Rittenhouse: The 'Media Accountability' Project

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Belle Rose,

You are not addressing the pros or cons of the arguments over self-defense. You are simply attacking the personages of people by virtue of their immutable traits, as well as imputing a privilege on them that no longer exists in law and more frequently no longer exists in fact. That makes it Argumentum Ad Hominem.

(One example of this lack of “White Privilege” is the ruling in the Ahmad Aubury murder, where it was evident that Ahmad Aubury had more of a case for self-defense and “stand-your-ground” than the three “White” men who attacked him, and where the three were effectively given life in prison, all without evoking a “hate crime” law.)

Step up your A-For-Argument game, then we’ll talk.

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

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.

Does Myanmar threaten to trigger WW3 as Ukraine threatens to? Are white people dying there? These two considerations explain a lot.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Yes Unseen Machiavelli explains as much then as now.

My point is that the masses are fed platitudes…democracy, liberty, freedom, human rights. On the other hand our actions betray our real interests. Us! And only some of us and whatever our perceived self interest is. The US has fucked over democratically elected governments and repeatedly failed to intervene to stop heartbreaking mass rapes and genocides in places that easily would fall to our military might. And once ya have a story that sells the media can bombard us with images and faux concerns and motivations that are more apparent than real.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

@Enco- I’m not talking about “Self-Defense.” I’m referring to the discussion:

Quote:

The long and short of it is that Kyle Rittenhouse and his representation are planning litigation against news networks and media personalities who made reference to him as a murderer, white supremacist, or racist.

To which my response was: He is only being given this kind of platform on Faux News because of white privilege which is so disgustingly apparent.

If he were Black, Hispanic, or any other minority would he be able to litigate against a news outlet for how he was portrayed in the media?

Like I said: white privilege at its finest.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I think in the matter of Rittenhouse both Fox & CNN, MSNBC made hay as the facts were spun to fit their respective narratives.

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I think in the matter of Rittenhouse both Fox & CNN, MSNBC made hay as the facts were spun to fit their respective narratives.

Meanwhile, here in The Land of the Free, we have private businesses (social media platforms, ISP’s, and the above-mentioned networks) deciding what we are allowed to see or read. At least with government censorship, you have FOIA and the 1st Amendment protection. Businesses are hands-off.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert,

Yes, I did and do know all about the three he shot. What a fucking hero pudgy Kyle is. If his stupid ass wasn’t there, 2 people would still be alive and nothing to even note would even have happened.

You made a poor choice of words. You used “people” instead of “wastes of space.” And “nothing to even note” should be “more rioting and looting.”

Celebrating some “proud boys” even. If it is a goal is to become a white national piece of shit, then they should all be proud.

No evidence Proud Boys were involved here. Start again.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Belle Rose,

If he were Black, Hispanic, or any other minority would he be able to litigate against a news outlet for how he was portrayed in the media?

Yes. Next question.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

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.

What I said. It is a legal term, not a clinical one.

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.

Again, what I said. Please try to keep up.

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

Hills are for living on, not dying. Hills make attack from below into work, very handy when the attacker’s war cry was coined by Maynard G. Krebs as is the case with today’s rabble:

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

Sanity and insanity are NOT strictly legal terms. That should be obvious, I would think, but if you have a proof that they are, go to it.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

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.

Changing your mind without evidence and just on someone’s mere say-so is being a sponge and a cipher, not Man, The Rational Animal.

[Author]

Posts