Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 380: Manchin Ease Theater

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tom Bombadil posted...

Isn't the basic worldview that those things all boil down to: "be kind to people, especially if they have it harder than you"? Like you could debate specific points about each of those things listed (does cancel culture go too far? is anti-racism needed? what does "wokeism" even mean?), but if you want to lump them into one unified group and complain about the whole thing "being taught in schools," I think the common thread you'd be objecting to is "don't be a jerk."

I feel like there's this whole trend of oversimplifying a bunch of related things into one blanket term that doesn't actually fit everything you want it to fit, and it makes it real hard to have a discussion about anything. The right has had a long series of buzzwords to do that with (communism, socialism, political correctness) and the left just seems to be hung up on "fascism" and a certain German movement.

I don't think any of those things boil down to "be kind to people" at all. At best, you could say they are not contradictory to the principle of being kind to people although even there, there are people who construct say, cancel culture to expressly mean "be mean to people."

What people oppose and what people support are usually NOT the same thing, even if they are using the same words for it. Like a proponent of CRT and an opponent of CRT may use the same words but mean completely different things.

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Isn't the basic worldview that those things all boil down to: "be kind to people, especially if they have it harder than you"? Like you could debate specific points about each of those things listed (does cancel culture go too far? is anti-racism needed? what does "wokeism" even mean?), but if you want to lump them into one unified group and complain about the whole thing "being taught in schools," I think the common thread you'd be objecting to is "don't be a jerk."

Almost; the common thread is "don't be a jerk to people outside your tribe". Empathy is the enemy of conservatism.

(note that I am defining "tribe" as "ethnic/religious/cultural group")

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't think any of those things boil down to "be kind to people" at all.

Individually, sure, no, "cancel culture" doesn't mean "be kind." The "basic worldview" behind the composite of that+actual CRT+anti-racism+wokeism that Axem was talking about, though, is...roughly that, I think (maybe with the "to people outside your group" or "to racial minorities" qualifiers) My main point remains "please clearly state what you mean instead of going crazy with umbrellas" and my other point is that I really don't see an issue with the "basic worldview" even if there are some questionable or debatable facets in its execution. So if the basic worldview is what is *actually* being taught in grade schools that we're mad about...I struggle to see the issue.

---

Yesmar_ posted...

I did see an interesting post on another message board about how people are missing the point somewhat in regards to the criticisms of CRT in schools. When people complain about CRT, they're not being literal; they're using CRT as a catch-all for all kinds of social/cultural movements that they're opposed to that come out of certain sectors of the contemporary intelligentsia. Cancel culture, wokism, anti-racism, etc... Whether or not their criticisms are valid is certainly something that can be disputed, but to focus on the logistics of whether or not CRT is being taught in public schools is missing the forest for the trees.

I think this is absolutely true; "CRT in schools" as an issue is code for something like "making race a much more salient subject of conversation in schools." Also some of the policy changes being pushed in this area are legitimately bad and it's not surprising that they would turn off moderates (e.g. efforts to eliminate gifted and talented programs/tracking in math because of equity concerns).

Dems completely dismissing the whole thing as a made up issue (even if aspects of it like kids literally being taught CRT certainly are made up) would be a mistake imo.

---

You all are being much too kind, complaints about CRT just mean "my kid is being taught the truth when I want them to be taught conservative propaganda"

---

Kenri posted...

You all are being much too kind, complaints about CRT just mean "my kid is being taught the truth when I want them to be taught conservative propaganda"

---

Kenri posted...

You all are being much too kind, complaints about CRT just mean "my kid is being taught the truth when I want them to be taught conservative propaganda"

Ah yes, the "whacky" conservative notion that all men are created equal, and should be treated as equals. I never stopped to think about that aspect of it, but CRT being a thinly veiled "white savior" style of racism totally tracks. The idea that laws that treat people equal regardless of race/gender/whatever are inheriantly racist, and thus must be changed to benefit minorities sounds like some grade A bullshit racism.

Canada has a very racist concept in our legal system, where sentencing guidelines for someone convicted of a crime need to take into account "racial history" but only if the convicted is first Nations. The government saw the higher rates of crime committed per capita in first Nations people and decided the only way to fix that was to give them more lenient prison sentences for committing the same crime as a person of any other way ethnicity.

If you don't believe me, look up Gladue sentencing.

---

when did BT pivot to just being a discount Ulti

---

See, BT proves most of them don't actually know what CRT is and just create whatever racist boogeyman they can in their head for it.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

when did BT pivot to just being a discount Ulti

---

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1455601148103204864


---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

when did BT pivot to just being a discount Ulti

2004

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1455601148103204864

I'm not exactly surprised by the level of idiocy, but does anyone know why this particular idiocy is happening?
---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Ah yes, the "whacky" conservative notion that all men are created equal, and should be treated as equals. I never stopped to think about that aspect of it, but CRT being a thinly veiled "white savior" style of racism totally tracks. The idea that laws that treat people equal regardless of race/gender/whatever are inheriantly racist, and thus must be changed to benefit minorities sounds like some grade A bullshit racism.

Canada has a very racist concept in our legal system, where sentencing guidelines for someone convicted of a crime need to take into account "racial history" but only if the convicted is first Nations. The government saw the higher rates of crime committed per capita in first Nations people and decided the only way to fix that was to give them more lenient prison sentences for committing the same crime as a person of any other way ethnicity.

If you don't believe me, look up Gladue sentencing.

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

---

kevwaffles posted...

I'm not exactly surprised by the level of idiocy, but does anyone know why this particular idiocy is happening?

JFK Jr is supposed to be Trumps VP according to longstanding Q lore, and that was a day he was supposed to reveal himself based on some flimsy numerology among the Q faithful

---

Also as a follow up to that, there havent been any actual posts from Q since the attempted insurrection, presumably because this all got out of hand, and all further QAnon activity is just the followers going into business for themselves

---

A lot of the people there were wearing "Trump/Kennedy 2020" shirts, so apparently JFK Jr. can time travel, as well.

---

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1456025843281633283

---

StealThisSheen posted...

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1456025843281633283

lmao

---

Grifters gonna grift

---

Tulsi 2024!

---

Im guessing from all these posts Im missing that redsox is back in full force which is the true tragedy of republicans doing well.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

See, BT proves most of them don't actually know what CRT is and just create whatever racist boogeyman they can in their head for it.

From a Reuters summary of the topic: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/what-critical-race-theory-means-why-its-igniting-debate-2021-09-21/

The theory rests on the premise that racial bias - intentional or not - is baked into U.S. laws and institutions. Black Americans, for example, are incarcerated at much higher rates than any other racial group, and the theory invites scrutiny of the criminal justice system's role in that.
An often-cited illustration is America's War on Drugs. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act established harsher penalties for possession of crack cocaine than those for powder cocaine; Black Americans are more likely to be convicted of the former and whites the latter. Within four years, average federal drug sentences for Black offenders were 49% higher than those handed out to white offenders, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sounds exactly what I was talking about. The best part is, the example they give leaves out all context as to WHY crack had harsher penalties. The problem with crack is that it was easier to get on the street and in low income areas, and the reason for that is because it is cut with baking powder or other substances. The reason why crack possession should be punished more harshly is because of the rate of people cutting their crack with other things, causing more overdoses, in addition to the shorter high causing people to take more crack over an extended period making it more addictive.

So ultimately, what CRT is proposing is that crack possession sentencing should be lowered for the SOLE reason that it is a crime that is disproportionately committed by people in low income areas, which also happens to include more minorities. If you are structuring your laws in such a way that you are ignoring the concept of justice, or the logic and scientific reason behind decisions so you don't "offend" a specific people group, you really need to re-evaluate your thinking.

---

And to make things even better, if you stop and think about who the victims of drug abuse are, the people overdosing, their children having do deal with living in a drug addict household, etc, you could make the argument that crack cocaine disproportionately harms minorities living in low income areas. Wouldn't it be "racist" if you lessened the penalties for possessing a drug that demonstrably harms black families more than white families? By this logic, shouldn't crack possession have a harsher sentence than cocaine since the whole point of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was to slow the rate of drug overdoses and all the other related problems (gangs, sex trafficking, child neglect), all things that disproportionately affect innocent minorities?

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

when did BT pivot to just being a discount Ulti

You wound me

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Im guessing from all these posts Im missing that redsox is back in full force which is the true tragedy of republicans doing well.

Black Turtle I think as he is the only one I have blocked and Im leaking posts too

---

masterplum posted...

Black Turtle I think as he is the only one I have blocked and Im leaking posts too

Both have posted on this page but it's more BT.

---

hey guys a centrist democrat lost in Virginia, I think Biden is trying to be too progressive.

In case you didn't get the memo.

---

https://twitter.com/ericadamsfornyc/status/1456311827550384129?s=21

Oh no

---

cool great tight

---

We are in the dumbest timeline

---

wow it's almost like adams wasn't the best candidate for the job

Also, NY voted down the redistricting proposition (though I think that was local/state maps so the US house map could still be drawn however) and also voted down same day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting propositions I mentioned on Election Day so fuck everything.

---

xp1337 posted...

wow it's almost like adams wasn't the best candidate for the job

Also, NY voted down the redistricting proposition (though I think that was local/state maps so the US house map could still be drawn however) and also voted down same day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting propositions I mentioned on Election Day so fuck everything.

The sad thing is I'm also not sure he was the worst...!
Too bad Garcia wasn't "exciting" enough or something

---

Not being the worst isn't a high bar to clear in a race that includes Andrew Yang.
---

https://twitter.com/daviddoel/status/1456235682544996359?s=21

---

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052353703/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-juror-dismissed-for-joke-about-jacob-blake

URL kind of summarizes it but jfc.

The juror made the joke to a court officer who reported it to the judge. The "joke" is in the article but you can imagine.

Honestly I could exceed the post limit detailing all the bullshit going on this trial between the judge ruling the prosecution couldn't introduce evidence linking Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys, to the judge not knowing who the Proud Boys were, to refusing to accept the prosecution's evidence that the Proud Boys were a hate group when they tried to tell him who they were, to the judge telling the prosecution they can't refer to the 2 people Rittenhouse killed as "victims" because it's too "loaded" but gives the okay to the defense to call them "rioters, looters, or arsonists.", to him going on tangents in the trial complaining about the media reporting of these decisions, to going on a weird Bible tangent to explain a legal concept to the jury...

I mean, I guess it's slightly less likely he'll walk after this juror couldn't help but go mask off here?

---

I've watched only yesterday and today from the trial.

The Prosecution is very good. The Defense is really bad and refuses to make reasonable objections. It's bizarre. The Judge is making more objections than Rittenhouse's lawyer.

Yesterday was awful for the Defense, and the officer that testified made a lot of points in the prosecution's favor. Today, the reporter was pretty neutral for both parties. But Balch's testimony kind of demolished the Prosecution, and he was the Prosecution's witness too. Prosecution tried to discredit him at the end because it was devastating enough.

His testimony established that Rosenbaum was an unhinged crazy person all night and threatened Kyle beforehand that if he saw him alone, he'd fucking kill him. And then when Kyle was alone, he ambushed him. It's honestly the best self-defense argument they could wish for.

I don't know how Prosecution could possibly counter this, but they spent most of the day at least establishing recklessness, but I don't foresee the recklessness charge standing if the murder charge doesn't stand.

I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral standpoint so don't @ me about anything other than the legal standing of things.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I've watched only yesterday and today from the trial.

The Prosecution is very good. The Defense is really bad and refuses to make reasonable objections. It's bizarre. The Judge is making more objections than Rittenhouse's lawyer.

Yesterday was awful for the Defense, and the officer that testified made a lot of points in the prosecution's favor. Today, the reporter was pretty neutral for both parties. But Balch's testimony kind of demolished the Prosecution, and he was the Prosecution's witness too. Prosecution tried to discredit him at the end because it was devastating enough.

His testimony established that Rosenbaum was an unhinged crazy person all night and threatened Kyle beforehand that if he saw him alone, he'd fucking kill him. And then when Kyle was alone, he ambushed him. It's honestly the best self-defense argument they could wish for.

I don't know how Prosecution could possibly counter this, but they spent most of the day at least establishing recklessness, but I don't foresee the recklessness charge standing if the murder charge doesn't stand.

I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral standpoint so don't @ me about anything other than the legal standing of things.

Rosenbaum isn't a murder charge, iirc, the other victim is. @PrivateBiscuit1

---

Thank you for @ing me with this. This isn't true though Chris.

Let me line up all the charges:

1st Degree Reckless Homicide - Rosenbaum
Reckless Endangerment - Rosenbaum
1st Degree Intentional Homicide - Huber
Attempted 1st Degree Intentional Homicide - Grosskreutz
Reckless Endangerment - Huber
Possession (Under 18)
Failure to Comply with State Order - Staying out after curfew, very minor


---

@PrivateBiscuit1 reckless homicide isn't a murder charge? I am pretty sure I am right on that. Or maybe I am conflating intent to murder.

Or if I am wrong I don't think the oddness of that charge matters much on the Huber charge. Do you think the context of the first killing will invalidate the second?

I bring this up because I was worried they had fudged the charges after today but then was like "wait this doesn't invalidate much of the other stuff."

---

Sorry, I'm the one not being clear.

Yes, you're right. Reckless homicide isn't a murder charge in legalese. I thought you were saying he wasn't charged for the Rosenbaum death.

No, it doesn't change the Huber charge at all, but I'm pretty sure they aren't going to get him on either Rosenbaum charges after today. They didn't touch upon the other deaths today.

I don't know what they'll try to argue for the Huber and Grosskreutz charges, and I think that can go either way, honestly. It seems especially dependent on how witness testimony goes, since I probably would've argued that he gets hit with the Rosenbaum charges before today.

---

Reasonable doubt probably gets rid of these charges, others feel a lot more concrete to me though but we'll see. The fact that this first charge wasn't seen on camera always made it the most murky. This is where him being in the middle of a criminal act the entire time could make matters worse for him as benefit of the doubt can't really exist legally.


---

It's a jury trial, so it's always up in the air.

I think it's going to depend a lot on the witness testimony, and his own, for the rest of these claims. I'm not willing to hitch my horse either way until I see more.

But I think that they went to attack Rittenhouse after he disengaged the conflict means a great deal, especially if he was already afraid for his life because of Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum literally telling Ritenhouse he'll fucking kill him is an enormous deal. And I think they'll play more towards saying that he was still in fear for his life, depending on the audio that comes out as these people were running up on him.

And if that's the case then they may have overshot too hard with the murder charge rather than homicide. Because it's harder to prove murder in these cases than homicide, in light of a reasonable self-defense here due to Rosenbaum.

Basically, I don't think prosecution expected Rosenbaum to have been quite the insane terror he was that night, nor would did they expect him to outright threaten Kyle and ambush him. It makes things a lot harder for them.

Side note: None of this probably happens if Balch didn't just fuck off and leave Kyle alone, judging by today's testimony. It was pretty clear Rosenbaum was out to hurt someone and wanted to get someone alone.

---

Yeah dude's kind of a piece of shit but if I was on the jury there is no way I convict on anything related to Rosenbaum. You really can't even justify it after hearing that audio.

---

Genuine question, not a devil's advocate: what evidence do they have of Rosenbaum's behavior that night?

Paratroopa1 posted...

Genuine question, not a devil's advocate: what evidence do they have of Rosenbaum's behavior that night?

The officer yesterday said many people felt uncomfortable around Rosenbaum and reported he was starting shit such as setting things on fire and throwing large rocks.

Balch (the guy who was Kyle's partner for the night), today said Rosenbaum was constantly setting stuff on fire and throwing rubble, people seemed uncomfortable around him, and that Rosenbaum was "hyper aggressive" towards people all night, and that any attempts to try to calm him down were met with more aggression.

And Rosenbaum looked at Kyle's group and said, "If I get any one of you alone, I'm going to fucking kill you."

And then by overhead camera video, and testimony from the officer, Rosenbaum had hidden when he saw Kyle was alone, then purposefully ambushed him.

I'm sure there's going to be a lot more corroboration of Rosenbaum as they have more testimony from people who were on the protestor side of things, but as it stands Rosenbaum agitated and escalated everything. It's pretty clear cut self-defense, imo.

Edit: Oh, and the reporter today provided testimony that Rosenbaum was going after Kyle's gun, despite the Prosecution trying to get him to say he wasn't sure if that was Rosenbaum's intent. But the reporter said he was absolutely certain Rosenbaum went after Kyle's gun.

---

This is a situation where the meme "I hate when someone I can't stand makes a valid point" in terms of the politics behind this.

But yeah this is without question self defense.


---

Sounds pretty cut and dry if there are that many people corroborating. I needed to know that it wasn't just the testimony of a single person.

Got a campaign email from Trump where he ranked hoaxes

Even Biden couldnt stand hearing so much about the Global Warming Hoax, the 7th biggest Hoax in America, followed closely behind by:

The 2020 Presidential Election Scam
Russia, Russia, Russia
Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine
Impeachment Hoax #1
Impeachment Hoax #2
And, of course, the No Collusion finding of the Mueller Report.

Theres a lot to dissect here

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Got a campaign email from Trump where he ranked hoaxes

Theres a lot to dissect here

So he's saying the greatest hoax was the no collusion finding? That means that there was collusion?

---