Rittenhouse: The 'Media Accountability' Project

[jakelafortParticipant]

Enco, all people have a right to their own facts unless and until the government acts. Were that not so there would be no religion. All religionists utilize mythology. They’re not simply opinions about the nature of reality. They posit a world in which mythology is real. Journalism and news is replete with utter BS-not just opinion but spin and lies.

Furthermore you acknowledged unambiguously that this is a first amendment issue. If you deny my assertion i will prove it. The fact that you want to prosecute staged hate crimes (no first amendment protection even if it is a political statement) yet give protection to actors to threaten an entire race, community, or group & would eliminate as a crime all hate crimes speaks volumes about your views.

I did not pay much attention to the Rittenhouse trial. But i saw his fake tears. I read that he had some endorsement or affiliation or fondness for Proud Boys so if it is true that he supports BLM, so what? It could not be more disingenuous.

Let me pose another hypothetical. Suppose it is proved scientifically that when governments permit citizens to use the most egregious hate speech and certain economic, political and social conditions merge that violence up to and including executions and genocides will occur…will that hypothetical change your views? Will you under those stipulations acknowledge that the Government can curtail first amendment speech?

Small point but defamation is the umbrella under which libel and slander exist. Libel and slander are forms of defamation. One brings an action in slander or libel.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Enco,

I am rushed and i know there were other mistakes you made but one of em is your definition of insanity. Most of the American definitions are based on a 19th century precedent-the M’Naughton or is it Mcaughton rule. Essentially if the defendant at the time of the commission of the act that represents the crime the defendant because of a mind gone bad is incapable of appreciating the nature of their behavior.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen,

You seem to think that there’s some sort of necessary connection between sanity and having a sense of right and wrong. What theory are you invoking to support the notion that amoral people are insane?

It’s the long-standing legal definition of sanity and insanity, whether a person is capable of knowing right from wrong.

It isn’t. An ‘insanity defence’ isn’t looking at whether or not a person is amoral or if they have a sense of right and wrong. It looks at whether or not they had the faculties necessary to determine right from wrong. For instance, some people with antisocial personality disorder may not be able to distinguish right from wrong as a matter of personal understanding in certain cases. They may not feel a certain act is wrong or necessarily understand why it needs to be prohibited. But this doesn’t mean they lack the ability to understand it is prohibited and that there are consequences for committing that act.

This is contrasted from someone in a state of psychosis who may have lost touch with reality to the point that their mind is no longer capable of determining which actions are right or wrong by any standard. They are not culpable by way of mental illness.

However, that isn’t a definition of mental illness or ‘insanity’. It’s the definition for a particular legal defence regarding culpability.

[—Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

…the defendant because of a mind gone bad is incapable of appreciating the nature of their behavior.

Ah, yeah. That’s a cleaner way of putting it.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen,

You seem to think that there’s some sort of necessary connection between sanity and having a sense of right and wrong. What theory are you invoking to support the notion that amoral people are insane?

It’s the long-standing legal definition of sanity and insanity, whether a person is capable of knowing right from wrong.

You refer to the M’Naghten Rule. It is not really a test of sanity in a psychiatric sense. It is a test of whether someone at the time of the alleged crime was able to know what they did was wrong. So, it’s kind of a legal “term of art.” Its primary use is by defense attorneys looking for some way to excuse their client’s action.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

I believe the comment you quoted was in reference to your comments on Smollet, not Rittenhouse.

In the heat of my posting, I did mix up the news stories. However, my practice of holding off on commenting until all facts are in applies with both stories.

Yes. Philosophically, I think that’s a load of shit; however, the system is what it is and factually, his acts were legally self-defence.

So why do you think that is a load of shit?

I don’t know that that’s settled.

The burden of proof rests with the one who makes the assertion, not with the one who merely denies it. The ones who assert that someone is a racist are the ones who have to “settle it.”

Why this has to be said on an Atheist Forum is beyond me.

I’m sure we can find outlets that were either rushing to lynch Kyle or desperate to suck him off, but on balance? Again, hard-pressed to call that settled.

My use of “media” meant at least some major media outlets, not the entire body of media, so it is settled for those to whom it applies.

Wow, that site is a mess. It shows some 400 cases across more than four decades, mostly focused on the US with some from other countries. However, a number of the listings don’t involve any reported hate crime (e.g. one is just a facebook post with faulty information). Quite a few fall under ‘suspected’ hoax either due to inadequate evidence or the police didn’t believe the claim. One of the listings is just Lorem ipsum.

In all the chat I’ve seen on this Forum on “hate speech” and “hate crimes,” I have seen no parameters of time or place set. In fact, chat of “hate crimes” and “hate speech” has been from several nations and spanning thousands of years in so-called “holy” texts. Hence, there are no goal-posts of time or place here, and no goal-posts to move, either.

And Loren Ipsum? I guess there’s somebody out there who’s never made a mistake in posting something on Teh InnerToobz.

For context, from just 2015-2019 alone there were 34,000 bias motivated incidents reported to the FBI in the united states.
There are many unknowns. Of cases reported to the FBI, it’s unknown how many were legitimate and of those how many constituted actual hate crimes (as opposed to those that reasonably appeared to be hate crimes). It’s unknown how many incidents have gone unreported. It’s unknown how many of the ‘suspected’ hoaxes on http://www.fakehatecrimes.org are actually fake and how many simply didn’t have the necessary evidence (which is sadly the case with many crimes).
What can be said is that http://www.fakehatecrimes.org doesn’t present a compelling case that fake claims rise above the level of ‘fairly few’.

There is an infinity of unknown knowns and unknown unknowns, including how many people falsely accused of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” got scared, rolled over, plead guilty, and paid a settlement to self-appointed victim-group “representatives” who are shake-down artist grifters.

But there are several things that are not unknown: That Omniscience is a logically impossible trait, that there are no Omniscient Beings, and that therefore, human beings are not Goddamn God Almighty.

Human beings can and do make errors of knowledge about objective reality, human beings can and do evade objective reality and human beings can and do distort objective realiry and commit breaches of morality and justice.

No rational person should believe anyone’s mere say-so on anything without corroborating evidence, especially when that say-so involves crimes against Life, Liberty, and Property.

Again, why all this has to be said, and repeatedly, on an Atheist Forum, is a flabbergasting wonder to behold.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

It isn’t. An ‘insanity defence’ isn’t looking at whether or not a person is amoral or if they have a sense of right and wrong. It looks at whether or not they had the faculties necessary to determine right from wrong.

What I said.

It’s the definition for a particular legal defence regarding culpability.

Again, what I said.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Belle Rose,

We all know the only reason he can do this is because he’s white. White male privilege at its finest 😂 If he was black???…..or Hispanic??…..etc….

So Argumentum Ad Hominem is considered sage legal observation?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

“Sanity” and “Insanity” are strictly legal terms, not clinical conditions, although Psychologists and Psychiatrists are called as expert witnesses in court cases by both Defense and Prosecution to make their respective arguments on sanity or insanity.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  TheEncogitationer.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  TheEncogitationer.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Tinkering with code

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn,

It isn’t. An ‘insanity defence’ isn’t looking at whether or not a person is amoral or if they have a sense of right and wrong. It looks at whether or not they had the faculties necessary to determine right from wrong.

What I said.

It’s the definition for a particular legal defence regarding culpability.

Again, what I said.

I quoted what I was responding to. It was incorrect.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen, “Sanity” and “Insanity” are strictly legal terms, not clinical conditions, although Psychologists and Psychiatrists are called as expert witnesses in court cases by both Defense and Prosecution to make their respective arguments on sanity or insanity.

You are splitting hairs here. The psychological/psychiatric specialists tend not to use the terms because they can be prejudicial and carry a lot of baggage with them. However, they do make assessments which amount to much the same thing but preferring terms which are more descriptive and are not simply one-dimensional labels.

Keep arguing if you figure this is the hill you wish to die on.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Yes. Philosophically, I think that’s a load of shit; however, the system is what it is and factually, his acts were legally self-defence.

So why do you think that is a load of shit?

Because the self-defence is based on Kyle’s belief that he would be harmed by a situation of his own making, and one in which he responded with grossly disproportionate force. When it comes to the tortured logic in American law that supports this defence, if mental gymnastics ever becomes an olympic sport, everyone else is competing for silver.

I don’t know that that’s settled.

The burden of proof rests with the one who makes the assertion, not with the one who merely denies it. The ones who assert that someone is a racist are the ones who have to “settle it.”

It’s irrelevant to whether or not it is settled.

I’m sure we can find outlets that were either rushing to lynch Kyle or desperate to suck him off, but on balance? Again, hard-pressed to call that settled.

My use of “media” meant at least some major media outlets, not the entire body of media, so it is settled for those to whom it applies.

It’s kind of a meaningless statement then. For nearly any story of this at least some major outlets will have some reporting that is ‘shit’ in someone’s opinion.

Wow, that site is a mess. It shows some 400 cases across more than four decades, mostly focused on the US with some from other countries. However, a number of the listings don’t involve any reported hate crime (e.g. one is just a facebook post with faulty information). Quite a few fall under ‘suspected’ hoax either due to inadequate evidence or the police didn’t believe the claim. One of the listings is just Lorem ipsum.

In all the chat I’ve seen on this Forum on “hate speech” and “hate crimes,” I have seen no parameters of time or place set. In fact, chat of “hate crimes” and “hate speech” has been from several nations and spanning thousands of years in so-called “holy” texts. Hence, there are no goal-posts of time or place here, and no goal-posts to move, either.

And Loren Ipsum? I guess there’s somebody out there who’s never made a mistake in posting something on Teh InnerToobz.

It’s not about them making a mistake. It’s that of their hundreds of listed items, a number of them aren’t cases of reported hate crimes let alone hoaxes. A number of those that are reported hate crimes are not even remotely substantiated hoaxes. So to even deal with the list, one would have to weed through which cited cases actually serve as useful evidence.

As for the comment about time lines, this is about frequency. Having four hundred listed cases may seem like a lot, but in context, it isn’t. Even if we accepted all of the cases listed as legitimate examples of hoaxes, they represent a tiny tiny portion of reported hate crimes.

For context, from just 2015-2019 alone there were 34,000 bias motivated incidents reported to the FBI in the united states.
There are many unknowns. Of cases reported to the FBI, it’s unknown how many were legitimate and of those how many constituted actual hate crimes (as opposed to those that reasonably appeared to be hate crimes). It’s unknown how many incidents have gone unreported. It’s unknown how many of the ‘suspected’ hoaxes on http://www.fakehatecrimes.org are actually fake and how many simply didn’t have the necessary evidence (which is sadly the case with many crimes).
What can be said is that http://www.fakehatecrimes.org doesn’t present a compelling case that fake claims rise above the level of ‘fairly few’.

There is an infinity of unknown knowns and unknown unknowns, including how many people falsely accused of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” got scared, rolled over, plead guilty, and paid a settlement to self-appointed victim-group “representatives” who are shake-down artist grifters.

The case that there are “not few cases of hate crime hoaxes” is yours to make. That website doesn’t make that case for you.

[DavisModerator]

I’ve rather quickly reached my limit of ridiculousness and wtf here. Enco, hold up a mirror of intellectual integrity to your ideas and learn to challenge yourself and accept being challenged. Not conceding things and not learning to reshape your world view is not a virtue.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

@Enco

So Argumentum Ad Hominem is considered sage legal observation?

I wasn’t talking about you, I was referring to Rittenhouse. I don’t understand your question.

[jakelafortParticipant]

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113972

Maybe you were aware of this…i just learned this morning. It is exactly what i was pointing out-how disingenuous and hypocritical and selective and driven by media is our collective bleeding heart for humanitarian nightmares. Everything is bullshit, hypocritical nonsense. But the shit will be condemned by the UN. That does a lot of good.

[Author]

Posts