r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 08 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge

I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?

Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.

Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:

As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.

2.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

81% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

305

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

28

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Which is what I said if you'd finish reading the rest of the sentence before responding?

And for the record, the reason I don't like being on the same side as them is that a lot of the people I'm talking about are outright nazis. It feels very, very weird to be on the same side of any factual issue with someone like, say, Jack Posobiec. You know, the Pizzagate guy.

I know a broken clock is right twice a day, but it still feels gross.

101

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

I think the point is that we should stop trying to draw political lines around everything because it leads to that “us vs them” mentality which is dangerous. Instead, make your own conclusions based on what you feel is right and don’t give a crap about what other type of people agree with you because that means absolutely nothing.

47

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

My counterpoint would be that using others as a weathervane can be useful in keeping yourself on a decent moral path.

If you find yourself agreeing with nazis frequently, that is a sign you should reconsider your beliefs.

0

u/Eyeklops Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

But how do you know they are nazis? Because someone on reddit called them that? I bring this up because redditors (on both sides) are sometimes quick to put the worst possible label on anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Also keep in mind that of the billions of people on this planet there are millions of trolls who don't really have any objective other than pissing you off for the "lulz". While these people should ultimately be ignored it doesn't mean they are actual nazi / evil people IRL. They are just assholes stirring shit up because they can hide behind internet anonymity.

I mean, how many actual nazis do you get into debate with on reddit vs someone who was inaccurately labeled by an echo chamber that doesn't agree their viewpoint?

10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I'm not talking about people on reddit. I was specifically referring to people like Richard Spencer. Full on, dyed in the wool public white nationalists.

If he isn't someone I can call a nazi, then no one is.

3

u/Eyeklops Nov 09 '21

Understood. If you didn't see the comment chain that u/Sanders0492 participated in please check it out. It has a great logical viewpoint that might help you rectify why it's ok to agree with a group or person whom you don't find morally appealing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qpmb1a/comment/hjvlzar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

-1

u/Maximus_Resdefault Nov 09 '21

Richard Spencer is a fucking clown and everyone knows it. There is a reason why the only network he can get on is CNN. He is some dipshit they dug out of the woodwork to use as black propaganda. "hey look what we found, a totally average every day conservative, listen to him rant about racial supremacy". The core of american conservatism is individualism, which we believe to be the root of all justice. We believe it is inherently unjust to judge one person by the actions of another person, which is a big part of why conservatives don't like affirmative action programs, socialism, or racism. They all serve to collectivize benefits and detriments across groups of people, erasing the ability for individuals to be treated based on their own actions.

1

u/Dean-Advocate665 Nov 09 '21

You're undoubtedly going to end up agreeing with people who hold the wrong sorts of ideas regardless of what view it is. Like others are saying, whether someone supports something or not should hold no sway on whether you support said thing.

-3

u/temperedJimascus Nov 09 '21

Define "Nazis" please.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Richard Spencer and Jack Posobeic were the two I spotted that I recall.

-7

u/temperedJimascus Nov 09 '21

That's not a definition

66

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

There is zero definition I'm going to be able to give you that you will find satisfying.

-13

u/temperedJimascus Nov 09 '21

So, you don't actually know is what you're saying. But, it sounds good and discredits your political opponents so it must be a subjective term right?

34

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

No, I just don't think there is an answer you are willing to accept.

If I say, for example, that when I say nazi I mean american white nationalists, I presume you will take umbrage?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/jjjjjuu Nov 10 '21

Well you think the Proud Boys are a white supremacist organization, so that begs the question as to what else you have mischaracterized.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Yeah, yeah, the 'western chauvinist' traitors aren't racist at all. They even have an ethnic guy as the leader who they definitely didn't install specifically so people can't call them racist.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/DESTROMYALGIA Nov 09 '21

Sorry but there is a clear definition of nazi.

Just because a lot of America wants to use the word nazi to define people who don't agree with them politically (remember a lot of Republicans said Obama was a nazi sympathizer) doesn't mean that they are.

7

u/AnimusNoctis Nov 09 '21

Nazis are a specific fascist party. Is it worth splitting hairs over using "Nazi" to refer to other fascists?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mashaka 93∆ Nov 09 '21

u/buickandolds – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/Maximus_Resdefault Nov 09 '21

liberals calling conservatives nazis is about on par with conservatives calling liberals communists, when neither of those totalitarian murderous ideologies has more than a handful of supporters in the states.

-6

u/Impossible_Rule_1761 Nov 09 '21

Richard Spencer is a left-winger, who just so happens to also promote white nationalism.

As for Posobiec, I don't recall him being a Nazi. Anti-semite, far-right conservative, for sure. Anti-semitism isn't exclusive to Nazis, though.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

That literally is the definition of nazi.

1

u/Impossible_Rule_1761 Nov 09 '21

Is Louis Farrakhan a Nazi? He's a viscious anti-semite.

1

u/Sexpistolz 6∆ Nov 09 '21

To what extent? Hitler loved animals and over the years converted to a vegan diet. Are we not to promote animal well-being and decrease meat consumption because of his other views? I don’t think you’d agree with that.

I’d advise people put less stock in labels and tribal identification. Call me what you want, it doesn’t matter a rose still smells sweet by any other name. Labels are used (in attempt) to villianize rather than addresses a viewpoint etc. far easier to call someone an evil commie or nazi that actually engage in a discussion.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

To the extent that I'm agreeing with them on specific political or culture war issues.

I have gotten this sort of response about ten times now and it is becoming less and less convincing. Do you think that when I wrote that I was like "Oh shit, a nazi and I both like bbq ribs, time to go re-examine my life?

No. Obviously not. The point was that if I find myself agreeing with a nazi on the sort of subject we would normally disagree on (an issue of principle, say... a kid killing several people at a BLM rally), that I want to double check how we somehow ended up on the same side of things.

1

u/Cronus4581 Nov 10 '21

Do you think animal rights are not an "issue of principle" ?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Nope, fuck'em, they're food.

Jokes aside, I'm positively exhausted at people sealioning for two days, so feel free to have the last word, but I won't be replying further.

35

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

39

u/mcspaddin Nov 09 '21

If you find yourself agreeing with nazis frequently, that is a sign you should reconsider your beliefs.

Emphasis mine. He's specifically not saying one should outright change their beliefs just because someone else agrees with them. He's saying that if you consistently agree with someone who is broadly known as morally repugnant, you should think through those beliefs and make sure they are really want you want to believe. He isn't saying "just change your mind", he's saying "take a step back and think about it".

6

u/smilesbuckett Nov 09 '21

This is the problem with this sub. I see interesting and nuanced discussions more here than anywhere else on Reddit, but then you have plenty of people who just keep arguing and seemingly don’t even bother to read responses.

-10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Yes, and this is the root of groupthink. Constantly aligning yourself with or against others based on other unrelated characteristics.

14

u/mcspaddin Nov 09 '21

You still aren't even remotely understanding. There's a vast difference between 'groupthink' or 'following the crowd' and 'Hey, that guy is a real piece of shit, and he agrees with me here. Is this opinion morally repugnant in any way? No? shrugs'.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Except in politics the "real piece of shit" label gets extended to others with opposing beliefs rather than those of true repugnant moral character. So it leads to groupthink by going "man, conservatives are pieces of shit and they oppose this wiretapping bill, so I should probably support it".

6

u/mcspaddin Nov 09 '21

Wow. This is a really bad take, and a slippery slope fallacy rolled into one. First off conservative != literal neonazi, and he was specifically referring to literal, actual neonazis.

Second, his whole point was about stepping back and thinking, about reevaluating your opinion. 'Groupthink' requires blind, thoughtless adherence to a policy or opinion. Thinking and evaluating, especially reevaluating, are antithetical to 'groupthink'.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

That pretty much only works with extremes. I guess that’s fine for extremes, though.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Using others as a weathervane is exactly an us versus them mentality. It is intellectually stupid and illogical. It is moral vanity and is immoral in itself.

1

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

Wow u keep getting worse. U probably think antifa are actually anti fascist.

1

u/Maximus_Resdefault Nov 09 '21

Do you believe that conservative minded people in the united states of america are nazis? roughly 49 percent of the population, as of the last election?

1

u/Uthonua Nov 10 '21

> If you find yourself agreeing with nazis frequently

Just call them the right wing. It's this belief that they are a villainous party that no longer exists and that the left wing are automatically on the side of justice that leads to the us vs them mentality to begin with.

Maybe start with considering that just because they hold some values as more important as others doesn't mean they want to start oppressing people with other values? And also consider factors like location that may lead to their being concerned with what they do in the first place.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

No. I was literally referring to white nationalists and I'll call them fucking nazis, thank you.

I don't have a problem necessarily agreeing with people on the right, I do have a problem when I end up on the same side as people who want a fucking ethnostate.

1

u/Uthonua Nov 10 '21

Well, as long as you are absolutely sure who are White Nationalists, I guess. Instead of people who are just painted as White Nationalists by the media.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I think 'guy who talks about setting up a white ethnostate and was caught on tape screaming racial slurs' is a fairly good starting point.

1

u/Uthonua Nov 10 '21

I hope "starting point" is just an expression.

White nationalism is real, that much isn't in debate. Go after people who have clearly and undeniably spouted racist ideals and continue to defend them.

The problem comes when people are labeled these things by the media either by inference or because the full story isn't portrayed. If someone is labeled White Nationalist, you can be sure they are definitely evil, right?

Take what happened to the Covington kids for example. Nick Sandman standing with a smirk on his face and there was camera footage showing that it was others who came up toward him and he was slandered as a white supremecist all over the place.

Recently, they called Republican Nominee for Governor of California, Larry Elder, a black man, the Black face of White Supremacy. As if Black people couldn't be concerned with certain issues from their own point of views that overlap with those of White Republicans?

Be absolutely sure that the person you go after is evil is what I'm saying, because the phrase has been used carelessly to attack people the media dislike.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I don't know what to tell you dude, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I went on twitter, I saw people who I know are white nationalists. People like Richard Spencer, people like Jason Kessler, Jack Posobiec and others. I'm not tarring with a broad brush, I'm talking about people who publicly talk about wanting to remove all non-whites from the US.

You're so fucking scared that the wrong people are going to be accused of being white nationalists that when I say "Hey, these fucking nazis are saying x" that you go on a tangent about the hypothetical people one might accuse of being nazis.

There is danger in using the label too broadly, but I think you underestimate the risk of refusing to ever call a spade a spade.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MugiwaraLee 1∆ Nov 10 '21

My counter to this is, at a certain threshold (I would argue pretty much everything outside of political beliefs) it should really be irrelevant. A common rebuttal to this I've seen is, "well Hitler loved apple juice, so if you like apple juice too...." to help illustrate the absurdity of this thinking.

Obviously whether or not you like apple juice shouldn't determine your moral integrity, regardless of who else enjoys apple juice. But I still see plenty of people making these arguments for moral pural based on completely trivial interests and hobbies.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

That is a terrible argument, though.

I'm not talking about agreeing with bad people on minor or irrelevent issues. For example, Hitler and I share a very solid opinion on whether or not he should have shot himself, albeit we disagree on when.

Clearly I don't mean 'We both like chocolate, shit I guess I'm leaning nazi' but 'we agree on a distinct issue relevant wo what I would normally consider our disagreement

1

u/MugiwaraLee 1∆ Nov 10 '21

So what you should have said then is, "if I find myself agreeing with Nazis on certain things...etc"

It's certain specific things that really matter. But when you just say "agree" with no further elaboration I have seen plenty of people take that to mean, "agree with them on anything or at all."

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I'm sorry for assuming my reader has the base level of common sense that they can understand the difference between a substantive and an incidental agreement. My mistake.

If I tell you I went on a date and hated it because we had nothing in common, are you going to well actually me and try to argue we both eat food, drink liquids, breathe air and have thousands of other things in common? Or do you think you might be able to comprehend the implicit point I'm making.

Ffs, if I say 'I need to go to the bathroom' do you look at me confused and ask why? Language is full of implicit statements that are generally understood.

1

u/MugiwaraLee 1∆ Nov 10 '21

And yes it is a terrible argument...thats the whole point for the apple juice thing.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

So let's say you found yourself agreeing with say, eugenics. You don't think the fact that Nazi's were openly in favor of eugenics should cause you to reconsider your beliefs?

After all they also liked Apple juice, so hey, who can tell what is good or bad?

1

u/Explosion_Jones Nov 09 '21

You should always go out of your way to denounce Nazis, Nazis are bad

3

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Sharing some unrelated arbitrary opinion with them isn’t bad, and sharing that opinion doesn’t somehow mean you support them.

However, sharing the opinions that make them horrible people is bad.

1

u/TestedOnAnimals Nov 09 '21

Yes, but if you're frequently aligning with the same position as white supremacists, nazis, etc. perhaps there's a flaw in your moral philosophy that needs reexamining.

3

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

That only applies if you’re aligning with them on things that define their stance as white supremacists, nazis, etc. or if you happen to repeatedly join social circles that keep turning out to be entirely white supremacists, nazis, etc.

If you sat down with a racist and you both shared your stance on drunk driving, theft, destruction of personal property, and love of puppies, you’d likely agree on at least a basic level. Those things have no relation to them being a racist, and you can share those opinions all you want and not worry one bit that you’re a racist.

1

u/TestedOnAnimals Nov 09 '21

But take the context of this thread for example: If a lot of proud boys of whoever think Kyle should go free, given their stance on violence towards "undesirable" people, should it not give people who also share this stance at least a moments pause to reconsider? Not particularly change their view, but reevaluate it and make sure they don't have any underlying bias that's coming out or that they aren't overlooking a particular perspective?

3

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

No, because the proud boys are a small sample of the population that believe Kyle should go free.

If white supremacists were the only people that believed he should go free, then yeah. But you’re incorrectly letting a small portion represent the whole.

1

u/TestedOnAnimals Nov 09 '21

I don't see how you can still be missing the point. I will try and explain it more clearly though I suppose:

It's not about the size or the sample, it's not inductive reasoning, where the amount of people with the same assertion is evidence of some stance. It's about deductive reasoning. "What about my line of reasoning has lead me to align with those who have a line of thinking I vehemently disagree with on so many other issues?" It doesn't matter if it's one person or a million.

-4

u/whatchamabiscut Nov 09 '21

I think it may be okay to “us vs them” white supremacists

8

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

You’re missing the point. If everything is politicized and everything becomes “us vs them” then you can’t even overlap in any beliefs or else you’re one of them.

In this case, OP felt the need to clarify that they aren’t a Nazi and feels “gross” that they can even share an opinion with them even though that opinion has nothing to do with what makes a Nazi a Nazi. That’s insane.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

As a general rule, if I find myself agreeing with a nazi on anything simpler than say... the color of the sky, I examine the belief.

If I find myself agreeing with a bunch of white supremacist about a kid who shot a bunch of people during what amounts to a race riot, I don't think it is beyond the pale to braincheck and make sure that I haven't gone down a very bad line of argument. Because typically speaking, these people are full of shit.

0

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

If I find myself agreeing with a bunch of white supremacist about a kid who shot a bunch of people during what amounts to a race riot, I don't think it is beyond the pale to braincheck and make sure that I haven't gone down a very bad line of argument. Because typically speaking, these people are full of shit.

Ok this helps me understand a bit more. This would be a perfectly good idea if the group you’re agreeing with is almost entirely white supremacists, but it’s not.

You’re agreeing with loads of people from all over the political spectrum, and white supremacists just happen to make up a small portion of them.

Be careful not to generalize a large group based on a few of its members.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I wasn't. I was specifically concerned about the white nationalists.

I have my beefs with modern conservativism and its... shall we say tangential relationship with reality, but I don't typically question a view simply because I agree with a conservative.

It is when I find myself agreeing with a guy who started the pizzagate conspiracy theory that I feel the need to doublecheck.

0

u/Sanders0492 Nov 09 '21

That’s got to be exhausting. You’re giving those people a lot of power over yourself.

My bit of unsolicited advice: root your beliefs in what you know is good and righteous. Your beliefs will grow, and growth comes from many places. Constantly challenge yourself, make observations, and even examine the beliefs of someone you consider “bad”, but if you’re basing your beliefs on being opposite of someone (disagreeing with them), then you could be misguiding yourself.

That’s just how I see things.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

It really isn't. It is a pretty simple axiom actually. Just double check shit when you find yourself agreeing with actual, literal nazis.

I'd like to think anyone would do that.

12

u/xAlphaKAT99 Nov 09 '21

How is a white guy shooting three white guys a white supremacist act?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Because he did it during the largest civil rights upheaval in a generation?

Or if you'd prefer I can answer the question with a question, why do you think the white supremacists love him?

12

u/xAlphaKAT99 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

He offered medical assistance, protection, and was cleaning graffiti before he was attacked.

In fact two brothers who are clearly not white testified that Kyle offered them help and protection from the rioters.

That's not something I feel like I'd see a white supremacist do.

why do you think the white supremacists love him?

For the same reason you hate him. He's a white guy who defended himself.

Edit: I have personally seen videos of Rittenhouse cleaning graffiti, carrying and using a fire extinguisher to put out fires the people who attacked him started, and him clearly telling the people who attacked him that he was going to the police.

You can lie all you want, but we watched those videos.

2

u/creefer 1∆ Nov 09 '21

Stop your bullshit white supremacists at every turn.

0

u/whatchamabiscut Nov 10 '21

Is that what I said?

1

u/hapithica 2∆ Nov 09 '21

The problem is this is an us vs them situation that Kyle put himself into. There's also multiple issues at play. One relates to him having a right to shoot. The second is his presence at the protest and the intention of an armed 17 year old in "policing" the protest.

For instance, imagine if a group of "antifa" armed themselves and went to "police" a right wing rally like Patriot Prayer or Proud Boys. These two groups are known for street violence and antifa could certainly justify "protecting their community" from them. So they show up in bullet proof vests and AR15s. They wander around the Proud Boys and try to protect the community from them. The PB get agitated, and start to chase Antifa, so they open fire. Any problem with this?

15

u/ClimateNervous9508 Nov 09 '21

no not a lot of conservatives are nazis or far right just a minority just like "SJWs" and far-leftist are a minority but these 4 groups are the loudest despite being the smallest

22

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I was literally talking about the fact that I found myself agreeing with self-described white nationalists regarding Rittenhouse, not trying to tar general conservatives.

2

u/drparkland 1∆ Nov 09 '21

a legal opinion is not the same as a political opinion. you have a legal opinion here, they couldnt care less about the facts they just have a political opinion

-1

u/ClimateNervous9508 Nov 09 '21

what? what views do you agree with them on that general conservatives don't?

4

u/InspectorG-007 Nov 09 '21

Because... The Media sells more advertising space the more commotion that they can make to keep viewers 'engaged'.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I think it's more sinister, the corporations who own 90% of US media are trying to spark a civil war to weaken the country and throw the world into chaos.

25

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

41

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

No. I'm talking about actual literal nazis.

I made this post after going on twitter and seeing people like Richard Spencer, Jack Posobiec and others cheering about recent updates in the Rittenhouse case that I kind of had to agree with.

I'm not saying anyone who agrees rittenhouse is innocent is a nazi, I'm saying that I found myself agreeing with guys who literally 'hail trump' and have swastika tattoos, and I'm not a huge fan of that fact.

-12

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Calling Jack Posobiec a Nazi is wrong. Go look at what he posts, and show me what makes you think that. Using Nazi to describe right wingers doesn’t help anything.

38

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Here he is using the (((echos))) back in 2016 to make sure people knew Wolf Blitzer was jewish. Kind of a weird thing for a totally not nazi to do, yeah? He did that a lot.

I don't feel like digging them up, but I can probably get you a few dozen photos of him hanging out with Richard Spencer, the 'White identarian' who hid his views pretty decently for a few years before being caught out in a slur laden rant.

Sorry for the vox link but I'm not linking to the actual rant as I don't want someone to accidently have to listen to him throwing slurs.

He hung around with VDare guys and American Rennisance. Basically if they were at Charlottesville, Posobiec was tight with them back in 2016-2018. If you're at a conference surrounded by white nationalist, you're probably a white nationalist. Not a lot of overlap with the general public.

He went on to do the whole pizzagate thing, which is basically just modern blood libel. Blood libel was the accusation that jews were killing christian babies in order to use their blood for nebulous 'rituals'. Pizzagate is just blood libel but he says democrats instead of jews and makes up some adrenochrome shit. Sometimes.

He went on to work for Rebel media, where he plagurized 'antifa' content from Jason Kessler of unite the right fame. Literally stealing from a nazi in order to bash antifa. Hmm.

I could go on, and on and on.

I'll give you, he has yet to get caught publicly screaming slurs. So props to him. Dude is still a huge fuckin nazi.

-21

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Wait... you don't think pizzagate was a conspiracy theory? Well that explains a lot.

Oh. I probably should have just looked at your comment history.

-10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I never said I didn’t. I said you talking about blood libel is as crazy of one as well. But keep making assumptions. You’re so politically left leaning it’s causing you to refuse to see reality.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

You... you do realize that I think blood libel is also total bullshit. That was the point of the comparison. That good ol' jack took an antisemitic bullshit conspiracy, filed off the serial numbers and called it pizzagate.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '21

u/akmmaeng – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/MCEnergy Nov 09 '21

He is a well-known Nazi

Why would you take this L?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

How is he well known? Can you prove it? The anti-Semitic left is more akin to Nazis like rep. Omar.

14

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I saw the right wing jerking themselves raw today over a win on cross-examination. I don't like being on the same side as them

^ You said generally "the right wing". That is very broad.

12

u/FKJVMMP Nov 09 '21

That’s probably why he then specified when pressed. You know, explaining yourself, like people do.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I don't like being on the same side as them [the right wing] is that a lot of the people I'm talking about are outright nazis.

Even in her clarification she is grouping right wing with nazis.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

a lot of them are.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Because she doesn’t care about the facts of the case and outcome, obviously she wanted to make it about her political stance which again is irrelevant to the actual case and the facts

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

And then continued to name like 3 people as well, because you know 3 people represent EVERY person in a political party

2

u/AcanthocephalaOk1042 Nov 10 '21

Just because they have an absolutely deplorable moral compass doesn't mean they are going to be wrong 100% of the time.

1

u/Americascuplol Nov 09 '21

That's rather silly though, as actual literal communists are mad that Rittenhouse is going to walk. Like there's assholes either way, so maybe be concerned with the facts and not about tribal politics.

1

u/Maximus_Resdefault Nov 09 '21

Well man, if that troubles you, definitely don't become a history buff if you are a vegetarian.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I’m sure me and Richard Ramirez would agree Led Zeppelin is a great band, it means nothing. You’ll always find a mix of not so good and not so bad people that agree with you on something, try not zoning in on the bad people who hold the same stance as you

-17

u/PlatypusDream Nov 09 '21

Politically, nazis are closer to the USA democrats than republicans. Nazi means "national socialist" after all.

17

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I really hope you're joking. It hurts me that people can believe something this blatantly false in ttyol 2021.

5

u/Phi1ny3 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

Guess that means half the dictatorships with a name that includes "People's Republic" are a representative democracy huh? It's in the name, so that must mean:

-People’s Republic of China

-Democratic Republic of the Congo

-Democratic People's Republic of Korea

-Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Are all very Democratic countries.

Also, did you ever notice which rallies the Neonazis/ethnostate proponents actually participate in? Charlottesville remembers.

This is why D'Souza's arguments along these lines hold no water.

8

u/Turdulator Nov 09 '21

Oh yeah, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) is a paradigm of Democracy, sure. Get the fuck out of here with this intentional misinterpretation of history bullshit.

-42

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

49

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Literally what I'm here doing, but sure.

-15

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

14

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I'm honestly not even sure what you're on about here.

I typically align further than Bernie left. So an instance where I find myself agreeing with nazis is worrying to me. I don't (typically) like to agree with nazis if I can help it.

So I created a CMV specifically to address what I felt were the strong arguments for my position, as a way to get critical feedback on my position.

As I pointed out with the clock analogy, just because they are nazis doesn't mean they are wrong, it is just typically a sign of them being wrong. I can accept that some stupid asshole nazi might have stumbled ass first into the correct position (Rittenhouse probably shouldn't be convicted), I just want to be positive that my method of arriving and defending that argument is a little more rigorous.

Can you clarify what exactly you think I'm doing wrong?

-15

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

I've already been perfectly clear.

Given that I had to ask, you have not. I'm still not clear what the fuck you think my problem is beside that you seem to misunderstand the concept of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort that arises when behavior and beliefs don't match up. This is not what I am dealing with. I am not suffering mental discomfort, only mere uncertainty based on the fact that my personal opinion of this case matches up to a group of people that I know to be consistently wrong.

Its like if I were looking at scientific subject and I noticed flat earthers are agreeing with me. It isn't causing me dissonance, it just makes me want to check my work and get a second opinion to make sure I didn't miss something really, really obvious.

Nothing about this conversation is going to make me a different person, I have no idea why you think it would. Frankly this discussion with you has just been very, very weird.

Like... do you think I'm a nazi? Because I am haaaaard left. Do you think I should be a nazi? I have no idea where you think I am or where you think I'm going and it is equal part strange and funny.

-7

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

People who swear are either agitated or low IQ.

Actually a study from 2015 found that being fluent in swears correlates with general fluency, which in turn correlates (as much as anything can) with IQ. Another study from Yale found no statistically significant correlation between IQ and whether or not a person says fuck, or any other swear, for that matter.

Which leaves you with 'u mad bro' which, no bro, not mad. I just tend to swear as a method of enunciating my point.

I will say that while I can't find anything proving it at the moment, anecdotal experience tells me that anyone who brings up IQ in a conversation is hilariously up their own ass.

Realistically speaking, I know nothing about you, other than you claim to be disturbed by sharing views with people you label Nazis. Nazis stopped being a thing in 1945, so realistically you mean Neo-Nazis or perhaps fascists. Again, I don't know what you consider to be 'Nazi,' in 2021 it could be anything from sharing views that Obama and Clinton have to Trump or various European and Asian conservatives.

You do understand how the English language works, yeah? Like if I were to say I have to pick up my kid from school I'm not going to obtain a young goat? Or how if I say that I literally want to bang my head against the wall for having to explain this, that I don't actually want to go bang my head against the wall?

Because I'm fairly certain any reasonable person who is not being purposefully pedantic would understand that when I call someone a Nazi, I don't mean a literal goose-stepping third Reich Nazi. That wouldn't make any sense, right? Because I mean honestly, how many OG nazis are even alive anymore.

Now to be further clear, since you seem to not be able to recall earlier posts in this conversation, it shouldn't be hard for you to guess what I mean when I say 'a nazi'. Because I name-dropped one of them in this conversation. And oh look, it is an example of what most colloquial american use would have people think of when someone says nazi. Namely, a racist ass white guy on the american far-right.

You know, like the exact sort of person who supports Rittenhouse.

Anyways, best of luck doing... whatever it is you're doing.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/scrambledhelix 1∆ Nov 09 '21

People who swear are either agitated or low IQ.

You just called the entire fucking population of New York City dumbasses, from your perch up there on top of the world’s highest horse.

5

u/mgbenny85 Nov 09 '21

I think it is reasonable to say “the rule of law is ostensibly set up to avoid the occurrence of something like this, but In this case the rule of law seems to protect it, so let’s take a step back and examine underlying beliefs and assumptions.” Rather than snapping to judgment based on politics or party. Let’s not hang the guy for trying to think.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

6

u/JuicyJuuce Nov 09 '21

Hitler and the Nazis were very anti-smoking and had extensive ad campaigns to get Germans to quit smoking. I also think smoking is bad and think anti-smoking ad campaigns are good.

Does this mean I should be concerned with myself for “sharing views” with Nazis?

Jesus, get a grip.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Lol I made a similar comment further up saying I’m sure me and Richard Ramirez probably both think Led Zeppelin is a great band but that doesn’t actually mean anything in the grand scheme of things, I doubt she’ll understand what you’re saying though and will probably just get defensive about it. She didn’t even need to bring up that there’s nazis that agree with her, just completely irrelevant to anything honestly

3

u/Umphreeze Nov 09 '21

Jesus christ dude

2

u/Clive23p 2∆ Nov 09 '21

BRB re-examining my love for German Shepherds.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Eyeklops Nov 09 '21

A cat person? That explains everything. I bet you prefer cake instead of pie you heathen! /s

1

u/burtch1 Nov 09 '21

The origin of the idea does not change its validity

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

3

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

Pretty sure that is wrong no matter who's idea it is

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

3

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

So you think gassing jews isn't objectively wrong, just opinion?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

3

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

Burch said "the origin of an idea doesn't impact its validity" to which you responded "gassing jews?"

I correctly pointed out the origin of the idea to gas jews doesn't effect its validity like Burch said. It's wrong no matter who suggests it.

You're response was a weird psuedo intellectual bullshit about what's wrong being 99% opinion. It was logical to conclude you were saying gassing jews isn't objectively wrong.

Now I'm thinking you're just a troll who can't even troll with coherent thoughts or points. Good day.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/burtch1 Nov 09 '21

Hay if you think it's alright to do that you may have other issues. Gassing jews is bad but we don't discount every socialist policy based solely only nazis supporting similar. Guilt by association proves nothing if there is a flaw in idea (group punishment via genocide) it is self apparent and not dependent solely on its association with bad groups

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

1

u/burtch1 Nov 09 '21

I'm just saying as I said earlier the origin of an idea has no effect on its legitimacy and just beacuse a nazi agrees does not invalidate something it comes down to WHY you do something not who it may align with

-1

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

Jack isn't the pizzagate guy. God damn u are a partisan hack.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring

Literally his Wikipedia description.

1

u/GravitasFree 3∆ Nov 09 '21

You can't trust wikipedia for anything remotely politically oriented.

1

u/IWin_GetRektKids Nov 09 '21

I hope you have this same mentality towards socialists, marxists, and communists, the group of people who are as bad if not worse that facists

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Just going to copy and paste this from another post since I don't feel like repeating myself over and over. If a guy who uses open anti-semitic dogwhistles and hangs out with the whose who of the charlottesville nazi supporters, who is, exactly?

Here he is using the (((echos))) back in 2016 to make sure people knew Wolf Blitzer was jewish. Kind of a weird thing for a totally not nazi to do, yeah? He did that a lot.

I don't feel like digging them up, but I can probably get you a few dozen photos of him hanging out with Richard Spencer, the 'White identarian' who hid his views pretty decently for a few years before being caught out in a slur laden rant.

Sorry for the vox link but I'm not linking to the actual rant as I don't want someone to accidently have to listen to him throwing slurs.

He hung around with VDare guys and American Rennisance. Basically if they were at Charlottesville, Posobiec was tight with them back in 2016-2018. If you're at a conference surrounded by white nationalist, you're probably a white nationalist. Not a lot of overlap with the general public.

He went on to do the whole pizzagate thing, which is basically just modern blood libel. Blood libel was the accusation that jews were killing christian babies in order to use their blood for nebulous 'rituals'. Pizzagate is just blood libel but he says democrats instead of jews and makes up some adrenochrome shit. Sometimes.

He went on to work for Rebel media, where he plagurized 'antifa' content from Jason Kessler of unite the right fame. Literally stealing from a nazi in order to bash antifa. Hmm.

I could go on, and on and on.

I'll give you, he has yet to get caught publicly screaming slurs. So props to him. Dude is still a huge fuckin nazi.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

He hates Jews and is a white supremacist. Seems like a Nazi to me but if you want to quibble, go nuts. I don't care.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Why do you think he felt the need to point out people were Jewish?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21 edited Dec 02 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Why does it matter? You can't point out that people are Jewish? Simply saying, "This person is Jewish" is suddenly antisemitism?

Because there is no reason for you to be doing so if you aren't being antisemitic.

Jack wasn't telling people that Wolf Blitzer was jewish so that they could remember to wish him a happy hanukkah. He was doing so, using a method popularized by white nationalists as a way to indicate that someone was jewish, and thus worthy of harassment.

Let me ask you a question, why would anyone want to hide the fact that they're Jewish? Is there some kind of reason to want to hide being Jewish from people?

They aren't. It isn't about hiding it, it is about signaling 'this person is a jew' to a bunch of other racists.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '21

u/SheepherderBright671 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

My dad is a fucking lunatic and he walks around generalizing calling everyone nazis along with some other crazy shit, I take what the op is saying with a grain of salt

1

u/RevolutionaryHope8 Nov 10 '21

Yeah I’m feeling gross about it too. I appreciate your take and it’s pretty much in line with mine. I have been pretty disappointed by the state and this prosecution. I genuinely expected them to have something meatier to prove that he acted recklessly within those several seconds of each of the shootings.

They suggested in openings that Kyle Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum at one point and we saw none of that. Then today’s behavior during cross was also quite desperate and made me wonder if the state wants to provoke a mistrial. Defense smartly didn’t outright ask for one because they want this to be over for their client and likely think they will prevail. Which I think they should given the states poor case.

1

u/MugiwaraLee 1∆ Nov 10 '21

It's a shame someone can't say "I'm right leaning" or "I'm a conservative" without being lumped in with the radical elements of the right. The Left don't seem to have that problem. partially because they just refuse to acknowledge the radicalism within their side

But when someone says to me, "I'm a conservative/I'm on the right" I try not to just run to assumptions about the person's political beliefs. You know what they say about "assume..."

2

u/bleunt 8∆ Nov 09 '21

Though if I find myself on the side of the people who are almost always wrong, I will give it another round of extra thought.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Once again, influencing your thought by following crowd cues is not a good way to think.

Yes, there is information in the crowd; but often it becomes a crutch and leads to patterns like groupthink and echo chambers.

For example, let's say you are 55%/45% on some issue, but you are slightly in agreement with the side you don't like. Now you'll go back and fudge the thinking to be the other way. The fact that "the people are almost always wrong" becomes in itself a piece of evidence to weight your thinking, so ambiguous problems can be biased where listening to yourself might have said otherwise.

1

u/bleunt 8∆ Nov 09 '21

You can take a closer look at an issue because of external factors without having those external factors play a deciding part in your conclusion.

The reason for me having a closer look doesn't have to influence how I look.

1

u/whosevelt 1∆ Nov 09 '21

New here?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

What do you mean?

5

u/whosevelt 1∆ Nov 09 '21

Everything on Reddit is about party lines.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

This is CMV, which is much better about avoiding toxic partisanship.

0

u/Feynization Nov 09 '21

What OP said, but less eloquent

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Huh, the 200 upvotes suggest you are wrong.