ObjectivityIncarnate

Wow, you’re a sharp one, nothing gets past you.

Times New Roman
oversees

Surely you can do better than this

he thought the nazi’s were the good guys

Quote him: “There were no ‘good guys’ in that war.”

It isn’t enough to criticize him for not considering the Allies the good guys, but you just have to go that one step further and claim that he believes something that is directly contradicted by what he wrote?

It’s like people are afraid of encountering someone who is less than 100% wrong/bad/evil, and refuse to believe there is anyone between ‘saint’ and ‘demon’. Must be exhausting living with such a starkly binary outlook.

Most of them have a national ID that everybody gets, not the complex mix of IDs that the US has.

That’s true, but then on the state level, such could be implemented alongside that type of law, within a given state, and then that state would be set up ‘equivalently’, right?

Those two things should go hand in hand, ideally within the same legislation, I’d think.

Don’t more developed countries have voter ID laws than not? It’s interesting to see that this is one metric where ‘everyone else does this except the US’ is not used as an argument for the change that would align the US with the rest.

the windows help “[add] privacy in the toilet facility”

???

Played it with my SO, reached a certain scene that completely warped the tone of the game (I’m guessing you know which one I mean), and neither of us really have had the urge to play since.

Also, both parents are kinda unlikable as characters imo, lol.

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I’d bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn’t be blaming her “fragile femininity”.

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the ‘framing’ act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

It’s a character flaw to idolize anyone.

Fact: On all of the video there is of him preceding Rosenbaum’s attack, no one is reacting in a way that indicates that they feel provoked by his armed presence.
Fact: You’re imbuing this magical inherent provocation based on literally nothing. It’s what you want to be true, so that you can rationalize your baseless narrative.

I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.

If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.

Debunk the bullshit with facts? Yeah, that is what people with integrity try to do.

Though, a correction: I’m a defender of the truth, not of Rittenhouse. I have no attachment to the kid, but I hate deception, and I just happened to be curious enough to make myself very familiar with the facts of this case when it became a big controversy, and once I realized how many basic things were complete fabrications, it just made me more curious to get at the actual facts, instead of believing dipshits’ narratives in the media, especially those who had already taken a side based on their pre-existing political biases.

The fact that most of the bullshit still floating around about this case is still REALLY easily-debunked surface-level garbage that only a gullible, or a ‘true believer’ in one of those narratives (though I repeat myself) just makes it easier. Half of this shit is so blatantly wrong even the prosecution in the trial didn’t even TRY to argue it, lol.

I like correcting falsehoods, and making liars mad is fun, so here I am.

Shooting competitively is completely irrelevant to whether it’s mundane to see someone in a public place armed with a rifle, in public.

The fact that you still can’t get around, is that nobody in that area on that day in Kenosha was intimidated by Rittenhouse being there armed, neither on arrival, nor as he walked around with the gun on him the whole time. The fact that your REFUSE to even address this fact and instead try to evade it over and over proves that you know it’s a brick wall your assumption runs smack into.

Stop being such an intellectual coward, and admit your argument holds no water.

you’re clearly as blinded by ideology

Bullshit, I’m the one stating facts and you’re the one insisting your baseless assumptions are true, even when there is evidence directly contradicting it.

You’re just desperately trying to rationalize your unwillingness to confront reality honestly, by constantly repeating the same nonsense.

His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts

And then he…hunted down nobody. Aggressed on nobody. Fled as his first reaction every time unprovoked aggression came his way, instead of ever escalating. Only used his weapon when the alternative was literally to forfeit his own life.

“No contradiction”, huh? Are you that foolish to really think that, or that scummy to claim it, fully knowing how bullshit it is?

Check out the master manipulator, bringing up a topic and then getting a reply on that topic.

lol

Can’t help but notice you’ve not shown any of what I said to be inaccurate.

We are talking about his intent here, right?

Yes, which is ultimately defined by his actions. If his actions contradict his words, you can’t pretend the words hold more weight than what he actually did.

Nothing he did that day in Kenosha supports the assumption that his intention was to go there and shoot anyone. Nothing. Period.

And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.”

Uh, no, nobody claimed that. Did you even watch the trial?

1. Washington isn’t Wisconsin.
2. You still can’t get around the fact that no matter how much anyone claims it was a big deal, the people there did not think it was a big deal. So the claim that it was inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory has zero merit. Again, even when he was aggressed upon, the aggression was COMPLETELY UNRELATED to his weapon.

Face facts.

Nice work ignoring everything else and hyper-focusing on ‘he really meant black people when he said ‘shoplifters’, trust me’.

Meanwhile, none of his attackers were black either, lol.

Keep grasping at those straws.