927
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Kyle Rittenhouse abruptly departed the stage during an appearance at the University of Memphis on Wednesday, after he was confronted about comments made by Turning Point USA founder and president Charlie Kirk.

Rittenhouse was invited by the college's Turning Point USA chapter to speak at the campus. However, the event was met with backlash from a number of students who objected to Rittenhouse's presence.

The 21-year-old gained notoriety in August 2020 when, at the age of 17, he shot and killed two men—Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, as well as injuring 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz—at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

He said the three shootings, carried out with a semi-automatic AR-15-style firearm, were in self-defense. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest where the shootings took place was held after Jacob Blake, a Black man, was left paralyzed from the waist down after he was shot by a white police officer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

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).

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

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

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

It's literally his job - he's a paid spokesperson on a speaking tour.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Yes, that doesn't change what I said

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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?

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I try to understand everyone's situation and actions

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

from straightforward situations or answering simple questions.

Do you mean baseless assumptions?

This has strong neo-Nazi-style "just asking questions" energy. If you're capable of drawing conclusions, own them.

This is your reaction to me saying it's not surprising that a young adult is awkward and doesn't handle unexpected confrontation well.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Edit: Most of this is way off topic in response to an entirely different dipshit.


Do you mean baseless assumptions?

~~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.~~

This is your reaction to me saying it's not surprising that a young adult is awkward and doesn't handle unexpected confrontation well.

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?~~

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Um I think you're writing the wrong argument, this is about Rittenhouse

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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'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

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

I empathize with people. (...) 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.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I will empathize with everyone. It's not an optional thing for me.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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?

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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,

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.

If we take him at his word, he's done no research into the media company that hired him

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".

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It has been several years, and he did cry a lot when it happened

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.

I'm not sure remorse is necessary if it was in self-defense.

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'm also not sure what other opportunities he has.

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.

Nobody tries to find problems with the hand that feeds them.

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.

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".

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.

this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
927 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
1138 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS