@RAVEN here's your other requested "left" opinion

[Levon]

DISCLAIMER:

All I'm doing here is answering a question from one other poster. I don't intend to argue with anya other bastards about this, life is too fkn short. I iwon't be replying to anyone but @RAVEN.

I reserve the right to neg or otherwise point and laugh at anything else that gets posted here.

I am trying to understand the left's point of view here ..They think it's okay to burn a city down.. loot and kill.. But when the average American citizen tries to prevent and protect.. they are somehow the bad guy? Am I missing something? Please help me to understand this :/ Are they saying I don't have a right to defend property.. life? That they can just walk in and do what they want? @Admin. @Lily @Blurt @Levon

Sorry in advance for the complexity of my answer.

"the left" is not a unitary body and people on the left don't speak with a single voice on very many things. Since you perceive me as Left, understand that I speak only for myself and some of my thoughts are more "left" than others. I see than @Lily and @Blurt have answered you directly, but I doubt @Admin. will do that since he operates in much the same style as a long-ago poster on the Vapor Cindyboard whose name now escapes me since he was a d00L and never posted a word of text, only images and memes.

Also, since you present yourself as being new at internet politics, may I say first that the point now at the actual center of US politics is several big notches to the right of what was the center when I was in diapers. I won't go into detail here, but no president in your lifetime has been the slightest bit Left, regardless of how the neofascists and anarchists and frustrated libertarians of the Hard Right may label them.

On any issue there's NEVER EVER gonna be a legit way to divide the country into just two sides, although the HR has devised many ways to try and sell the idea. Please don't buy it.

Okay, now as to this case. As you may know, I'm a "gun guy" and have been since I was a kid. I've always been hardcore TRAINED as well. I'm also a CCW licensee.

So I know that under common law and all the case law that I know of, while everyone has a general right to use deadly force in self defense, that right is qualified in several ways that vary among states. In ZERO states that I know of does this right extend to using deadly force to protect PROPERTY, and especially not the property of OTHERS. That is the duty of sworn LEOs or in extreme cases, the military...but not vigilantes.

Even with regard to self defense, it is in most states considered a last resort unless one is in one's home (castle doctrine) or has no avenue of retreat from a situation when not at home. Some states now have "stand yer ground" laws to get around that but not many. A license to carry ain't a license to be a LEO.

As to Kylie, I'm gonna take a generous view and say for the sake of argument that it's possible he's a legit dual resident of 2 states so it's okay for him to have a long gun in WI and that no laws were broken such as "straw buyer." I'm stipuating to that just to simplify the matter a little. I'm also gonna ignore the question of whether one or both of his parents may be criminally negligent for permitting his actions since he is after all a minor child.

As to riots, I'm against riots and believe controlling them is the duty of cops (and the state cops if the mayor asks them to) (and maybe the military if the governor asks for that) One of the reasons the Portland riots got so crazy was because Trump illegally and unconstitutionally intervened by sending in troops when he was specifically asked NOT to, and his MAGA congress sat on its hands instead of impeaching him THEN.

Controlling riots is tricky and requires a lot more than some Lone Ranger in dimestore cammies parading around provoking the peace (which used to be a ticket for a free ride downtown in a patrol car.)

I also believe that even though I deplore the policy of giving cops a shit ton of military gear but not training them how to use it. I emphasize that this is a bipartisan thing that was shoved down the government's throat by the military industrial complex so the Pentagon could buy NEW hardware, and no administration of either color has been able to say no.

I have no idea why the cops in Kenosha weren't doing their job very well and controlling that riot, I didn't follow it very closely, but I believe that municipalities tend to have exactly the kind of policing they want, good or bad. Don't know, can't afford to care. I don't have to live in that town or state, and I don't. Come to think of it, I don't think anyone at BF does either, despite all the screaming and carrying on.

It's my belief, and a lot of the country has historically agreed, that if you choose to participate in a riot or mob action your choice can be interpreted in one of two ways: either you are committing a crime and thus probably voluntarily surrendering the right to claim self defense, or else you are choosing to be a voluntary combatant in a civil strife and you get what you get. In some cases in history that's been known to include .30 cal bullets stitched across yer torso from a military belt fed light machine gun. Tough shit for you.

I hope this answers your questions.

I don't give a fuck what happens to Kylie, don't care how free he thinks he is or how much money he makes. There probably ain't many here who know what it's like to take another human life up close and personal, and wake up sweating at 3 AM on random nights dreaming of their face as they died, but I do know, and not from reading books or playing video games. Karma never goes away, and he's earned some. Good luck to him.

 

[Levon]

I also don't like the way big media is allowed to try cases on TV before and during actual trials. It used to be kept within strict limits to allow for actual due process as the constitution envisions due process.

And in this particular case I think the prosecutor did a shitty job on purpose, almost a pro forma trial, and his job wasn't to get a conviction but only to appease the voters who wanted someone to take a rap for the mess their town ended up with. I've seen that done in other places, quite often.

 

[Admin.]

I also don't like the way big media is allowed to try cases on TV before and during actual trials. It used to be kept within strict limits to allow for actual due process as the constitution envisions due process.

And in this particular case I think the prosecutor did a shitty job on purpose, almost a pro forma trial, and his job wasn't to get a conviction but only to appease the voters who wanted someone to take a rap for the mess their town ended up with. I've seen that done in other places, quite often.

Agreed, seemed to have all the ingredients of a show trial.

 

[RAVEN]

DISCLAIMER:

All I'm doing here is answering a question from one other poster. I don't intend to argue with anya other bastards about this, life is too fkn short. I iwon't be replying to anyone but @RAVEN.

I reserve the right to neg or otherwise point and laugh at anything else that gets posted here.

I am trying to understand the left's point of view here ..They think it's okay to burn a city down.. loot and kill.. But when the average American citizen tries to prevent and protect.. they are somehow the bad guy? Am I missing something? Please help me to understand this :/ Are they saying I don't have a right to defend property.. life? That they can just walk in and do what they want? @Admin. @Lily @Blurt @Levon

Sorry in advance for the complexity of my answer.

"the left" is not a unitary body and people on the left don't speak with a single voice on very many things. Since you perceive me as Left, understand that I speak only for myself and some of my thoughts are more "left" than others. I see than @Lily and @Blurt have answered you directly, but I doubt @Admin. will do that since he operates in much the same style as a long-ago poster on the Vapor Cindyboard whose name now escapes me since he was a d00L and never posted a word of text, only images and memes.

Also, since you present yourself as being new at internet politics, may I say first that the point now at the actual center of US politics is several big notches to the right of what was the center when I was in diapers. I won't go into detail here, but no president in your lifetime has been the slightest bit Left, regardless of how the neofascists and anarchists and frustrated libertarians of the Hard Right may label them.

On any issue there's NEVER EVER gonna be a legit way to divide the country into just two sides, although the HR has devised many ways to try and sell the idea. Please don't buy it.

Okay, now as to this case. As you may know, I'm a "gun guy" and have been since I was a kid. I've always been hardcore TRAINED as well. I'm also a CCW licensee.

So I know that under common law and all the case law that I know of, while everyone has a general right to use deadly force in self defense, that right is qualified in several ways that vary among states. In ZERO states that I know of does this right extend to using deadly force to protect PROPERTY, and especially not the property of OTHERS. That is the duty of sworn LEOs or in extreme cases, the military...but not vigilantes.

Even with regard to self defense, it is in most states considered a last resort unless one is in one's home (castle doctrine) or has no avenue of retreat from a situation when not at home. Some states now have "stand yer ground" laws to get around that but not many. A license to carry ain't a license to be a LEO.

As to Kylie, I'm gonna take a generous view and say for the sake of argument that it's possible he's a legit dual resident of 2 states so it's okay for him to have a long gun in WI and that no laws were broken such as "straw buyer." I'm stipuating to that just to simplify the matter a little. I'm also gonna ignore the question of whether one or both of his parents may be criminally negligent for permitting his actions since he is after all a minor child.

As to riots, I'm against riots and believe controlling them is the duty of cops (and the state cops if the mayor asks them to) (and maybe the military if the governor asks for that) One of the reasons the Portland riots got so crazy was because Trump illegally and unconstitutionally intervened by sending in troops when he was specifically asked NOT to, and his MAGA congress sat on its hands instead of impeaching him THEN.

Controlling riots is tricky and requires a lot more than some Lone Ranger in dimestore cammies parading around provoking the peace (which used to be a ticket for a free ride downtown in a patrol car.)

I also believe that even though I deplore the policy of giving cops a shit ton of military gear but not training them how to use it. I emphasize that this is a bipartisan thing that was shoved down the government's throat by the military industrial complex so the Pentagon could buy NEW hardware, and no administration of either color has been able to say no.

I have no idea why the cops in Kenosha weren't doing their job very well and controlling that riot, I didn't follow it very closely, but I believe that municipalities tend to have exactly the kind of policing they want, good or bad. Don't know, can't afford to care. I don't have to live in that town or state, and I don't. Come to think of it, I don't think anyone at BF does either, despite all the screaming and carrying on.

It's my belief, and a lot of the country has historically agreed, that if you choose to participate in a riot or mob action your choice can be interpreted in one of two ways: either you are committing a crime and thus probably voluntarily surrendering the right to claim self defense, or else you are choosing to be a voluntary combatant in a civil strife and you get what you get. In some cases in history that's been known to include .30 cal bullets stitched across yer torso from a military belt fed light machine gun. Tough shit for you.

I hope this answers your questions.

I don't give a fuck what happens to Kylie, don't care how free he thinks he is or how much money he makes. There probably ain't many here who know what it's like to take another human life up close and personal, and wake up sweating at 3 AM on random nights dreaming of their face as they died, but I do know, and not from reading books or playing video games. Karma never goes away, and he's earned some. Good luck to him.

Thanks, Levon.. I'm not going to argue your opinion.. but I truly appreciate the well thought out response <3

 

[LotusBud]

Does BF allow posters to post threads and then claim that only one other person can post in that thread?

 

[Lily]

Does BF allow posters to post threads and then claim that only one other person can post in that thread?

Have you considered writing a strongly worded PM to management?

 

[LotusBud]

Does BF allow posters to post threads and then claim that only one other person can post in that thread?

Have you considered writing a strongly worded PM to management?

Nah.

 

[Admin.]

I also don't like the way big media is allowed to try cases on TV before and during actual trials. It used to be kept within strict limits to allow for actual due process as the constitution envisions due process.

And in this particular case I think the prosecutor did a shitty job on purpose, almost a pro forma trial, and his job wasn't to get a conviction but only to appease the voters who wanted someone to take a rap for the mess their town ended up with. I've seen that done in other places, quite often.

Agreed, seemed to have all the ingredients of a show trial.

This is Dedicated to the one I live, Kyle

It's the eye of the tiger
It's the thrill of the fight
Rising up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor
Stalks his prey in the night
And he's watching us all with the eye of the tiger

 

[Blurt]

Well. Seeing as this seems to be a legit thread with the troll volume button turned down to zero, I guess I may as well try my hand at answering Raven's question, too.

First, a disclaimer of my own: I'm not an American. Any comment I make on American culture or society is thus necessarily from an outsider's perspective. Although I may claim affinity (or lack thereof) for some aspects of life in the United States of America, and although I consider myself a reasonably well informed observer of matters discussed in the American public square, I have zero inside knowledge about what it feels like to be an American.

This being said, I agree completely with Levon here about the need to eschew facile generalizations. I find that people who reduce their fellow citizens to mere "liberals" or "conservatives" (or worse, to "libtards" or "contards") are just being intellectually lazy or, if they do so intentionally, disingenuous. What any given individual believes or stands for or is even willing to fight or die for is a much more complex affair than their choosing what flag to plant on their front lawn would suggest.

In that light, I categorically refuse to allow myself to be pigeonholed by lazy thinkers. Blue, red, white, black, or, indeed, a rainbow spread, are just colours to me. They can never stand for the totality of who I am, nor for the depth and breadth of my worldview(s). Despite my occasional trolling of some politically hardcore members here (regardless of where they are on the political spectrum), and despite the fact these same members will no doubt scoff at the claim, I extend everyone the same courtesy... even to those who, like, say, Aryan or Lokmar, have but a single arrow in their quiver. At the end of all our trolling, we all contain multitudes. Of this, I'm well aware.

Raven, you were asking earlier today whether everybody had forgotten that "we're all Americans." In order to be able to participate in this conversation, I'll go one step further and ask, "has everybody forgotten that we're all human beings?" The shape of our dreams, the colour of our hopes, the taste of our fears and insecurities--as human beings--is not all that different from one another's. And it's on this fact, above all others, that I built the hill upon which I choose to stand. Again, painting "enemies" with a broad brush is a troll's tactic and it's as old as the very hills themselves. I'm not that lazy and my time is better spent in more edifying pursuits.

With this out of the way, now to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Throughout this whole trial, I haven't said much (well, much that wasn't intended as snarky trolling on my part) but trust me when I say that I've read everything that everyone here had to say on the matter, from Oerdin's Ngo Twitter spam to Dove's hysterical rants to Lily's and Lotus's antagonist views, from Lokmar's and Biggie's death fetishism to Joe's froot-loopy pronouncements. And you know what, Raven? None of it swayed me. None of it swayed me, for one reason and one reason only: it's not up to any of these fine folks, nor up to you or to me, to deliver justice in this case, but up to a jury of Rittenhouse's peers in a duly appointed court of law. One of the most enduringly beautiful aspects of life in the U.S. (and here in Canada, for that matter) is that citizens cannot be randomly imprisoned at the whim of a tyrant or autocrat , as is too often the case in many countries around the world. I have a tremendous respect for this process, however flawed it may be (or appear to be) in the execution.

I grew up in a part of the world where high profile trials such as this one are not open to the general public, precisely because the proceedings need to be free of the taint of public opinion. I would have a strong opinion on the Rittenhouse affair if a) I had been standing next to him on that night in Kenosha, or b) I'd been selected for jury duty in the case. As neither of these conditions hold true, and as my knowledge of both the Constitutional amendments and the state laws pertaining to the possession and use of firearms is sorely deficient, I have little to say. As Wittgenstein once wrote in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In the end, Raven, all I can offer, based, again, on where I chose to stand on that hill I mentioned above, are "feelz." And any observer's feelz don't (and shouldn't) matter where due process is concerned. The jury has spoken. Kyle Rittenhouse has been found Not Guilty on all charges. Legally, we've come to the end of that particular road. Will there be more to come? Civil suits? Riots? Civil War, even? I hope not. But, with all those gunz 'n' feelz floating about, you can never tell, can you?

Hope this helps clarify my take on things, Raven.

 

[Lily]

Well. Seeing as this seems to be a legit thread with the troll volume button turned down to zero, I guess I may as well try my hand at answering Raven's question, too.

First, a disclaimer of my own: I'm not an American. Any comment I make on American culture or society is thus necessarily from an outsider's perspective. Although I may claim affinity (or lack thereof) for some aspects of life in the United States of America, and although I consider myself a reasonably well informed observer of matters discussed in the American public square, I have zero inside knowledge about what it feels like to be an American.

This being said, I agree completely with Levon here about the need to eschew facile generalizations. I find that people who reduce their fellow citizens to mere "liberals" or "conservatives" (or worse, to "libtards" or "contards") are just being intellectually lazy or, if they do so intentionally, disingenuous. What any given individual believes or stands for or is even willing to fight or die for is a much more complex affair than their choosing what flag to plant on their front lawn would suggest.

In that light, I categorically refuse to allow myself to be pigeonholed by lazy thinkers. Blue, red, white, black, or, indeed, a rainbow spread, are just colours to me. They can never stand for the totality of who I am, nor for the depth and breadth of my worldview(s). Despite my occasional trolling of some politically hardcore members here (regardless of where they are on the political spectrum), and despite the fact these same members will no doubt scoff at the claim, I extend everyone the same courtesy... even to those who, like, say, Aryan or Lokmar, have but a single arrow in their quiver. At the end of all our trolling, we all contain multitudes. Of this, I'm well aware.

Raven, you were asking earlier today whether everybody had forgotten that "we're all Americans." In order to be able to participate in this conversation, I'll go one step further and ask, "has everybody forgotten that we're all human beings?" The shape of our dreams, the colour of our hopes, the taste of our fears and insecurities--as human beings--is not all that different from one another's. And it's on this fact, above all others, that I built the hill upon which I choose to stand. Again, painting "enemies" with a broad brush is a troll's tactic and it's as old as the very hills themselves. I'm not that lazy and my time is better spent in more edifying pursuits.

With this out of the way, now to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Throughout this whole trial, I haven't said much (well, much that wasn't intended as snarky trolling on my part) but trust me when I say that I've read everything that everyone here had to say on the matter, from Oerdin's Ngo Twitter spam to Dove's hysterical rants to Lily's and Lotus's antagonist views, from Lokmar's and Biggie's death fetishism to Joe's froot-loopy pronouncements. And you know what, Raven? None of it swayed me. None of it swayed me, for one reason and one reason only: it's not up to any of these fine folks, nor up to you or to me, to deliver justice in this case, but up to a jury of Rittenhouse's peers in a duly appointed court of law. One of the most enduringly beautiful aspects of life in the U.S. (and here in Canada, for that matter) is that citizens cannot be randomly imprisoned at the whim of a tyrant or autocrat , as is too often the case in many countries around the world. I have a tremendous respect for this process, however flawed it may be (or appear to be) in the execution.

I grew up in a part of the world where high profile trials such as this one are not open to the general public, precisely because the proceedings need to be free of the taint of public opinion. I would have a strong opinion on the Rittenhouse affair if a) I had been standing next to him on that night in Kenosha, or b) I'd been selected for jury duty in the case. As neither of these conditions hold true, and as my knowledge of both the Constitutional amendments and the state laws pertaining to the possession and use of firearms is sorely deficient, I have little to say. As Wittgenstein once wrote in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In the end, Raven, all I can offer, based, again, on where I chose to stand on that hill I mentioned above, are "feelz." And any observer's feelz don't (and shouldn't) matter where due process is concerned. The jury has spoken. Kyle Rittenhouse has been found Not Guilty on all charges. Legally, we've come to the end of that particular road. Will there be more to come? Civil suits? Riots? Civil War, even? I hope not. But, with all those gunz 'n' feelz floating about, you can never tell, can you?

Hope this helps clarify my take on things, Raven.

The problem is that justice is often not delivered in the courts either.

 

[Breakfall]

Well. Seeing as this seems to be a legit thread with the troll volume button turned down to zero, I guess I may as well try my hand at answering Raven's question, too.

First, a disclaimer of my own: I'm not an American. Any comment I make on American culture or society is thus necessarily from an outsider's perspective. Although I may claim affinity (or lack thereof) for some aspects of life in the United States of America, and although I consider myself a reasonably well informed observer of matters discussed in the American public square, I have zero inside knowledge about what it feels like to be an American.

This being said, I agree completely with Levon here about the need to eschew facile generalizations. I find that people who reduce their fellow citizens to mere "liberals" or "conservatives" (or worse, to "libtards" or "contards") are just being intellectually lazy or, if they do so intentionally, disingenuous. What any given individual believes or stands for or is even willing to fight or die for is a much more complex affair than their choosing what flag to plant on their front lawn would suggest.

In that light, I categorically refuse to allow myself to be pigeonholed by lazy thinkers. Blue, red, white, black, or, indeed, a rainbow spread, are just colours to me. They can never stand for the totality of who I am, nor for the depth and breadth of my worldview(s). Despite my occasional trolling of some politically hardcore members here (regardless of where they are on the political spectrum), and despite the fact these same members will no doubt scoff at the claim, I extend everyone the same courtesy... even to those who, like, say, Aryan or Lokmar, have but a single arrow in their quiver. At the end of all our trolling, we all contain multitudes. Of this, I'm well aware.

Raven, you were asking earlier today whether everybody had forgotten that "we're all Americans." In order to be able to participate in this conversation, I'll go one step further and ask, "has everybody forgotten that we're all human beings?" The shape of our dreams, the colour of our hopes, the taste of our fears and insecurities--as human beings--is not all that different from one another's. And it's on this fact, above all others, that I built the hill upon which I choose to stand. Again, painting "enemies" with a broad brush is a troll's tactic and it's as old as the very hills themselves. I'm not that lazy and my time is better spent in more edifying pursuits.

With this out of the way, now to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Throughout this whole trial, I haven't said much (well, much that wasn't intended as snarky trolling on my part) but trust me when I say that I've read everything that everyone here had to say on the matter, from Oerdin's Ngo Twitter spam to Dove's hysterical rants to Lily's and Lotus's antagonist views, from Lokmar's and Biggie's death fetishism to Joe's froot-loopy pronouncements. And you know what, Raven? None of it swayed me. None of it swayed me, for one reason and one reason only: it's not up to any of these fine folks, nor up to you or to me, to deliver justice in this case, but up to a jury of Rittenhouse's peers in a duly appointed court of law. One of the most enduringly beautiful aspects of life in the U.S. (and here in Canada, for that matter) is that citizens cannot be randomly imprisoned at the whim of a tyrant or autocrat , as is too often the case in many countries around the world. I have a tremendous respect for this process, however flawed it may be (or appear to be) in the execution.

I grew up in a part of the world where high profile trials such as this one are not open to the general public, precisely because the proceedings need to be free of the taint of public opinion. I would have a strong opinion on the Rittenhouse affair if a) I had been standing next to him on that night in Kenosha, or b) I'd been selected for jury duty in the case. As neither of these conditions hold true, and as my knowledge of both the Constitutional amendments and the state laws pertaining to the possession and use of firearms is sorely deficient, I have little to say. As Wittgenstein once wrote in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In the end, Raven, all I can offer, based, again, on where I chose to stand on that hill I mentioned above, are "feelz." And any observer's feelz don't (and shouldn't) matter where due process is concerned. The jury has spoken. Kyle Rittenhouse has been found Not Guilty on all charges. Legally, we've come to the end of that particular road. Will there be more to come? Civil suits? Riots? Civil War, even? I hope not. But, with all those gunz 'n' feelz floating about, you can never tell, can you?

Hope this helps clarify my take on things, Raven.

Fucking hell...you talk a lot you gender bending fuckwod!

 

[Biggie Smiles]

It's my belief, and a lot of the country has historically agreed, that if you choose to participate in a riot or mob action your choice can be interpreted in one of two ways: either you are committing a crime and thus probably voluntarily surrendering the right to claim self defense, or else you are choosing to be a voluntary combatant in a civil strife and you get what you get. In some cases in history that's been known to include .30 cal bullets stitched across yer torso from a military belt fed light machine gun. Tough shit for you.

so basically both Kyle and his aggressors were mutual combatants and like the kid in Chicago who knifed a mutual combatant to death on his driveway Kyle should not have been charged in the first place

unless of course, there's some kind of double standard with you liberal shit stains

thanks for trying tho

 

[Blurt]

The problem is that justice is often not delivered in the courts either.

I hear you, Lil.

But, when you say "justice," do you mean "that thing the legal system delivers" or "that thing you feel (based on X, Y, Z) the legal system should deliver"?

The thing about legal contests is that, inevitably, and by the very structure of things, there will be winners and there will be losers. I realize passions run higher the higher the stakes but due process is a fairly cut and dried affair.

The best recourse for anyone who thinks any given law itself is unjust (again, for reasons X, Y, and Z) is to petition lawmakers directly. As to the justice system being played by wily rhetoricians, well, that's a tradition that dates back to Plato's time when the Sophists were as much detested then as lawyers are today. What can you expect from any process that involves hiring smart mouths who excel at making the lesser thing appear the greater and the greater thing the lesser?

 

[Breakfall]

The problem is that justice is often not delivered in the courts either.

I hear you, Lil.

But, when you say "justice," do you mean "that thing the legal system delivers" or "that thing you feel (based on X, Y, Z) the legal system should deliver"?

The thing about legal contests is that, inevitably, and by the very structure of things, there will be winners and there will be losers. I realize passions run higher the higher the stakes but due process is a fairly cut and dried affair.

The best recourse for anyone who thinks any given law itself is unjust (again, for reasons X, Y, and Z) is to petition lawmakers directly. As to the justice system being played by wily rhetoricians, well, that's a tradition that dates back to Plato's time when the Sophists were as much detested then as lawyers are today. What can you expect from any process that involves hiring smart mouths who excel at making the lesser thing appear the greater and the greater thing the lesser?

You talk the biggest fucking twoddle around. “Petition lawmakers directly”...fuck off turkey!

 

[Blurt]

Fucking hell...you talk a lot you gender bending fuckwod!

On a discussion board, no less!

Sue me, simp!

 

[RAVEN]

Well. Seeing as this seems to be a legit thread with the troll volume button turned down to zero, I guess I may as well try my hand at answering Raven's question, too.

First, a disclaimer of my own: I'm not an American. Any comment I make on American culture or society is thus necessarily from an outsider's perspective. Although I may claim affinity (or lack thereof) for some aspects of life in the United States of America, and although I consider myself a reasonably well informed observer of matters discussed in the American public square, I have zero inside knowledge about what it feels like to be an American.

This being said, I agree completely with Levon here about the need to eschew facile generalizations. I find that people who reduce their fellow citizens to mere "liberals" or "conservatives" (or worse, to "libtards" or "contards") are just being intellectually lazy or, if they do so intentionally, disingenuous. What any given individual believes or stands for or is even willing to fight or die for is a much more complex affair than their choosing what flag to plant on their front lawn would suggest.

In that light, I categorically refuse to allow myself to be pigeonholed by lazy thinkers. Blue, red, white, black, or, indeed, a rainbow spread, are just colours to me. They can never stand for the totality of who I am, nor for the depth and breadth of my worldview(s). Despite my occasional trolling of some politically hardcore members here (regardless of where they are on the political spectrum), and despite the fact these same members will no doubt scoff at the claim, I extend everyone the same courtesy... even to those who, like, say, Aryan or Lokmar, have but a single arrow in their quiver. At the end of all our trolling, we all contain multitudes. Of this, I'm well aware.

Raven, you were asking earlier today whether everybody had forgotten that "we're all Americans." In order to be able to participate in this conversation, I'll go one step further and ask, "has everybody forgotten that we're all human beings?" The shape of our dreams, the colour of our hopes, the taste of our fears and insecurities--as human beings--is not all that different from one another's. And it's on this fact, above all others, that I built the hill upon which I choose to stand. Again, painting "enemies" with a broad brush is a troll's tactic and it's as old as the very hills themselves. I'm not that lazy and my time is better spent in more edifying pursuits.

With this out of the way, now to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Throughout this whole trial, I haven't said much (well, much that wasn't intended as snarky trolling on my part) but trust me when I say that I've read everything that everyone here had to say on the matter, from Oerdin's Ngo Twitter spam to Dove's hysterical rants to Lily's and Lotus's antagonist views, from Lokmar's and Biggie's death fetishism to Joe's froot-loopy pronouncements. And you know what, Raven? None of it swayed me. None of it swayed me, for one reason and one reason only: it's not up to any of these fine folks, nor up to you or to me, to deliver justice in this case, but up to a jury of Rittenhouse's peers in a duly appointed court of law. One of the most enduringly beautiful aspects of life in the U.S. (and here in Canada, for that matter) is that citizens cannot be randomly imprisoned at the whim of a tyrant or autocrat , as is too often the case in many countries around the world. I have a tremendous respect for this process, however flawed it may be (or appear to be) in the execution.

I grew up in a part of the world where high profile trials such as this one are not open to the general public, precisely because the proceedings need to be free of the taint of public opinion. I would have a strong opinion on the Rittenhouse affair if a) I had been standing next to him on that night in Kenosha, or b) I'd been selected for jury duty in the case. As neither of these conditions hold true, and as my knowledge of both the Constitutional amendments and the state laws pertaining to the possession and use of firearms is sorely deficient, I have little to say. As Wittgenstein once wrote in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In the end, Raven, all I can offer, based, again, on where I chose to stand on that hill I mentioned above, are "feelz." And any observer's feelz don't (and shouldn't) matter where due process is concerned. The jury has spoken. Kyle Rittenhouse has been found Not Guilty on all charges. Legally, we've come to the end of that particular road. Will there be more to come? Civil suits? Riots? Civil War, even? I hope not. But, with all those gunz 'n' feelz floating about, you can never tell, can you?

Hope this helps clarify my take on things, Raven.

Thank you, Blurt.. We truly do need to come together as a nation. If we don't find some common ground..what is the alternative? To fight one another? I don't ever want to be put in that situation to fight a fellow American... Both sides need to change and give a little. I DON'T think this should have been a political case.. but like everything else now..including Covid.. It has to be right or left. Makes it hard for a person like myself to fit into a category...lol... Kind of stuck in the middle of 2 battling extreme parties :(.. sigh.. Anyway...I'm hoping we can move on and look ahead to brighter days :)

 

[Biggie Smiles]

how do you come together with people who are willing to parrot total lies just to advance an agenda which is actually in direct contrast to their own interests?

 

[Breakfall]

Fucking hell...you talk a lot you gender bending fuckwod!

On a discussion board, no less!

Sue me, simp!

I feel the need to use hand sanitizer when you’re around.

 

[Blurt]

I feel the need to use hand sanitizer when you’re around.

Well, I'm sure you'll be able to do so if you can ever let go of your dick.

 

[RAVEN]

@Levon is going to be pissed at you all for fighting in his thread HAHAHA...

 

[Blurt]

Who's fighting, though?

Me and Breaksie-poo? That's just light banter.

The man loves pulling on my pigtails.

 

[Breakfall]

Who's fighting, though?

Me and Breaksie-poo? That's just light banter.

The man loves pulling on my pigtails.

Well...you write some good shit...sometimes, I’ll give you that! Lol

 

[RAVEN]

I remember when Blurt was Cisco Cat .. HAHAHA.. I would lmao at his post.. What a character lol

 

[Blurt]

You mean Cisco Gene?

Yep! I follow that!

 

[DDT]

I grew up in a part of the world where high profile trials such as this one are not open to the general public, precisely because the proceedings need to be free of the taint of public opinion.

Ya, our system is a little different. Cameras generally not permitted in the court room, and jurors cannot discuss the case with anyone, ever, even after the trial is over.

 

[Jeannie]

lmao

ravens first champion thread

 

[Jeannie]

Does BF allow posters to post threads and then claim that only one other person can post in that thread?

 

[Jeannie]

Does BF allow posters to post threads and then claim that only one other person can post in that thread?

Have you considered writing a strongly worded PM to management?

Nah.

enojoying life in portugal as usual, i see

 

[Adam Hitler]

Gawd, I'd forgotten how much of a sanctimonious twat Princess Peaches is.

I had to laugh at his remark about how it was Trump's fault for the Portland riots getting out of hand.... I guess the fact that the city is full of worthless far left SJW's and run by an inept, Democrat mayor has no relevance.

 

[Dove]

It's my belief, and a lot of the country has historically agreed, that if you choose to participate in a riot or mob action your choice can be interpreted in one of two ways: either you are committing a crime and thus probably voluntarily surrendering the right to claim self defense, or else you are choosing to be a voluntary combatant in a civil strife and you get what you get. In some cases in history that's been known to include .30 cal bullets stitched across yer torso from a military belt fed light machine gun. Tough shit for you.

so basically both Kyle and his aggressors were mutual combatants and like the kid in Chicago who knifed a mutual combatant to death on his driveway Kyle should not have been charged in the first place

unless of course, there's some kind of double standard with you liberal shit stains

thanks for trying tho

I like how they set themselves up when they give deeply bias non answers.

But at least they know to tell people who challange their points not to bother....while also letting the readers know the ways they are superior.

Not sure what gives these people the authority to deem others "lazy thinkers" but they sure do think they have it.

Which is insanely ironic from people who refuse civil discourse with anyone who thinks differently and opts for mindless labels intended to degrade the intelligence and validity of any opposition.

They dont want to "condescend" to address anything from lazy thinkers, trolls.....and we are just partisans unlike them who will let us know why they see themselves as not bias as they harshly judge everyone who doesnt arrive at their conclusion is bias. While repeating common hyper partisan points calling everything they dont like "right wing" and calling people "neofascists".

Their points are valid and ours are not, because we are neo fascist trolls who unlike them....didnt arrive genuinely into our stances but rather jumped a partisan bandwagon with lazy thinking... so when they refuse to have meaningful and respectful discussions its OUR fault....not theirs. They cant be bothered with such nonsense. The only way they would see someone as a genuinely thinking person up to their standards would be if the person thought like them. Their thought is the correct and enlightened thought... the only correct and enlightened thought.

The irony really is impressive. Every single one of us has tried to understand their thinking. But our crimes of questioning it, bringing up crucial points they tend to leave out, and trying to press beyond the immediate into the long term makes us all these bad, dumb, unthinking trolls.

I mean I was called a disgusting pig the last time I tried just because I posted a Trump policy I supported that would have benefitted poor minorities. If you support anything Trump does....yeah forget it. They have their very narrow framework and they really believe they are intelligent and open minded people. All this elitest thinking makes me glad to be who I am.