What's new
By:

Rittenhouse

Gameface said:
Not sure it needs it's own thread, so here's this:

www.ksl.com

3 men charged in Ahmaud Arbery's death convicted of murder

Three men were convicted of murder Wednesday in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the Black man who was running empty-handed through a Georgia subdivision when the white strangers chased him, trapped him on a quiet street and blasted him with a shotgun.
www.ksl.com www.ksl.com
Click to expand...
Hope they rot in prison before they rot in whatever version of hell you care to name.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm struggling to understand it as well. I just went to the Yahoo homepage, assuming I'd find something on the Arbery case, and the first thing that pops up is "Kyle Rittenhouse proves that White Women birth White Supremacy while Black Mothers Birth its Victims."

Regardless of your position on anything, shouldn't there be some recognition in the media right now that our justice system got this one correct? Imagine the coverage this would have received if they were found non-guilty. It's become painfully obvious that the media's goal is to rile people up as opposed to reporting the news.
Click to expand...
The one that will likely get even less attention is Ghislaine Maxwell.
 
This is very interesting:
In the days after Rittenhouse, 18, was acquitted of homicide in killing two and wounding a third amid unrest in Kenosha, Wis., two strains of Rittenhouse lionization developed on the right. One was sanitized, mainly treating his acquittal as heroic in that he evaded a would-be injustice at the hands of out-of-control leftism.



The other was darker and more explicit, treating Rittenhouse as a hero for what he did: cross state lines to deliberately place himself in a combustible situation, armed to kill, in a manner likely to provoke the fighting — and lead to the killing — that did indeed take place.



Trump has in effect aligned his movement squarely with the second strain: Rittenhouse’s conduct should never have been subjected to scrutiny by a jury of his peers in the first place; Rittenhouse is the one who meted out justice; his killing in a highly confusing situation should properly have been placed all along outside the procedural realm we describe as the “rule of law.”



As president in August 2020 just after the killing, Trump was already suggesting Rittenhouse had properly acted in self-defense. But it’s highly notable that Trump is now declaring he never should have stood trial after his acquittal.
Click to expand...

 
infection said:
Still trying to wrap my mind around all the controversy in the Rittenhouse case, people continually referencing numerous media-driven inaccuracies (if not outright lies) that are cleared up with even a modicum of understanding of the case or watching any amount of the trial, and the implication of white supremacy, particular for anyone not supporting conviction, but then near silence on the Arbery case. Three convictions, and virtually nobody on any side supporting those guys. Instead of attention on the murder convictions of three white guys who chased down and killed a black guy, we instead get the focus on a kid where the owners of a minority-owned business asked a group for help to protect their business that was set on fire the night before by largely-white rioters. Two white people were shot in what was determined by the courts to be self-defense, but all of the focus was on that trial and what they believed it said about white supremacy.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to take the law into your own ****ing hands. It amazes me that people like you continue to defend this vigilantism. I don’t want to live in a society that supports this vigilantism. Most of the industrialized world surely wouldn’t.

Some much needed perspective here:
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm struggling to understand it as well. I just went to the Yahoo homepage, assuming I'd find something on the Arbery case, and the first thing that pops up is "Kyle Rittenhouse proves that White Women birth White Supremacy while Black Mothers Birth its Victims."

Regardless of your position on anything, shouldn't there be some recognition in the media right now that our justice system got this one correct? Imagine the coverage this would have received if they were found non-guilty. It's become painfully obvious that the media's goal is to rile people up as opposed to reporting the news.
Click to expand...
Welcome to journalism in the 21st century where clicks and outrage are more important than anything else. Maybe killing off local journalism was a mistake? And the internet gives millions of people across the world access to dumb articles like the one you cited.

Im not sure what the solution is, but the media does a poor job of actually informing anyone. It provides picaboo journalism, stuff that entertains and outrages us for a second, disappears, and then reappears to entertain and outrage once again. I don’t know if democracy can last in an era where expertise is diminished, local stories go unreported, and everything is nationalized and filtered through a lens of, “what will get the most outrage for clicks.”
 
The Thriller said:
You don’t get to take the law into your own ****ing hands. It amazes me that people like you continue to defend this vigilantism. I don’t want to live in a society that supports this vigilantism. Most of the industrialized world surely wouldn’t.

Some much needed perspective here:
Click to expand...

1. Could you direct me to where I “defend his vigilantism”?
2. There are several people in this thread who watched the trial. None of them are what anyone could describe as “right-wingers.” Absolutely everyone in this thread who watched any substantial part of the trial has stated and known this case wasn’t about vigilantism, wasn’t about white supremacy, and wasn’t about him going there because he had an itch to scratch and/or tried to provoke anything. You’ve admittedly not availed yourself to the case and it’s silly to have that discussion about your supposed issues of the case that is unsupported by evidence, video footage, and testimony, but lives large in popular narrative. If you feel comfortable with your sources, then that’s fine. Just know that the people here who watched the case aren’t able to put your response in any context because it doesn’t pertain to the case.
 
The Thriller said:
This maxwell?

View attachment 11417
I can think of some pretty important people who’d prefer her trial go unnoticed.
Click to expand...
Yes, that Maxwell. And in case you haven’t paid attention to my posting over numerous years, I’ve consistently said that my biggest hang up on Trump was any connection he had to Epstein, and being baffled why nobody seemed to care about that while otherwise craving any kind of Trump outrage. When he was elected there was an active case of rape against he and Epstein. I’ll assume you didn’t know that. The media never touched that. We got things like Trump eats his fried chicken with a fork, or Trump may have started WWIII by taking a congratulatory phone call from the president of Taiwan. Or numerous years of the dossier.

Why do you think they didn’t talk about the connection to Epstein?
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm struggling to understand it as well. I just went to the Yahoo homepage, assuming I'd find something on the Arbery case, and the first thing that pops up is "Kyle Rittenhouse proves that White Women birth White Supremacy while Black Mothers Birth its Victims."

Regardless of your position on anything, shouldn't there be some recognition in the media right now that our justice system got this one correct? Imagine the coverage this would have received if they were found non-guilty. It's become painfully obvious that the media's goal is to rile people up as opposed to reporting the news.
Click to expand...

To be fair, i think they want clicks/views. They show us what we want to see. I mean donald trump was actually voted to be our president. This is who we are as a society sadly. We crave being triggered. We would much rather fight with each other and argue with each other over anything else. The media plays their role and deserves some blame but they just give us what we want. If no one paid attention to rittenhouse and everyone was super interested in the arbery case then that is what would show up everywhere.

I mean the media doesn’t control jazzfanz right? How many posts/threads are there about the arbery case in comparison to the rittenhouse case.
The media is a reflection of us to a certain extent. Americans kind of suck right now. The main goal of trump seemed to be to divide us and rile us all up. I think he did a fantastic job in that area.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
infection said:
The one that will likely get even less attention is Ghislaine Maxwell.
Click to expand...

Yep. We as a society dont care about that case enough for some reason. If we did and we were craving coverage of that case then the media would give it to us. They love having our eyes on their articles and news programs.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep. We as a society dont care about that case enough for some reason. If we did and we were craving coverage of that case then the media would give it to us. They love having our eyes on their articles and news programs.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I think you may not be cynical enough to appreciate the media’s ability to actually get people to care or not care about things, and that numerous people connected to Epstein (guilty or not) are very large donors to major media outlets. Trump being connected to Epstein and there having been an active child rape case against the two of them wasn’t not covered just because the viewers apparently didn’t demand Trump controversy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top