this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
1397 points (97.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
9997 readers
215 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?"
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.)
I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before.
To protest, obviously. Same as the other side.
Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him.
(See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.)
I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.)
He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives).
You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection?
Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved.
"he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense.
If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...."
I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches.
As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine.
He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it.
His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital.
And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"?
And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law.
I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so.
Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home.
The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up.
Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset.
I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help?
If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with.
Because you think they are going to shoot someone else.
I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land.
I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent.
The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%.
About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it.
You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further.
It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding.