Silent Hill
-
Posts
530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Homebrew Games
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Silent Hill
-
-
2 hours ago, Californication said:16 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:Expand Expand
It's a shame no one cares about objectively what happens. I would wager that +90% of people DO NOT watch the entire press conferences of these types of often misquoted statements.
People cant be bothered to sit and listen to someone they don't like say something they don't agree with. But for me, that's part of being an informed citizen. You need primary sources. Quotes from the source and digested in the context.
Few people want to do that, especially the far left.
You guys can interpret Trump's stupidity and racism any way you want. It's easy to show that you are wrong though.
White Supremacists are interpretting Donald Trump's messages as support for them and that is the proof he is supporting racism.
Trump denounces White Supremacists many, many times over the years, including stating that he doesn't want their votes and/or affiliation. Yet, White Supremacists somehow take that as Trump supporting them? And that's Trump's fault? If that's the case, there's literally nothing Trump could ever say that would separate him from White Supremacists in your mind (or theirs).
Comical logic.
-
56 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:
I'll gladly watch (or read) a similar montage of his statements supporting White Supremacists
Yea I bet you would.
Off the top of my head...
Trump said there were fine people on both side in Charlottesville.
Trump told Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
I'm sure there are more. Feel free to take a look.
So why the mixed signals? Why can't he condemn them each and every time?
Personally, I think the "stand back and stand by" has been taken too literally by most people. I sincerely doubt his intent was to have the Proud Boys waiting in the shadows until Trump gave the green light for them to go out and terrorize people. I honestly think he intended to say "stand down" but just misspoke. That aligns more with his history of publicly denouncing hate groups IMO. That said, he could have chose his words better but we all know how great he can be with words at times.
For his Charlottesville quote, that USA Today piece supplied the full quote (below), in which Trump denounced the radicals on both sides of the protest. I know that it's been cherry picked and blasted throughout media because that's what some people want to hear. It's really easy to take that single line and boost your stance on Trump supporting White Supremacists, but in full context, and married with his previous condemnations, it's clear that he straight up excluded White Supremacists/Nationalists and Neo-Nazis from the "very fine people" he was describing.
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
"It is clear from the full statement that President Trump was not making a distinction between the right and left, but between radicals of all types versus those who protest peacefully."
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Californication said:
Context is what you are missing. He can say he condemns something without that being the message that is received/understood. Statements aren't made in a vaccumm, they are interpreted as they relate to other things.
1 minute ago, CodysGameRoom said:@Silent Hill So we have a collection of statements from Trump condemning white supremacists. We also have a collection of statements from Trump supporting white supremacists. So which is it? Why is he sharing both an opinion of approval AND an opinion of condemnation? it's ONE way or the other. You would have to look at the context to tell I suppose....
I support pineapple on pizza.
I condemn pineapple on pizza.
You can't just say I condemn it now, because I already said I supported it.
@CodysGameRoom I'll gladly watch (or read) a similar montage of his statements supporting White Supremacists
@Californication Which of those statements in the video/USA Today piece were taken out of context? Which of those statements were received/understood in an opposite fashion and by whom/what group? Or are you referring to actions he's taken that contradicts those statements?
-
@Californication - Found a good montage of Trump supporting White Supremacists.
USA Today also has a piece on how much he supports White Supremacists and hate groups.
-
48 minutes ago, Californication said:2 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:
You seem to be treating it as if you have to pick either extreme to support, but you don't.
I can support neither extreme, and still think that the government should be putting its focus into actively policing the more problematic of the two (i.e. cracking down harder on white supremacist groups).
I am responding to the situation as an either/or because of the paradigm that has been created by the federal government.
I don't give a shit about Antifa. I don't know anyone who says they are Antifa and I don't have any ties to Antifa.
My issue is that month after month when people go to the president and ask him about white supremacist violence the president changes the subject and scape-goats Antifa. My issue is that the DOJ is not trying to stop white supremacists but is instead going after the specter Antifa. The president and Bill Barr via the Department of Justice are making claims and expending resources after people who are not killing people as is being reported in conservative circles. And yet month after month, year after year, we have to read about more people from these conservative right wing circles are killing people.
Trump and Barr's false claims about Antifa are repeated and exagerrated on Fox News, Breitbart, Reddit, Facebook, etc. and conservatives and Trump supporters repeat these false claims never getting near the real issue of why we are seeing an uptick in violence which is the presidents support of white supremacy.
Then on the individual level, conservative voters hear the terms Antifa and White Supremacist synonymously and are less likely to feel ashamed for voting for people who promote white supremacy and violence.
What percentage of violence, arson, destruction of property, etc. done over the last ~6 months has been done by white supremacist groups? And which of Trump's statements have encouraged these white supremacist groups to perpetuate the violence?
-
1
-
-
On 9/30/2020 at 3:45 PM, arch_8ngel said:
It isn't about being "offended". It is about recognizing the threat of the situation where Trump is enabling and encouraging white supremacist groups. There is real danger here.
On 10/1/2020 at 12:35 PM, CodysGameRoom said:They have names. Just like white supremacists have the KKK, Proud Boys, etc.
To be clear, the Proud Boys aren't a white supremacist group, even though they were framed as such to help "prove" that Trump supports white supremacists.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Californication said:
You are completly dismissing facts from the other side because you keep saying people were chasing him trying to kill him. You do not know what those people's state of mind was. The video looks like people trying to stop someone not kill someone. Gaige didn't stop and shoot the Rittenhouse as he was running away as he could have.
If I don't know what their state of mind was, then neither do you. So that's not me "dismissing a fact". They could have easily disarmed Rittenhouse and injured/killed him, or disarmed him and let him walk away unscathed. Personally, I don't think the latter would have been the result, but we'll never know how that hypothetical would have played out. Rittenhouse being aggressively chased (especially by someone who was armed) gave him enough reason to feel the need to defend himself. Just because the ones chasing him after he shot Rosenbaum may have thought they were preventing an "active shooter" from harming others, doesn't mean they can aggressively chase Rittenhouse (as he's running towards police) and disarm him without opening themselves up for being shot in self-defense. No court is going to rule "well, Rittenhouse should have known that the ones chasing him were just simply trying to disarm him so he wouldn't shoot anyone else, so he's guilty of murder".
And ontop of that you are exaggerating the shooter being hit with a skateboard. He was clearly pushed with a skateboard. When you look at the video the people trying to stop him are going for his gun because they don't want him to kill other people.
You're right, with the video running at full speed, the skateboard "swing" looks more like a push/pin move vs. a strike, but like I said above, it doesn't mean trying to disarm someone prevents that person from firing in self-defense. If Rittenhouse legitimately murdered Rosenbaum to start, then you'd have a point that Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self-defense in the subsequent shooting, but that doesn't seem to be the case. All they had to do was let Rittenhouse keep running towards police and nobody else would have been shot. But they decided to take on the current group mentality that Rittenhouse was an active shooter that just murdered someone, so they gave chase and unfortunately paid for that choice.
You clearly can't see both sides of the equation because you are so easily fooled by misinformation propogated by conservative groups from the very beginning.
It wasn't just "conservative groups" reporting this information. I looked at everything from the live videos, YT/Twitter/FB breakdowns of the live videos, local Kenosha/WI news reports, and Richie McGinnis' account at that time.
On top of that there is video showing Rittenhouse being an agitator where people call him out for pointing his gun at them and giving them orders earlier in the night.
There may be a video of people claiming Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people and giving them orders, but I haven't seen video evidence of him actually doing that. Even if he were, it doesn't give them the right to chase and disarm him without being subject to be shot in self-defense.
The videos of him being chased and firing only on those who were actively attempting to disarm him holds much more weight than a video of people saying he was pointing a gun at people earlier that night. Plus, Rosenbaum himself is on video being aggressive before the shooting, so that doesn't help the claim that he was chasing Rittenhouse to simply disarm him because Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor by pointing his gun at people. Rosenbaum was the aggressor that escalated the situation by chasing Rittenhouse and "lunging for his weapon" (according to Richie McGinnis, who was closest to the action) before being shot.
-
1 hour ago, Californication said:2 hours ago, Silent Hill said:Expand Expand
On the flip side, everything that's brought up in these politics thread, there's always people who point to racism as a driving factor, even when there is no evidence to support it. That's why I normally dispute it.
I've never said racism doesn't exist in individuals, but I don't agree that racism is a factor when the only related evidence is skin color, and I don't think that because the entire US Police force is "systemically racist", every negative outcome between white police and black victims is automatically driven by racism.
I've seen no evidence brought forth that the Taylor case was linked to racism, whether individual or systemic.
Maybe you should read my prior posts because I am not yelling about racism in the Taylor shooting. I said it's a possibility. My point is that the police killed someone, they are at fault, and this is more than a tragedy this was preventable.
This was a reply to Cody.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:On 9/25/2020 at 11:15 PM, Rhino said:
How is what happened in this tragedy racism? Not every white cop on black victim shooting is racism.
I never said they are.
On 9/27/2020 at 9:42 AM, Silent Hill said:Somehow it’s ALWAYS racism with “you guys”, even when there’s zero evidence of racism, just like in this case. You have no evidence other than the skin color of those involved.
You are both missing the point. I'm just saying, for literally everything that's ever brought up in these politics threads, there is always someone who tries to explain it away without any racism involved. Like apparently it's just not even possible that there was any racism involved, like it just doesn't exist. It's short sighted. Racism exists and it happens every day.
And yes, when the system is in itself racist, then there is a high possibility of some level of racism involved. But we all know you (Silent Hill) don't believe that so why am I even responding?
On the flip side, everything that's brought up in these politics thread, there's always people who point to racism as a driving factor, even when there is no evidence to support it. That's why I normally dispute it.
I've never said racism doesn't exist in individuals, but I don't agree that racism is a factor when the only related evidence is skin color, and I don't think that because the entire US Police force is "systemically racist", every negative outcome between white police and black victims is automatically driven by racism.
I've seen no evidence brought forth that the Taylor case was linked to racism, whether individual or systemic.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Californication said:22 hours ago, Silent Hill said:
I stand corrected on this. He did circle back and stop after the first shooting, but made a phone call instead of attempting aid (others already were
You are stilly trying to spin this by saying "but made a phone call instead of attempting aid(others were already doing this)." He did nothing to help. And your statement makes it sound like he thought about it. He made a phone call to a friend. If he was trying to help he could have 1. Physically helped, 2. Called an ambulance 3. Called the police. He did nothing to help the person he shot and to say anything otherwise is plain wrong.
Why do you think he circled back? I admitted he didn't actually apply aid, and mentioned that others were already trying to do so. He very well may have thought about applying aid, and may have even done so if others weren't already. Hard to say what he would have done if others weren't around. We can speculate all day long.
Instead of calling 911, he apparently called a friend, then started running towards the police when others began to give chase.The bottom line is whatever he actually did after shooting Rosenbaum doesn't impact his self-defense claim.
22 hours ago, Silent Hill said:I also stand corrected on this. His conviction of possessIon of a firearm while intoxicated is a misdemeanor.
2. You said Gaige Grosskrautz was, 'illegally armed as a felon."
Gage Grosskreutz was/is a licensed gun holder
IIRC, I only mentioned this as a counterpoint to anyone stating that Rittenhouse was illegally carrying, and that it impacted his self-defense claim, which the legality of his weapon doesn't preclude his right to self-defense. Grosskreutz was originally reported to be a felon, but once his actual record was uncovered, his charge was a misdemeanor. I admitted I was wrong by echoing the reports of him being a felon at that time.
Whether Grosskreutz was legally carrying or not, he was still the aggressor in that situation and was shot by Rittenhouse in self-defense.Then you completly dismiss your incorrect statement that Rittenhouse was putting out a fire.
That's what I've heard/seen, I asked if you had any resource describing what caused the group to initially give chase.
This is relevant because again you are again inferring positive attributes to Rittenhouse that are completely false.
I'll admit this was false if you show me the above.
Now you're saying that these points don't matter so your original opinion is the same?
Correct, any of the points you mentioned don't impact the self-defense claim. Rittenhouse was not the aggressor, and only shot those that were a threat. That was my overall stance from the start, and still is.
So why did you say these things in the first place if they don't matter?
Like I mentioned above, I stated those as counterpoints, and as information that was being reported at that time. If they're incorrect in hindsight, that's fine, it's still a case of self-defense.
Do you understand why when people read your opinions it doesn't make sense when you say you are just telling both sides?
Even with all of your points above, I don't think I excluded any facts from the "other side" that would impact his self-defense claim.
-
13 minutes ago, Californication said:
@SilentHill - being wrong over and over again,
Kyle Rittenhouse, "stopped to give medical aid to the first person he shot. - Wrong
I stand corrected on this. He did circle back and stop after the first shooting, but made a phone call instead of attempting aid (others already were)
13 minutes ago, Californication said:"WI law covers a 17 y.o. for that type of gun so he was legally carrying - Wrong
I mentioned the WI law that may or may not make it legal. I haven’t seen something that clearly excludes him from that law.
"The group committing the damage escalated the situation since he was trying to extinguish a fire." - Wrong
Can you link me somewhere that proves why they were chasing him to begin with?
13 minutes ago, Californication said:"The man who was shot in the arm had a pistol, and illegaly as he's a felon" - Wrong.
I also stand corrected on this. His conviction of possessIon of a firearm while intoxicated is a misdemeanor.
While I’ve been corrected on a few things as more evidence is presented, nothing I was incorrect about diminishes the overall stance of self-defense. Grosskreutz being a felon or not doesn’t impact it, Rittenhouse not attempting to apply aid doesn’t impact it, and Rittenhouse illegally carrying doesn’t impact it.
-
1 hour ago, Californication said:
Just because you say, "people should look at it from both sides," that doesn't mean you are looking at it from both sides.
I literally described both sides, Walker and the Police.
Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse incident. You said the same thing in here. And then when we point out four or five things that are factually wrong, you've got nothing to say.
Remind me what I said that was factually wrong, and where I failed to respond to any correction presented.
You are wrong so often, don't you start wondering about the sources you are getting your information from?
Please share your sources with me since they’re always correct.
(I don't know how you think you know what Taylor's current relationship with her ex-boyfriend is or "what they were into" I am sure that it's probably more misinformation from those racist right wing sites you get your news from.)
Glover was/is a criminal, no debate needed. Taylor bailed him out of jail multiple times so she clearly knew what he was up to. I’m not sure exactly how she was involved, but it was enough to issue a search warrant.
And you conjuring up a story about Walker owning a gun to protext himself.from Taylor's ex-boyfriend is sick. This poor guy watched his girlfriend die in front of him and then got arrested for doing the right thing and you want to drag him into your crazy stories to defend the police.
Not sure how my one sentence is “conjuring up a story”, but I never said Walker was wrong for owning a gun, only owned one to defend against Glover, or was wrong for firing it if the Police didn’t announce themselves. I heard in Walker’s police interview that he thought it may have been Glover and/or a home invasion. I would have armed myself as well.
QuoteDo you get embarrassed when you say something that is silly and clearly wrong or do you just brush it off like nothing happened and do it again? You clearly aren't learning anything. You know if you voice your opinion on Breitbart, FB, or 8-Chan people will agree with you. Maybe you should give your opinion there.
I would have expected you to provide counter points or refer to evidence to prove that I’m clearly wrong. Instead, you’re just telling me how wrong, and uneducated I am without any attempt to logically disprove anything I said.
-
21 hours ago, Californication said:
I also just want to say that the information the police used to kick down these people's door in the middle of the night probably shouldn't have gotten them a warrant in the first place. The warrant had nothing directly to do with either of the people there that night. The police are saying the warrant was associated with one of Taylor's ex-boyfriends. So if Taylor and Walker, the two sleeping in bed, were dating for "years," the information used to get the warrant was not timrly/well out of date.
What recon are you looking at to determine if the warrant was valid? From what I’ve seen, Taylor’s name was on the warrant and she was still in contact with her ex, so she was most definitely associated.
If the police had actually served the warrant as a no-knock, I’m confident nobody would have been shot. Knocking gave Walker time to arm himself and prepare to shoot whoever came through that door. That’s a main reason they execute no-knocks.
This is just an unfortunate stalemate situation. They had enough evidence to secure warrants for multiple locations, including Taylor’s. If they truly didn’t announce themselves then I fully see why Walker armed himself (especially since he was aware of her ex and what they were involved in). The police didn’t shoot until Walker did, so their return fire was justified. Walker had his charges dropped because his shooting seems justified, and the police were justified in returning fire, so no manslaughter/murder charge there.
But instead of people looking at it from both sides and from a legal standpoint, you have most people falling into an extreme stance either fully blaming the police and their “racism”, or people blaming Walker for defending themselves against police (even though there’s a strong chance they didn’t know who they were). Then you have some people still overlooking the evidence that’s come up, which to me are the worst of all, since it proves they can’t look at anything objectively/logically. (e.g. Taylor was asleep, police didn’t knock, police fired first, police had the wrong address, etc.)
-
On 9/25/2020 at 3:56 PM, CodysGameRoom said:
lol. Somehow it's NEVER racism with you guys. Always some mental gymnastic explanation. No possible chance it could be racism, because that's not a problem.
Get real.
Somehow it’s ALWAYS racism with “you guys”, even when there’s zero evidence of racism, just like in this case. You have no evidence other than the skin color of those involved.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Californication said:
What's even crazier is that the police officers warrant was not a no knock warrant as earlier reported.
The warrant was that they had to announce themselves.
The police kicked down the door without uniforms on or announcing themselves. Eleven of twelve witnesses said they did not hear the police announce themselves.
The boyfriend who was in bed with the girl that was murdered was on the phone with the police because he thought someone was breaking into the apartment when he fired a single shot.
Wonder why there were no charges brought for incorrectly serving a warrant?
-
4 hours ago, Tulpa said:
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has dismissed a report suggesting the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally was a "superspreading event" for COVID-19 that cost billions of dollars in health costs.
4 hours ago, ZeldaFreak said:I seriously don't understand how some people are still in denial about this by this point when we're this deep in the shit.
I can see why she is dismissing it since this was the approach for the report. It doesn't seem they actually contact traced someone who had/got COVID from Sturgis, but just looked at the trend of the state they went back to, seemingly basing all new cases on that person(s) who returned from Sturgis? I'm not sure how many cellphones they actually tracked either.
Not saying the event was a smart move, but the "report" seems inaccurate as hell.
The researchers arrived at the figures by analyzing anonymized cellphone data to track the smartphone pings from non-residents and movement of those before and after the event.
The study then linked those who attended and traveled back to their home states, and compared changes in coronavirus trends after the rally's conclusion
-
1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:2 hours ago, Kguillemette said:
Bring your guns and help by acting like a militia?
Bingo. Members of the police commented on their Facebook event asking to create a line of communication, how many members they would have in attendance, etc. The kid was thanked by the police for "his efforts". Sickening.
Not like they thanked him for shooting people. They thanked the group for helping deter criminal rioters and arsonists. If you're in that area, the right side of the law is defending property, not destroying it.
For the Facebook event/thread of "police asking to create a line of communication", who is Paul Swick and what is the "TTPO"? Doesn't seem like an actual Police department/division.
-
52 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:
Rosenbaum threw something, but I haven't heard concrete evidence on what exactly it was. There's no evidence of Rittenhouse trying to place anyone (especially Rosenbaum) under citizen's arrest. The first video starts with Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through that parking lot. Unless you're watching some footage that I'm not aware of?
It was grainy cell phone video on facebook footage I was watching, where you see someone lobbing a flaming something (at a building and chaos ensues from there. Everything else is hearsay. Im just speculating, really. It's the only conclusion that makes sense to me at this time. Why else would 3 people be attempting to disarm Rittenhouse unless he was showing some kind of aggression/defense?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
And then here you have nice crystal clear footage of Rittenhouse murdering someone/defending himself depending on your viewpoint with no context added. The answer is definitely somewhere in the middle.
I posted that article earlier which gives a pretty detailed review of all video evidence. Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse to start because Rosenbaum was already aggressive and yelling "shoot me n****" to the group Kyle was around at the gas station in an earlier video. So in short, Rosenbaum was the aggressor, and chased Rittenhouse to the point that he was forced to defend himself. The rest of the group that chased after Rittenhouse after the first shooting were under the mob mentality of "stop the guy who just shot someone", not understanding that chasing someone who is armed and running towards police, isn't the logical thing to do. And that's why those who attacked Rittenhouse once they caught up to him, were shot.
According to the "reporter" (McGinnis) who was filming and had been following Rittenhouse around prior:
"As they continued to walk, Rosenbaum tried to get closer to Rittenhouse, McGinnis told police. When Rosenbaum grew near, Rittenhouse did a "juke" move and started running, seemingly trying to evade a group of people who were moving toward him, McNeill wrote"
"According to the reporter, Rosenbaum was reaching for the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun, when the teenager pulled it away and raised the weapon."
-
12 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:
Don't know. Did rosenbaum throw the bomb? It's not clear from the video. I look at Rittenhouse as this kid attempting to place someone under a citizen's arrest and it goes bad from there.
Rosenbaum threw something, but I haven't heard concrete evidence on what exactly it was. There's no evidence of Rittenhouse trying to place anyone (especially Rosenbaum) under citizen's arrest. The first video starts with Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through that parking lot. Unless you're watching some footage that I'm not aware of?
-
31 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:1 hour ago, spacepup said:
Does anyone want to reach their hand across the aisle just a teensy bit, to help us stop this nonsense?
Who's on the other side of the "aisle"?
The NRA? They don't want to stop this.
The GOP/RNC? They want poor people dead so they can't vote and the GOP can stay in power.
I get your point but it's just not going to happen. You have to look at things more realistically. It's nice to think about how things should be but America should be focused on how things are and how to solve them.
Ah the RNC, pushing for riots just so poor people kill themselves, diminishing the Democratic voter pool. Thankfully the Democratic leaders of the cities most affected are accepting assistance to help mitigate the violence/crime, and prosecuting associated criminals to the full extent of the law or else the RNC's grand scheme would come to fruition.
-
23 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:
After watching the videos, it is clear to me that this kid is not a hero. He is a wannabe vigilante that should have stayed home and stayed far away from trouble and danger. From my perspective, he chased a person who threw what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail at a building with his weapon. That's when others intervened, not knowing why he was chasing down a dude with a gun. The man with the skateboard began attacking him as Rittenhouse tried to escape his pursuers. Another man pulled a firearm.
Now consider the fear of the 17 year old kid who in his misguided head, thinking he is acting as police friendly vigilante only helping the small business that is having bombs thrown at it. Now 3 men are forcibly trying to take the gun from his hands. Any reasonable human being, never mind a 17 year old kid would absolutely fear for their life. Laying on the ground wounded from being bludgeoned with a skateboard, he also sees another man pointing a pistol at him. In his head he has seconds to react or he is going to die. So he opens fire on his attackers to save his own life.
One thing we need to do is stop labeling all these people as protesters. As previously pointed out, the survivor is a felon with no business holding a pistol. One of the gentleman who died was a convicted child molester who served 10 years in prison. The dude with the skateboard by all accounts seemed to be a decent human being, but what was he doing trying to disarm Rittenhouse with a skateboard? Perhaps he did not see the context that Rittenhouse was pursuing someone? After all, it's not like Rittenhouse was uniformed. Maybe he didn't see what appeared to be a bomb lobbed at a building? So he went into a form of vigilantism himself. Only he clearly outgunned. So he very foolishly tried to disarm him and paid the ultimate price for this terrible lapse in judgement.
The bottom line is that I can't stand here after watching the video that this kid went out looking to kill someone. Being pro-cop and a Trump supporter doesn't make you a murderer. But if he really wanted to help the police, he should have just stayed home. It's enough that police have to deal with dudes throwing bombs at buildings(or at least things that strongly resemble them). Now they need to deal with 4 numbnuts playing with guns that had no business being out there in the first place, and the bomb thrower runs away into the night.
And if you want to protest, do so in an organized assembly. Just rolling up into bedlam does nothing for BLM and only stands to hurt the cause. And BLM is one the most important causes this century.
Just want to clarify, are you implying that Rittenhouse was pursing people, or that he was an aggressor? Also, I assume the "bomb thrower" you're referencing is the first guy who was shot (Rosenbaum)?
-
4 hours ago, Californication said:On 9/2/2020 at 2:05 PM, Rhino said:
Why are you the only one on this forum who gets it?
You guys get along because you are almost always on the same side of every issue.
@SilentHill said that, "
21 hours ago, Silent Hill said:I can only speculate, but the best I have is that I'm not so blinded by political affiliation and personal hatred for Trump that I don't let someone's political beliefs impact my ability to acknowledge evidence objectively.
Which I think is laughable. I thinks it's a lot easier to see what side of issues your on. All we have to do is see what side of an issue blacks and minorities are on and almost every time you two will be on the other side.
And where within these topics did I not acknowledge evidence objectively? Where did my political bias affect my reasoning? Did I inject any unrelated comments about how much of a piece of shit Trump is to reinforce my political bias?
Let's take a look at the last 40 pages
Pg. 163 Rhino explains why it's discrimination not to eat at Chiq Fil A if you don't like their political or religous stances.
Pg 165 - Rhino explains why brand like Aunt Jemima are not racist.
pg - 171 SH People are promoting racial divide by talking abouy systemic racism.
I still feel this way. Pushing that systemic racism is the cause for all unequal outcomes is not helping close any racial divide. It's setting an unrealistic expectation that the only cause for unequal outcomes, is your skin color.
You're looking at a disparity and assuming it's solely due to racism, when there are many other factors that contribute to outcomes.Pg 175 - SH doesn't believe systemic racism existed except prior to the civil war.
I assume you meant Civil Rights? Because that's when there were actual laws/policies that affected equal rights based on skin color. None of that exists today, everyone has equal rights under the law.pg 175 affirmative action has uintended negative results "this is a privelige that white people don't have."
Assuming this was a statement I made, I believe I explained how those results come to be, and it's obvious that Affirmative Action isn't a privilege for white people.
Pg 1 - Rhino explains why it was Michael Browns fault he was killed by police.
Pg. 9 - SH explains how link's data on racial profiling is probably because of other reasons then racial profiling.
Other reasons in addition to racial profiling. Thin, blurred line between criminal profiling and racial profiling. Doesn't mean every cop is racially profiling, or that every cop isn't racially profiling.
Pg 9 SH explains how the cop that killed George Floyd tried to de-escalate the system (despite greeting Floyd with a knock on the window with a gun).
He didn't knock on the window with a gun, only pulled the gun when George ignored commands to show both of his hands. Once he did, the officer holstered the gun. They actively tried to de-escalate the situation, and gave George countless opportunities to comply. (George asked to be placed on the ground after resisting many times, and refusing to get in the car) Doesn't mean the end result is right, but the evidence doesn't point to racism, or intent to kill.Pg 4 - SH explains why stop and frisk is not racist.
Another example of unequal outcomes must solely be racist. An additional factor couldn't be that stop and frisk was applied heavier in crime areas which have their own demographics?
Pg 7 - Rhino explains why disproportionate arrest of minorities isn't racist.
(The old thread is on pg 4 of everything else)
-
29 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:11 hours ago, Rhino said:
I do think he will get charged with something. Just not murder.
He was already charged. With intentional murder. Twice. Among other charges.
Probably meant "convicted".
-
30 minutes ago, Rhino said:
Not sure what posts you're reading. How is pointing out the media omitting facts a bullshit talking point? You really think the media on both sides is clean? You really think they both don't omit stuff or twist stuff to fit their agendas? It's bad on both sides. I'm just calling out the latest example of it. CNN had two articles about this incident that contradicted one another. One portrayed Rittenhouse as fleeing the scene and sneaking past cops, while the other one said he walked right up to cops and turned himself in. Well which one is it CNN? The media is an enormous problem right now. The right and left so desperately want to keep their core audience that they don't care about the veracity of a story. All they care about is speed and twisting it to fit their agenda. What doesn't help is a ton of people getting their news from Facebook and other social media. A lot of that "news" is fake articles or trolls, but some people eat that stuff up and pass it along as fact. COVID-19 had tons of instances of this over the past 6 months for example.
You poke fun at me, I mock you, that's how it works. You don't get to get away with it because you're in a position of authority here. I won't tolerate it. You started it not me.
Even ol' Chris Cuomo admitted "The media is not your friend"
Coronavirus response
in threads
Posted
Anyone in California excited to spend their Thanksgiving this way?
"All gatherings must include no more than three households, including hosts and guests, and must be held outdoors, lasting for two hours of less"
The new rules state those at a gathering "may remove their face coverings briefly to eat or drink as long as they stay at least 6 feet away from everyone outside their own household, and put their face covering back on as soon as they are done with the activity."