What's new

Rittenhouse

This is why I hate the leftists in my own party @Gameface It’s not the policies like an infrastructure bill, paid family leave, Medicaid expansion, legal weed, $1,400 during a pandemic that people hate. Polls look like this because people hate the AOC wing of the Democratic Party and are tired of their nonsense and whining. It ain’t a policy thing that’s losing Democrats elections, it’s a faction in the party that people hate and has gone completely insane and are convinced they are a majority because they echo chamber each other on Twitter and within out of touch media sources. That’s why I will rant all day long about the extremists within my own party that have stupid ideas, and delusional thought processes. Don’t want gerrymandering and to lose state house and Senate seats that create districts? Start appealing to more people than those in cities and ultra blue areas. You may win the battle(Presidency) but we are losing the war down ballot.

 
Be careful what you beg for. I'd sentence you to death by Sarlacc. In its belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering, as you are slowly digested over a thousand years.
Eh, unless you are willing to eat some chunks of bounty hunter you would starve to death before that.
 
Eh, unless you are willing to eat some chunks of bounty hunter you would starve to death before that.
Legends canon states the Sarlacc enzymes keep its victims alive and aware in constant horrific pain (the enzymes make you feel like you are boiling). The good news is the sarlacc absorbs your sentience, meaning you will consciousness in some form will live in that pit for up to 50,000 years, unless a krait dragon gets to you first.
 
I can say with certainty that Rittenhouse is an idiot. I'm not going to give him other labels without more.

I believe we need to have better equality, and I think our poor citizens, including blacks, are disadvantaged and we need to do something about it. I'm all for doing more to protect black lives and work to stop racism, but I can't say I fully support Black Lives Matter (which I have donated to), as it seems like it is just as corrupt as many other organizations, particularly its founder.

He could be pro-police, he could be anti-black or simply a gun nut, or perhaps a mix of all. I haven't seen direct evidence that he is a white supremacist, but that doesn't mean he isn't.
 
The more I think about Rittenhouse, the more I think about the history of white vigilantism regarding Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era. We cannot underestimate the impact of race and how demographic and societal change is leading millions of Americans into believing that "their country" is slipping away from them. Throughout Reconstruction, southern vigilantes took the law into their own hands murdering black leaders, businessmen, schools, and whites who were setting up Freedman Bureaus.

Bureau agents, who acted essentially as social workers and were frequently the only federal representatives in Southern communities, were subjected to ridicule and violence from whites (including terrorist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan), who viewed the agents as interfering in local affairs by trying to assist blacks. While some agents were corrupt or incompetent, others were hardworking and brave people who made significant contributions.
The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away." Not that dissimilar from Rittenhouse's defense.

In 1955, Emmett Till was lynched and burned for supposedly whistling at a white woman.


In 1963, a churching in Birmingham was bombed, killing four black girls. The church was used for Civil Rights gatherings. Again, the excuse of "their way of life was being threatened" was used.


In 1964, Civil Rights workers, 2 white and 1 black, were killed near the Philadelphia, Mississippi Fairgrounds. Ronald Reagan in 1980 launched his campaign here, citing "State's rights" and vowed to "RESTORE to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."

You can make what you want out of that.


Without the election of a black Democrat as president, we probably don't get Trump. Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" was effective because millions don't like the demographic change, don't like seeing women so empowered, and don't like the multicultural democracy that we are turning into. One aspect that is under discussed is the impact white evangelicalism has on all of this. White Evangelicalism, broadly speaking, has merged with Republican politics. It has adopted an "under siege" mentality. It is teaching its adherents that "As America goes so does Christianity." Since they're being taught that America must remain a patriarchal society where white male Christians remain on top, then all actions become justified to combat a nation that is becoming less masculine, empowering women, empowering POC, and less Christian. That is why MAGA is so effective. It's a dog whistle to those you yearn for a more patriarchal, whiter, and Christian society. Seen through this lens, white vigilantism is seen as "self-defense", not murder.

That is what contributed to much of the violence we've seen over the last few years. It's definitely what influenced the BLM protests and the Rittenhouse actions in Wisconsin.

I thought this podcast episode from NPR was one of the best I've ever listened to:


@Red I don't know how many other posters will appreciate that podcast. But I thought you especially might.
 
The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away." Not that dissimilar from Rittenhouse's defense.
You've admitted you haven't followed (and I'd presumed also hadn't watched [as a side note it is quite apparent that most people here didn't watch any significant amount of the trial]); where did you get any of these assumptions of this being Rittenhouse's defense?
 
You've admitted you haven't followed (and I'd presumed also hadn't watched [as a side note it is quite apparent that most people here didn't watch any significant amount of the trial]); where did you get any of these assumptions of this being Rittenhouse's defense?
Self defense has been a common excuse of white vigilantism. I don't see him running to another state to "defend that community" that dissimilar from past cases of white vigilantism. It's a common excuse for taking the law into one's own hands.
 
Self defense has been a common excuse of white vigilantism. I don't see him running to another state to "defend that community" that dissimilar from past cases of white vigilantism. It's a common excuse for taking the law into one's own hands.
Ignoring the part of your post that's riddled with fundamentally wrong information regarding the case, help me understand your specific statement:

The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away."

Help me understand Rittenhouse's defense appealing to "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life."
 
Ignoring the part of your post that's riddled with fundamentally wrong information regarding the case, help me understand your specific statement:



Help me understand Rittenhouse's defense appealing to "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life."
Why was Rittenhouse there at this protest?
 
Back
Top