NYT- is rated by three different media bias ratings and all indicate they are left leaning and paraphrasing the rest: keep it relatively honest. I am not a personal fan of the New York Slimes but used it because the article lists the top 10 case myths.

You posted that K. Rittenhouse’s mom drove her son to the riot. Not true and you’re not the only poster on USMB to continue to post this falsehood. I know you’re not doing it intentionally.

The case is over, but this board still needs as much honesty as possible to be a good board. As I stated before, I find you to be an honest poster. We disagree on many topics, but have agreement at times as well

Please disregard the New York Slimes source I used and I can find another one if you’d like. It was the first one that popped up on my screen for “Rittenhouse trial myths debunked” and I didn’t look beyond it as I should have done. I only read the top 10 list and didn’t read the other comments of the article, so I assume that’s the race baiting part.

It is most telling that you’ve called out the New York slimes for printing a race baiting article! I can promise it’ll be the last time I ever risk using them as a source, and glad you brought this to my attention! In this particular case, NYS was right this time around. Certainly not an organization on anybody’s good list who is well-read.

These orgs do a much better job of keeping it honest:

News media to consider the most neutral sources:

1. The Hill, 0.09
2. Forbes, 0.2
3. Christian Science Monitor, -0.21
4. Business Insider, -0.38
5. Fortune, 0.43
6. Marketwatch, -0.54
7. Financial Times, 0.62
8. Bloomberg, -0.85
9. Reuters, -0.95
10. AP, -1.06

Who is the Least Biased News Source? Simplifying the News Bias Chart

I examined 102 news sites on the news bias chart

towardsdatascience.com

Claire, thank you! Your list is extensive, and I did not see it, before I started my own research on it, and why I haven't returned to this thread, until I had a better handle on it!

And boy oh boy oh boy, was I WRONG!

Wendy Lewis Rittenhouse, his mom, is owed a HUGE APOLOGY from me!!!!

I had participated in a thread by Strolling Bones a few weeks ago, and believed from that thread that his mom drove him in to the city....no one objected to that part of the story from the right wing or left wing, so it didn't set off my 'bullcrap' alarm, which leads me to Google something to research.

It's not that I heard she drove him there in the MSM, no one mentioned it, didn't know, one way or the other, until I participated in that thread. And no one on the right wing spent time a month ago, stating that Wendy didn't drive him there either....or we would have had a bunch of threads on it, arguing about it back then.... So, I suppose that's my excuse!

Anyway, not only did she not drive him there, she did what a good mom would do....she had her son, turn himself in when he got home and explained what happened to him!

So, with this happening...and being so caught off guard with this untruth that I thought was truth, my lips are sealed on this topic until I better educate myself....and be less of a fool!

But one last thing, I was smart enough to agree with the jury decision and mentioning it was because they had all the evidence, and I didnt, so I had to trust in their judgement!

 

[Crepitus]

What created Kyle Rittenhouse​

tRumpism and the RWNJ "media". Between them they so radicalized this kid that he armed up and went looking for someone to shoot.

You guys scream bloody murder when islamics do that. Where's the outrage now?

 

[ClaireH]

Claire, thank you! Your list is extensive, and I did not see it, before I started my own research on it, and why I haven't returned to this thread, until I had a better handle on it!

And boy in boy oh boy, was I WRONG!

Wendy Lewis Rittenhouse, his mom, is owed a HUGE APOLOGY from me!!!!

I had participated in a thread by Strolling Bones a few weeks ago, and believed from that thread that his mom drove him in to the city....no one objected to that part of the story from the right wing or left wing, so it didn't set off my 'bullcrap' alarm, which leads me to Google something to research.

It's not that I heard she drove him there in the MSM, no one mentioned it, didn't know, one way or the other, until I participated in that thread. And no one in the right wing spent time a month ago, stating that Wendy didn't drive him there either....or we would have had a bunch of threads on it, arguing about it back then.... So, I suppose that's my excuse!

Anyway, not only did she not drive him there, she did what a good mom would do....she had her son, turn himself in when he got home and explained what happened to him!

So, with this happening...and being so caught off guard with this untruth that I thought was truth, my lips are sealed on this topic until I better educate myself....and be less of a fool!

But one last thing, I was smart enough to agree with the jury decision and mentioning it was because they had all the evidence, and I didnt, so I had to trust in their judgement!

We all make mistakes and I certainly do! Just yesterday, I posted an article from Science that was released about the South African variant. The article indicated the name would be Nu but was soon after labeled Omnicron by WHO. So, even when using a legitimate source such as Science and you think you have it right, things can change on a dime! Lol It makes me think I should wait a day after some of these journal articles are released to make sure there’s not going be another WHO revision. Thanks for your detailed reply!

Yes, I agree that the jury did a good job and maybe the public will learn more from one who writes a book about it. I for one would be interested to read it.