DaBabyAteMaDingo

10000% this

I’ll leave a few examples of what I mean but growing up in the 90’s, it was cool to be racist against blacks. My family was no exception and it was expected of us to not get along. This wasn’t an isolated incident as the whole world of “pick-me-minorites” (including other black people) was growing. The system made us enemies and with it came a culture of acceptable racism. So it’s no surprise that these older generations still harbored some misguided hatred when the BLM protests/riots happened. My family, as much as I love them, are completely stupid and immature when it comes to racial issues. My own sweet mother is afraid of black people and is oftentimes on the giving end of some wild racist quotes. But her uncle was killed by a black man over a pair of shoes so I guess it’s “justified?” Obviously not.

So it could be a case of underlying racism that pushed them over the edge. The BLM movement was viewed negatively and as “typical behavior and patterns of violence of their kind” even though the overwhelming majority was peaceful. So it pushed the center to the right the right even further.

Anyways, here’s some links to the turmoil - not necessarily a direct link to my original claim but I guess you have to make the connection. The left media won’t (I sound so far-right right now 🤣)

https://www.vox.com/22321234/black-asian-american-tensions-solidarity-history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooftop_Koreans

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/10/blacks-vs-browns/306655/

As a second generation Latino I believe it has to do with assimilation. Most of my family works in construction in some way (including myself) and they’re usually uneducated and easily manipulated. It’s no surprise the right targets blue collar workers and bombards them with anti-social program rhetoric about “your tax dollars being used to fund the lazy” bullshit. Also, and I hate to say this, blacks and Latinos didn’t mix historically. The BLM stuff moved a lot of minorities (Asians and others) away from the left and I’m still embarrassed by it - another example being that Latinos and whites get along in California jails and don’t associate with blacks. Shits fucking retarded.

I can apply one of my favorite quotes to this situation: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” - LBJ… but instead use brown instead of white 🤣

Alright guys, get your Lemmy Political Retard bingo card out! Let’s see how many we can hit! I already got the system is fucked and are we really reduced to these choices?. Oh! I just got democrats need to pull their head out of their ass!

I love your interpretation of the US. Trust me, a lot of us that are from here feel the same way driving through those types of states 🤣

The religious loony spots are mocked if you’re not from those small towns. Hell, even most kids that are from those towns talk crap about them!

Lol are you down voting my comments? 🤣😂

You’re making my point for me. When these people get booked to speak it speaks volumes about the people booking them and the people going to listen to them.

I can’t say that some individuals aren’t praising Rittenhouse for what he did, which is odd behavior, but what he did wasn’t illegal and was justified in the eyes of the law. I haven’t defended those entities, such as Turning Point or Daily Wire, whatsoever - just merely challenging your feigned incredulity about why someone would want to have him speak or appear as a guest in their show. And like you said “it speaks volumes about them” which I agree with. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the individual they book.

Then a lawyer, a legal expert of some kind, would be a better choice than the guy sobbing on the stand that apparently didn’t understand “if I go to this place and bring a gun I might end up shooting somebody.”

Again, I don’t know what you’re arguing here. You don’t like Rittenhouse, some people do and they want to listen to him talk. I know you understand why someone would like to hear this kid speak - you and I don’t like it or really get it but I don’t give a shit. Why do you care so much?

Yup, that’s why if it would be absurd to invite someone to speak for being charged with robbing a store, then it is insane to invite someone to speak for being charged with the killing of two individuals and wounding another.

This is so sad, dude. Do I really have to restate the importance of this case? We can have a good conversation but you’re just trying to win a dumb internet debate - and failing.

Let me simplify it lil bro:

1. me no likey Rittenhouse but me no care
2. he involve in mucho famous court case
3. he so popular and some people, good and bad, want to hear he talk
4. he be innocent so he no murder no body, he self defensed.
5. you no likey outcome of case? 2bad so sad. U objectively wrong 🤷‍♀️

Killer and murder are not the same thing. You got access to the internet, right? I’ll give you some homework: figure out why they aren’t allowed to use the word “murderer(er)” in cases.

Problem is I read it thoroughly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So makes as much sense as inviting the killer of George Floyd to speak. Or OJ Simpson

Derek Chauvin was charged and convicted, had he been acquitted of any charges, you bet your ass he would’ve been doing speeches for the alt right group. OJ has literally done speeches (not pertaining to acting or football) after his trial and gained a huge amount of notoriety for that questionable ruling. Why would you prove my point like this? 🤣 Being a person of interest doesn’t just mean you’re an expert an a given topic, it could just be that you have something interesting to say and have a story people want to hear. And Rittenhouse’s story is pretty interesting, wouldn’t you say so?

Whatever the topic of conversation, surely they can find someone with some actual expertise on the topic instead of just someone whose claim to fame is being charged with a crime?

Do you even know the subject of these speeches? Why would you assume Rittenhouse doesn’t have the experience to talk about said topic? What if it was about being in one of the most famous cases of all time? 🤔

Getting charged for robbing a convenience store and avoiding punishment doesn’t make me a good choice to give a speech to people, unless that speech is “how to get away with robbing a convenience store.”

Please don’t tell me this is supposed to be a real question. You understand the difference between a typical felony charge and the killing of two individuals and wounding another during a civil right protest, right? Not to mention the precedent it will set in future self-defense cases. This comment is absurd.

It’s almost like the law didn’t consider the idea that a bunch of angry and awful people would show up to one place intent on hurting each other. It’s almost like this is the opposite of civil order and he just showed up knowingly with a weapon.

I’m a supporter of the BLM movement but even I can say some of those protests were more than peaceful. Staying past curfew and destroying property is by definition a riot. I’m not necessarily opposed to their rationale for causing mayhem - but you can’t say only one side showed up with “intent on hurting each other”.

I don’t really fault the jury for their conclusion, but gun owners just keep getting to show up with guns proving their own case that you need a gun everywhere to be safe.

This is a genuine question: how many of the BLM protesters were involved in retaliatory gunfire from the other side (not including the police obviously)? I’m pretty sure it’s near zero which makes Rittenhouse’s case unique as it is rare. I wouldn’t call this a reoccurring issue and gun carry laws vary from state to state. That’s a more complicated issue than this case.

This isn’t some silly partisan squabble. An echo chamber convinced a very very young man to show up and kill. And now he gets paid to speak? And you laugh at the people who rightfully hate him? Loool

There may be something to this but in Rittenhouse’s case, he was there defending his friends of the family’s store. He wasn’t just there to “show up and kill”. In fact, if you watch the same videos the jury and the literal rest of the world watched; it’s obviously, demonstrably, undeniably justified self defense.

You have to be an expert to be invited to speak at places? Someone should tell the flat earthers.

A more serious answer is that Rittenhouse faced a trial that gained notoriety around the world. An incident that occurred at a protest/riot at the height of the BLM movement. It was seen by many as blatant murder and to others it was self-defense, making the outcome of the case very personal to millions of people. So why would you invite someone like Rittenhouse, the defendant in a historic trial, to speak at an event? Hmmm 🤔

The Rittenhouse case was a litmus test of sorts. It was justified self-defense both objectively and litigiously and you leftists still harp on this subject like the facts and statements weren’t publicly available 🤣

It’s when I realized most of the liberals were just fake and didn’t really read anything other than Twitter, tik tok, or Instagram. I’m still a die hard Democrat with a heavy emphasis on social programs but y’all really need to get your head out your asses - before we start losing more people due to your virtue signaling bull crap 😂

My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the 2nd amendment: “You know I got that thang on me. Pull up”

No worries. I assumed we were talking about primaries and didn’t specify.

Okay I was technically wrong but you’re actually wrong

Why? Historically, the sitting president has never participated in the primary or any other debates.

Edit: just so you bozos understand my point, I meant debating in terms of election. I understand there has been in discussion and debates outside of elections and I’m sure Biden and Trump will debate at the very end at some point (assuming trump wins or is even allowed to be in the primary). But my point still stands lol

Democrats and Republicans swapped ideologies and beliefs around 1936

Hamas attacked innocent civilians on the 7th. Didn’t see any lefties coming out to denounce any of it

Meh I use Tankies as a term for the “far right” of the left.

Might not be the most accurate term but these Israel hating leftists are almost always Tankies. But the rest of the comment is pretty clear and I’m glad you were able to focus on something benign. Typical tankie.