Thoughts On This Statement - Rittenhouse Case And White Supremacy (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

I was thinking more of the so.informed Instagram feed I posted that started me thinking on this where they laid out the talking points for their readers to use in refuting someone who claimed the case was not about white supremacy. They have almost 3 million followers and are super successful.

Oh boy, I must have missed that one.   I need to see that.  

 

[jon_mx]

Those who think Rittenhouse has had no economic or other damages to sue for are ignorant of the law.  he can clearly show how his opportunities in life have been severely damaged starting with any college he was accepted to prevoiusly now drops him.  Or the fact he could reasonably claim he would be in danger attending most left leaning universities where the students wrongly believe the white supremacist talk that media and others have been spouting.

He is also negatively impacted by his lost opportunities in the job market when the half of the country that still believes he is a racist won't hire or promote him. 

There can also be suits brought for simply damage to his personal reputation if he can prove malice which might be easier than some here seem to think. 

Guess it will take a few years but we will find out.  BTW, Nick Sandman settled with CNN for an unrevealed amount.  But here was the cause etc.

==============================================

In March 2019, Sandmann filed a $275 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, claiming the network had depicted him unfairly.

"In short, the false and defamatory gist of CNN’s collective reporting conveyed to its viewers and readers that Nicholas was the face of an unruly hate mob of hundreds of white racist high school students who physically assaulted, harassed, and taunted two different minority groups engaged in peaceful demonstrations, preaching, song, and prayer," read the suit obtained by The Wrap. "... Contrary to its ‘Facts First’ public relations ploy, CNN ignored the facts and put its anti-Trump agenda first in waging a 7-day media campaign of false, vicious attacks against Nicholas, a young boy who was guilty of little more than wearing a souvenir Make America Great Again cap while on a high school field trip to the National Mall in Washington, D.C."

============================================

I predict Rittenhouse also wins when CNN, MSNBC, NBC et al settle out of court for undisclosed millions.

I hope Rittenhouse gets some nice settlements, but the reality for him is much different than Sanderman.   Rittenhouse has several factors that work against him in court.  One, by virtue of being involved in a very high profile shooting, he became a public figure.  Sanderman is not considered a public figure.  This opens Kyle up to criticism and has to not only show it was untrue,, but also must prove malice..  Also,, Rittenhouse was in fact charged with murder, which provides legal cover that the media can claim they were relying on information from the prosecutor and were not acting the malice.  And thirdly, politicians as always enjoy more legal protections than the average citizen when it comes to slander.  The low hanging fruit would be those sources who said mistruths about Kyle's mother, she has fewer legal obstacles to overcome in winning a lawsuit.  Kyle should try, but the best strategy is to do you best cases first, then seek settlements from others.  

 

[Jamesinaz]

I hope Rittenhouse gets some nice settlements, but the reality for him is much different than Sanderman.   Rittenhouse has several factors that work against him in court.  One, by virtue of being involved in a very high profile shooting, he became a public figure.  Sanderman is not considered a public figure.  This opens Kyle up to criticism and has to not only show it was untrue,, but also must prove malice..  Also,, Rittenhouse was in fact charged with murder, which provides legal cover that the media can claim they were relying on information from the prosecutor and were not acting the malice.  And thirdly, politicians as always enjoy more legal protections than the average citizen when it comes to slander.  The low hanging fruit would be those sources who said mistruths about Kyle's mother, she has fewer legal obstacles to overcome in winning a lawsuit.  Kyle should try, but the best strategy is to do you best cases first, then seek settlements from others.  

I guess we will see.  I am not a lawyer or legal expert.  But I think the case he has isn't that he was an accused murderer who stood trial.  That is true.  The cases will be about the media sources that falsely accused him of being a white supremacist or of various other untruths in the case that incited hatred of him.  He was forced to hire a team of quality lawyers to avoid being sent to prison for life.  And in fact spent 87 days in jail and one could posit that would not have happened if the media portrayal of him hadn't been so negative.

It seems fairly easy to prove he wasn't a racist/supremacist.  Since everyone his age lives on social media and since his was searched for any content to provide a hateful motive for his actions if it existed they would have presented it in court.  I believe that is his payoff.  CNN and MSNBC etc all pounded that he was a militia white supremacist in their descriptions of him and have damaged him significantly.

Well it will be years before we know it he wins any suits.  Or maybe CNN is already cutting a check to settle out of court with a motion to keep his lips sealed. 

 

[GoBirds]

Random data point: Not a single one of my super liberal NYC friends is worked up about white supremacy here. The story isn't even a topic of conversation.

Because it’s not a thing, it was dropped here to stir things up. And worked. 
 

Have a good turkey day boys. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Excellent article on the dangers of accusing people of being white supremacists without facts. Thanks to @Boston for sharing.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-cynical-and-dangerous-weaponization

 

[thriftyrocker]

Excellent article on the dangers of accusing people of being white supremacists without facts. Thanks to @Boston for sharing.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-cynical-and-dangerous-weaponization

I read the article. Jumping to conclusions is always dangerous, especially for the politicians and media highlighted in the article, but there are other dangers that stand out to me more.

It seems a big danger is bad actors like Lin Wood exploiting racism to try to fund raise. Bad actors like this are a cancer on our society.

Rittenhouse insists that the appearance was arranged by his right-wing attorneys Lin Wood and John Pierce — whom he quickly fired and accused of exploiting him for fund-raising purposes 

It seems a big danger is that something that is perceived as racist by some, like Blue Lives Matter, can be normalized by others.

expressed positive sentiments toward the police and then-President Trump, including with the phrase "Blue Lives Matter." That was all that existed — the entirety of the case

I remember Josh Allen making the news before he was drafted because he said the n word and "if ain't white, it ain't right" in his social media when he was a kid. Most accepted his explanation of being a dumb kid. Fortunately he moved past that and few if any cast that on him now.

Part of the age we're in is teaching your kids about the permanence of social media and being careful with what you say there. Part of that is understanding how something that is innocuous in your social circle can have different meaning.

 

[AAABatteries]

Excellent article on the dangers of accusing people of being white supremacists without facts. Thanks to @Boston for sharing.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-cynical-and-dangerous-weaponization

I haven’t read the article yet but I have noticed over the last year or so that white privilege and white supremacy are at times used interchangeably.  When that happens it is a dangerous thing - when David Duke and a random rich white guy who is maybe a capitalist ####### are equated to each other we are almost normalizing true white supremacy and we lose the message to get rid of true hate in our country. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I haven’t read the article yet but I have noticed over the last year or so that white privilege and white supremacy are at times used interchangeably.  When that happens it is a dangerous thing - when David Duke and a random rich white guy who is maybe a capitalist ####### are equated to each other we are almost normalizing true white supremacy and we lose the message to get rid of true hate in our country. 

Agreed. I think maybe I wasn't paying attention and it shocked me to see how flip this was thrown about. 

In my mind, "White Supremacist" was on the level of "Child Molestor" or "Nazi". Super serious and awful things. Which also meant you were pretty sure of what you were saying before making an accusation that hyper serious. 

That seems to have dramatically changed now. 

 

[djmich]

It seems a big danger is bad actors like Lin Wood exploiting racism to try to fund raise. Bad actors like this are a cancer on our society.

Yes, there are a tremendous amount of bad actors on both sides.

I read the article.

It seems a big danger is that something that is perceived as racist by some, like Blue Lives Matter, can be normalized by

Did you read it because a major point of the article is that branding people racists because they support trump or police (both of which are perceived as racist by some) is EXACTLY what the problem is.  Seems like you are supporting this practice?

Part of the age we're in is teaching your kids about the permanence of social media and being careful with what you say there. Part of that is understanding how something that is innocuous in your social circle can have different meaning.

And…this is justification for for the mob to take these people down and make baseless accusations?  What’s your point, yah people should be careful.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I haven’t read the article yet but I have noticed over the last year or so that white privilege and white supremacy are at times used interchangeably.  When that happens it is a dangerous thing - when David Duke and a random rich white guy who is maybe a capitalist ####### are equated to each other we are almost normalizing true white supremacy and we lose the message to get rid of true hate in our country. 

Amen.  There was an article around these parts recently that was using those two terms interchangeably.  Which is just so bizarre.  I think of them as very, very different.  White privilege is outside of my control, more of a societal or situational thing.  It’s more passive.   White supremacy is more active, more in my control — you have to choose to act or think like a white supremacist.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Amen.  There was an article around these parts recently that was using those two terms interchangeably.  Which is just so bizarre.  I think of them as very, very different.  White privilege is outside of my control, more of a societal or situational thing.  It’s more passive.   White supremacy is more active, more in my control — you have to choose to act or think like a white supremacist.

100%. 

I think this also goes to the point I was making somewhere here recently about how it can be discouraging to feel like things are out of our control.

But what you folks are doing and taking a stand on how something is defined is important. I think if people speak up when they see serious terms used incorrectly and flippantly and dangerously, speaking out on it is how things change. It becomes a known thing that "words matter and it's uncool to make serious accusations without more facts". 

I think a ton of that starts with us. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Amen.  There was an article around these parts recently that was using those two terms interchangeably.  Which is just so bizarre.  I think of them as very, very different.  White privilege is outside of my control, more of a societal or situational thing.  It’s more passive.   White supremacy is more active, more in my control — you have to choose to act or think like a white supremacist.

Agree - and to be clear, both are real things and societal problems.  But they aren’t on the same level and it isn’t quite as clear on how we fix some of the white privilege issues.  

 

[thriftyrocker]

Yes, there are a tremendous amount of bad actors on both sides.

Did you read it because a major point of the article is that branding people racists because they support trump or police (both of which are perceived as racist by some) is EXACTLY what the problem is.  Seems like you are supporting this practice?

And…this is justification for for the mob to take these people down and make baseless accusations?  What’s your point, yah people should be careful.

No one is saying "racist because they support police."  I find it hard to respond to that type of rhetoric because it's so outside reality. Black Lives Matter supporters also support the police. People who say "defund the police" support the police. Very few people don't support the police.

However, "Blue Lives Matter" is a direct response to "Black Lives Matter." Someone who is a Black Lives Matter supporter would view it as an attack on their argument. Since Black Lives Matter as a concept is a very basic premise on life and liberty of black people, they would take it as a racist statement. 

For a 17 yo high school student in a conservative area, saying Blue Lives Matter is (likely) not a racist statement. Part of the danger of social media is that when you become a star QB or become notorious, those statements are brought into the media prism.

 

[djmich]

No one is saying "racist because they support police."  I find it hard to respond to that type of rhetoric because it's so outside reality. Black Lives Matter supporters also support the police. People who say "defund the police" support the police. Very few people don't support the police.

However, "Blue Lives Matter" is a direct response to "Black Lives Matter." Someone who is a Black Lives Matter supporter would view it as an attack on their argument. Since Black Lives Matter as a concept is a very basic premise on life and liberty of black people, they would take it as a racist statement. 

For a 17 yo high school student in a conservative area, saying Blue Lives Matter is (likely) not a racist statement. Part of the danger of social media is that when you become a star QB or become notorious, those statements are brought into the media prism.

For many, Blue Lives Matter was a direct response to over-reaching attacks on their friends, family members and civil servants that they depends on and are grateful for protecting them.

For many, Black Lives Matter represents those over-reaching attacks because they were often shouted very loudly by participants from this group.

There’s a lot of noise in both labels.

 

[jon_mx]

No one is saying "racist because they support police."  I find it hard to respond to that type of rhetoric because it's so outside reality. Black Lives Matter supporters also support the police. People who say "defund the police" support the police. Very few people don't support the police.

However, "Blue Lives Matter" is a direct response to "Black Lives Matter." Someone who is a Black Lives Matter supporter would view it as an attack on their argument. Since Black Lives Matter as a concept is a very basic premise on life and liberty of black people, they would take it as a racist statement. 

For a 17 yo high school student in a conservative area, saying Blue Lives Matter is (likely) not a racist statement. Part of the danger of social media is that when you become a star QB or become notorious, those statements are brought into the media prism.

Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter are fighting words at BLM rallies or on these interwebs and are considered white supremist arguements.  It does not take much to find dozens of examples on Twitter or YouTube.  

 

[thriftyrocker]

Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter is fighting words at BLM rallies or on these interwebs and are considered white supremist arguements.  It does not take much to find dozens of examples on Twitter or YouTube.  

Yes, some people use it as an attack, and some people take it as an attack. If you are going to post it on your social media (as Rittenhouse did), you should understand it may be taken as an attack. You may mean it as solely support for the police, but you should understand it is not always used that way.

The OK symbol is an even more innocuous example. It is only bad in that one specific very terrible instance where your blankedy blank lawyer has structured a photo op with racists to make you seem racist.

 

[John123]

Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter are fighting words at BLM rallies or on these interwebs and are considered white supremist arguements.  It does not take much to find dozens of examples on Twitter or YouTube.  

Ahmaud Arbery's father said some very positive and uniting things in his press conference after the verdict.  One of the things he said was "All Lives Matter."  Al Sharpton was behind him and cringed when he said that.  Newsweek literally changed the wording in their reporting of the press conference.  Did you even hear about what he said at the press conference?  Probably not.  Wasn't covered much in the MSM.

 

[quick-hands]

I first heard about the OK sign being white power when some woman did it in the first row of some guy addressing congress.

I'd like to know who she was.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Agreed. I think maybe I wasn't paying attention and it shocked me to see how flip this was thrown about. 

In my mind, "White Supremacist" was on the level of "Child Molestor" or "Nazi". Super serious and awful things. Which also meant you were pretty sure of what you were saying before making an accusation that hyper serious. 

That seems to have dramatically changed now. 

Honestly I never ever heard that term until that last few years. Seems to be a political buzz word now.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ahmaud Arbery's father said some very positive and uniting things in his press conference after the verdict.  One of the things he said was "All Lives Matter."  Al Sharpton was behind him and cringed when he said that.  Newsweek literally changed the wording in their reporting of the press conference.  Did you even hear about what he said at the press conference?  Probably not.  Wasn't covered much in the MSM.

I saw that and appreciated what Mr. Arbery said and how he said it. 

 

[jon_mx]

Ahmaud Arbery's father said some very positive and uniting things in his press conference after the verdict.  One of the things he said was "All Lives Matter."  Al Sharpton was behind him and cringed when he said that.  Newsweek literally changed the wording in their reporting of the press conference.  Did you even hear about what he said at the press conference?  Probably not.  Wasn't covered much in the MSM.

I see more and more black people pushing back against the whole wokist, BLM and critical race theory agenda.  I think the left is jumping the Shark with all these non-prosecution of leftist looters, and over prosecution's of people like Kyle and even the Jan 6th protesters.   Assuming they keep doubling down on stupidity, I can see a huge swing in both the House and Senate.  There is just so much dishonesty in their movement.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Honestly I never ever heard that term until that last few years. Seems to be a political buzz word now.

Wait.  What?   Seriously?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I saw that and appreciated what Mr. Arbery said and how he said it. 

The strength some people display is truly inspirational.  I don’t know how many people could do what he did.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Wait.  What?   Seriously?

Yes..I heard it before but not like it is used now.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Yes..I heard it before but not like it is used now.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  That makes sense.  It’s….really tough to see how people throw these terms around now…..with seemingly little regard for the power of words.  And the danger of being wrong.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Ahmaud Arbery's father said some very positive and uniting things in his press conference after the verdict.  One of the things he said was "All Lives Matter."  Al Sharpton was behind him and cringed when he said that.  Newsweek literally changed the wording in their reporting of the press conference.  Did you even hear about what he said at the press conference?  Probably not.  Wasn't covered much in the MSM.

It was not covered because that did not fit the narrative.  BLM, ALM, WLM, HLM, ALM.

All lives in reality should matter. Society would be so much better if we all accepted and lived by that motto.  Should not be  political for all people lives to matter.

 

[Nugget]

It was not covered because that did not fit the narrative.  BLM, ALM, WLM, HLM, ALM.

All lives in reality should matter. Society would be so much better if we all accepted and lived by that motto.  Should not be  political for all people lives to matter.

Agreed. That wasn’t ever really the point. Black Lives Matter Too wasn’t as catchy.   Just looking at results in many parts of the world, it seems maybe some people forgot that black lives matter. 
 

 

[Nugget]

White supremacy is a tough topic - I think it has morphed over the last 30 years into a more systemic issue rather than a hate issue.  I think we could find examples that maybe are not based as much on hate but culture and we find people who generally support the idea. English as a National language probably qualifies. The Constitution laying out blacks count as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  Nativist laws over our history.  I think they should find a better term, but the idea of the supremacy of white culture in the US isn’t that hard to find. 

 

[stlrams]

White supremacy is a tough topic - I think it has morphed over the last 30 years into a more systemic issue rather than a hate issue.  I think we could find examples that maybe are not based as much on hate but culture and we find people who generally support the idea. English as a National language probably qualifies. The Constitution laying out blacks count as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  Nativist laws over our history.  I think they should find a better term, but the idea of the supremacy of white culture in the US isn’t that hard to find. 

Totally disagree with your unsupported opinion.  Please provide link to support your position..

 

[Nugget]

Totally disagree with your unsupported opinion.  Please provide link to support your position..

Which part?  Do you agree with the Constitutional claim and nativist laws?  Do you want a link to support English as the official language?

 

[Joe Bryant]

The strength some people display is truly inspirational.  I don’t know how many people could do what he did.

Agreed. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

White supremacy is a tough topic - I think it has morphed over the last 30 years into a more systemic issue rather than a hate issue.  I think we could find examples that maybe are not based as much on hate but culture and we find people who generally support the idea. English as a National language probably qualifies. The Constitution laying out blacks count as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  Nativist laws over our history.  I think they should find a better term, but the idea of the supremacy of white culture in the US isn’t that hard to find. 

I agree for sure it's a tough topic. And words matter. I truly don't know how many people are like me and think of white supremacy as KKK type stuff. 

I do think it's a conversation worth having.

In my opinion something like black people and the 3/5 clause is in another universe than the idea of having and official language. Like lots of countries do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory

It's a challenging topic for sure. 

 

[The Commish]

White supremacy is a tough topic - I think it has morphed over the last 30 years into a more systemic issue rather than a hate issue.  I think we could find examples that maybe are not based as much on hate but culture and we find people who generally support the idea. English as a National language probably qualifies. The Constitution laying out blacks count as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  Nativist laws over our history.  I think they should find a better term, but the idea of the supremacy of white culture in the US isn’t that hard to find. 

And this is a big problem IMO.  I think you're right.  Terms are taken and meanings changed all the time in the name of fear, agenda whatever.  White supremacy <> systemic racism.  Many here have pushed back on that for years (myself included) just to be accused of arguing semantics.  THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Of course this practice isn't unique to a "side".  For every person you find labeling things "white supremacy" incorrectly, you'll find a person labeling things "CRT" incorrectly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And this is a big problem IMO.  I think you're right.  Terms are taken and meanings changed all the time in the name of fear, agenda whatever.  White supremacy <> systemic racism.  Many here have pushed back on that for years (myself included) just to be accused of arguing semantics.  THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Of course this practice isn't unique to a "side".  For every person you find labeling things "white supremacy" incorrectly, you'll find a person labeling things "CRT" incorrectly.

And for sure it's not just one side that can twist words.

For this issue of White supremacy <> systemic racism, why do you think it's become such a thing where some people seemingly are flippant about it? Where many of us here see as super serious, and therefore used with caution and certainty, 

Answering my own question, it feels like it's purely for scoring points for "my side". It's like someone calling Joe Biden a child molester because he looked at a child weird or touched their hair. Is it weird and kind of creepy? Yes. Does that make him a child molester? Absolutely not. And it's gross and totally inappropriate to call him that with no more evidence than a look. Not only is it incredibly unfair to the person being accused, it's disrespecting the victims of real child molestation. But it scores points for their side and there will be a bunch of people behind them high fiving that they're not afraid to "keep it real" or "bring the truth".

I think it's gross.

Serious accusations should go with appropriate facts.

And I'm glad it seems there are folks here that want to be better.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

White supremacy is a tough topic - I think it has morphed over the last 30 years into a more systemic issue rather than a hate issue.  I think we could find examples that maybe are not based as much on hate but culture and we find people who generally support the idea. English as a National language probably qualifies. The Constitution laying out blacks count as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.  Nativist laws over our history.  I think they should find a better term, but the idea of the supremacy of white culture in the US isn’t that hard to find. 

The 3/5 clause sort of qualifies as white supremacy, because it's directly tied to the issue of slavery, which was definitely and obviously a manifestation of white supremacy.  Of course, that's with the usual caveat that counting black slaves as whole people would have been much more white supremacist than having them not count at all, since the issue was how much representation slave states should have relative to free states.  But anything aimed at propping up slavery could fairly be tossed into the "white supremacy" bucket.

On the other hand, there are good non-racist reasons why a person might think that having an official language is a good idea (e.g. lowering the transaction costs of living in society; enhancing social cohesion).  I don't agree, but those are totally fine, reasonable considerations.  There's also an argument to be made that widespread English-speaking is good for immigrant children since it speeds up assimilation and makes it easier for them to be successful later in life.  (I'm agnostic on this argument -- I'd like it to be true, which is a sign that I should avoid signing off on it in the absence of good data).  If this is the kind of thing you mean by "white supremacy," then I think it's fair to say that you've stretched that term well beyond the point where normal people will understand what you're talking about.

This is kind of similar to how some people who mostly agree with me on immigration sometimes act as if having borders is xenophobic or something.  There are some things that are just normal, ordinary parts of having a country.  Border enforcement is one of those things.  Promoting a common language is another.  Those are all fine.  

 

[bigbottom]

I agree for sure it's a tough topic. And words matter. I truly don't know how many people are like me and think of white supremacy as KKK type stuff. 

I do think it's a conversation worth having.

In my opinion something like black people only having 3/5 of a vote is in another universe than the idea of having and official language. Like lots of countries do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory

It's a challenging topic for sure. 

I agree with you 100%, but just as a point of clarification, the three-fifths compromise was not about black people only having 3/5 of a vote. It was so much worse than that. 

 

[bigbottom]

And for sure it's not just one side that can twist words.

For this issue of White supremacy <> systemic racism, why do you think it's become such a thing where some people seemingly are flippant about it? Where many of us here see as super serious, and therefore used with caution and certainty, 

Answering my own question, it feels like it's purely for scoring points for "my side".

I think the bolded is largely correct. Put another way, it’s a way to delegitimize the arguments of ideological opponents. Unfairly labelling someone a racist or a white supremacist, is a way for me to simply disregard that person’s opinions on policy or cultural issues, and encourage others to do the same.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I agree with you 100%, but just as a point of clarification, the three-fifths compromise was not about black people only having 3/5 of a vote. It was so much worse than that. 

I know that. Edited to be more clear. 

I think it's another universe than the idea of a national language. Putting it even remotely in the same conversation feels offensive.

 

[bigbottom]

I know. I was just following what the poster had posted. 

Okay, but the poster you quoted didn’t post that. I only mentioned it because it is a commonly repeated misstatement of that particular provision. 

 

[The Commish]

And for sure it's not just one side that can twist words.

For this issue of White supremacy <> systemic racism, why do you think it's become such a thing where some people seemingly are flippant about it? Where many of us here see as super serious, and therefore used with caution and certainty, 

Answering my own question, it feels like it's purely for scoring points for "my side". It's like someone calling Joe Biden a child molester because he looked at a child weird or touched their hair. Is it weird and kind of creepy? Yes. Does that make him a child molester? Absolutely not. And it's gross and totally inappropriate to call him that with no more evidence than a look. Not only is it incredibly unfair to the person being accused, it's disrespecting the victims of real child molestation. But it scores points for their side and there will be a bunch of people behind them high fiving that they're not afraid to "keep it real" or "bring the truth".

I think it's gross.

Serious accusations should go with appropriate facts.

And I'm glad it seems there are folks here that want to be better.

A few things I've noticed from the people who do it.

1.  They just repeat things they hear.  It's rarely ever a unique "argument" and almost always verbatim what talking heads in the "media" say (if I am to go by the links provided in this forum).
2.  They aren't really in it for meaningful discussion.  All about the   (I guess this is pretty similar to your "sides" arugment).
3.  People don't admit when they are wrong or got duped.  If they choose candidate X and that candidate is a major whiff, they'd much rather go the "but you whiffed too" than say "damn, I screwed up".....problem with this one is when they two really aren't the same in terms of messing up, they need to make them the same, so they go to the extreme and exaggerate the "bad" of guy X to match their guy....again going back to avoiding acknowledging being wrong or duped.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A few things I've noticed from the people who do it.

1.  They just repeat things they here.  It's rarely ever a unique "argument" and almost always verbatim what talking heads in the "media" say (if I am to go by the links provided in this forum).
2.  They aren't really in it for meaningful discussion.  All about the   (I guess this is pretty similar to your "sides" arugment).
3.  People don't admit when they are wrong or got duped.  If they choose candidate X and that candidate is a major whiff, they'd much rather go the "but you whiffed too" than say "damn, I screwed up".....problem with this one is when they two really aren't the same in terms of messing up, they need to make them the same, so they go to the extreme and exaggerate the "bad" of guy X to match their guy....again going back to avoiding acknowledging being wrong or duped.

I think this is all good. Thanks for summarizing points I was thinking too.

I also think we all should continue to call this kind of stuff when we see it. 

Who was the politician (John McCain?) that was asked about taking a negative shot at his opponent and he declined? There seems like there is some of that in play. I may disagree with a person. But before using serious accusations like white supremacist or child molester or nazi, I want to be sure that's accurate. If not, I'm just contributing to the problem. 

 

[The Commish]

A few things I've noticed from the people who do it.

1.  They just repeat things they hear.  It's rarely ever a unique "argument" and almost always verbatim what talking heads in the "media" say (if I am to go by the links provided in this forum).
2.  They aren't really in it for meaningful discussion.  All about the   (I guess this is pretty similar to your "sides" arugment).
3.  People don't admit when they are wrong or got duped.  If they choose candidate X and that candidate is a major whiff, they'd much rather go the "but you whiffed too" than say "damn, I screwed up".....problem with this one is when they two really aren't the same in terms of messing up, they need to make them the same, so they go to the extreme and exaggerate the "bad" of guy X to match their guy....again going back to avoiding acknowledging being wrong or duped.

There's one other thing I've noticed.  Some people just can't stand to agree with others on something if they perceive them to be on the other "side".  I've seen countless threads where side A says something that side B agrees with.  Do we move on?  No...we change the argument to be a bit more extreme.  If they still agree, it gets more extreme and this goes on and on.  You can look in ANY of the gun threads here for examples of this.  You can look in the CRT thread too.  People will go until the extreme is just absurd to avoid agreeing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Okay, but the poster you quoted didn’t post that. I only mentioned it because it is a commonly repeated misstatement of that particular provision. 

I know.

Edited for clarity.

 

[bigbottom]

I think this is all good. Thanks for summarizing points I was thinking too.

I also think we all should continue to call this kind of stuff when we see it. 

Who was the politician (John McCain?) that was asked about taking a negative shot at his opponent and he declined? There seems like there is some of that in play. I may disagree with a person. But before using serious accusations like white supremacist or child molester or nazi, I want to be sure that's accurate. If not, I'm just contributing to the problem. 

You’re right, that was John McCain. He was responding to a woman stating that she could not trust Obama because he was an Arab. Major props to McCain for responding her to her the way that he did. He was a man of great character in my estimation. Of course, the really sad part of that exchange was the underlying premise that an American being of Arab descent is a reason to distrust them. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

You’re right, that was John McCain. He was responding to a woman stating that she could not trust Obama because he was an Arab. Major props to McCain for responding her to her the way that he did. He was a man of great character in my estimation. Of course, the really sad part of that exchange was the underlying premise that an American being of Arab descent is a reason to distrust them. 

Thanks. I guess that wasn't a good example then. But I hope folks can see what we're saying. Serious and real accusations need to be treated that way. 

 

[bigbottom]

Thanks. I guess that wasn't a good example then. But I hope folks can see what we're saying. Serious and real accusations need to be treated that way. 

Well, I do think it was a good example of what we’re talking about, namely that we need to worry less about scoring points for our respective sides and more about having honest debate over material and substantive issues. Also we all need to stop disparaging others in an attempt to delegitimize their positions. 

 

[Nugget]

And this is a big problem IMO.  I think you're right.  Terms are taken and meanings changed all the time in the name of fear, agenda whatever.  White supremacy <> systemic racism.  Many here have pushed back on that for years (myself included) just to be accused of arguing semantics.  THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Of course this practice isn't unique to a "side".  For every person you find labeling things "white supremacy" incorrectly, you'll find a person labeling things "CRT" incorrectly.

I watched the Colin Kaepernick series on Netflix last week.  He pushed boundaries on what I was comfortable with, and he took some comparisons in my mind too far.   He did focus on lot on power dynamics - who has it, who determines what is allowed and expected, and how it plays out in families, sports, and society.  There were 6 episodes - total of about 3 hours.  I think it is beneficial for people with an open mind, but I see the potential for a lot of backlash.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also we all need to stop disparaging others in an attempt to delegitimize their positions. 

I think this is an excellent point. And to branch off it, I'd say one of the things I feel like I've grown better with is trying to separate the idea from the person. Meaning, it's human nature to "filter" things by the source. If that person is known to be unreliable, you don't give what he says much credit. But often it morphs into, "I don't like that person, so I'm not going to give what he says any credit". And that can be a problem. 

It's essentially open mindedness. 

And I think it's good business. I read in Sam Walton's book years ago about how he loved to visit competitors stores. He said something like "Even the worst store in town is doing something better than we are and I can learn something from it". That's Dale Carnegie 101 stuff. I can't remember the quote but it's something about "Every person I meet is my superior in some way and I can learn from them". 

I think that's true in all of life, not just business. I'll often see a quote or tweet from someone and instead of dismissing it, think about it for a second. I've found good stuff that way.