Because the left is heavily invested in the narrative that Kyle is a far-rightwing militia Proud Boy MAGA member.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Kyle Rittenhouse an Andrew Yang supporter? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
Because the left is heavily invested in the narrative that Kyle is a far-rightwing militia Proud Boy MAGA member.
The left wing certainly does seem to want to tie Klye to far right militia types. He's what, 18 years old? How far down any rabbit hole could he be? Dude became of hero to many of on the right. So he's cashing in. Can't blame him.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
The issue is primarily that of the availability heuristic. First and foremost the media have done their due diligence and know what sells.They then sell to the bias of their audience. That audience devours the information as it feeds that which they desperately want to be true, and there is a gratification that results.
So MSM will lie as needed to feed the herd, who consumes it without critical review, and then trots out the falsehoods as fact, because if it should arise that they are proven incorrect they are crushed. The self-perception, and worth, of a liberal is tied tightly to the group, the individual gives way to the group, and if the group is proven to be liars or worse that is then imbued into the group - even though they did not commit the act.
The media simply cannot deliver information honestly, they have to "craft" it or risk the harm to the mob on which they rely.
squistion
Footballguy
No, unlike Carlson she hasn't been sued for defamation and then have her lawyers state that what she said would not be believed by most reasonable people as being true (paraphrasing Carlson case).
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Actually she has, and when it transpired she admitted she is not delivering "news" as part of her defense.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
District Judge Cynthia Bashant dismissed OANN’s case.
“Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions,” the ruling held. “A reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.”
Maddow’s “statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact,” decided Bashant, an Obama appointee. (Vyskocil was also a Trump appointee.) She then ordered OANN to pay MSNBC $250,000 in legal fees; OANN has taken the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
“Indeed, lawyers for MSNBC and Fox cited most of the same legal precedent to defend their stars and to insist that their statements could not be actionable as defamation because viewers understood it as opinion rather than fact.”
Link
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Likely? We do.
Plus there are hundreds of unsolved murders and even more missing people every year that go unoticed.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Spot on.
And if there is an "issue" here it is simply that Maddow still attempts to project journalism and journalistic integrity, when in reality she is simply a John Oliver or Trevor Noah. People like her are the residual effects of the daily show with Jon Stewart.
When taken to task, she admitted it at least.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
That is what the media does. All soap operas need a hero and a villian to survive.I stated in a previous post you would think one member of CNN, FOX or MSNBC would break ranks and have a different take on this story.
Would love to hear Lemon or Cuomo say "Hey watching the video the kid was being chased and attacked and had a right to defend himself" Or Hanniity and Carlson say "Hey..what is a 17 year old kid going to a different town with a rifle, he should not have been there?" But that will never happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
And further, they make you accountable for the people who support you.....so then because the "proud boys" support this it is therefore evil and bad....what if they flipped the script and supported Biden etc....
It's really creepy stuff.
Right so most media is biased to one side or the other. However those of you getting your news from the Huffington Post, Conservative Treehouse, that one Knowledge Dropper always uses, YouTube, etc are getting even more slanted info. At the very least the MSM has to maintain a shred impartiality and fact checking. These new sites and YouTube have no such need.Philo Beddoe said:
The MSM has given up on the need to maintain a shred of impartiality and fact checking years ago. Today's fact-checking is nothing more than political hackery to spin stories.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I'm embarrassed for you.sho nuff said:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Right? On top of that using "Sho Nuff" as your alias seems like cultural appropriation at best and racism at worst.
Seems like a cancelling is in order (per left wing logic).
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Don’t be…you can deny how some people see that and how the proud boys use it all you want. Im just pointing out the appearance those things (especially all together) give off.
sho nuff
Footballguy
To act like the MSM is 100% always a political hack is taking it too far to the extreme. The MSM does fact check, source check, and retract stories when found false.
squistion
Footballguy
Nope. Done with actual well documented fact checking and debunking outright lies and misstatements.
squistion
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what he's saying is MSM doesn't do fact checking like they used to. Not that snopes doesn't exist.
Last edited by a moderator:
He said they don't do any fact checking. Most of us will agree that the MSM is way more slanted then they used to be and not up to their old standards. But to act like they are nothing but an arm of the democratic party is simply laughable.
Right. Any time the discussion gets down to "don't do any" or "means everything" it stops being real discussion. That's why I asked for actual links to what he means.
squistion
Footballguy
No, he was pretty specific and went beyond that IMO
"nothing more than political hackery to spin stories"
I don't agree that Snopes or other fact checking organizations are just hacks (there are several that are generally regarded as reputable).
https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/chapter/fact-checking-sites/
Politifact
Factcheck.org
Washington Post Fact Checker
Truth be Told
NPR Fact-Check
Lie Detector (Univision, Spanish language)
Hoax Slayer
Last edited by a moderator:
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Actually, she has.squistion said:
Not going to spend time trying to change your mind. I think he meant Today's fact-checking (from MSM) is nothing more than political hackery to spin stories. But I'm sure you're right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a recent example of a fake fact-check. It concerns whether Rittenhouse had a legal right to carry the gun in Kenosha. Eventhough the court ruled in Rittenhouse's favor and dismissed the charge in the end, saying it was legal, the Fact Checking refused to admit it, and kept their fact-check as saying a true statement was false.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/16/politifact-slammed-for-fact-check-on-rittenhouse-legally-owning-gun/
PolitiFact slammed for ‘fact-check’ on Rittenhouse legally owning gun
By Jackie Salo
November 16, 2021 4:05pm
PolitiFact has been slammed for a “fact-check” that claimed to readers that Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of a firearm was illegal — after the judge presiding over his murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, threw out the weapons charge against him.
Rittenhouse, 18, was initially charged with possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor, but the judge tossed it after the charge — and the site’s claim — didn’t hold up in court.
Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed with Rittenhouse’s lawyers that the ban on minors with dangerous weapons only applies to those weapons that are short-barreled, unlike the one that the teen used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third.
In the aftermath of the shooting, PolitiFact had challenged a claim made by a Facebook user who wrote, “Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal.”
“Is that true? State laws suggest not,” a fact-checker wrote on the site.
“The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin,” the post continued.
FACTCHECK: A Facebook post says, “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” That's False.
“Wisconsin law says that ‘any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.’ In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt,” the editor’s note said.
The note pointed out that the “same legal debate played out a couple of times during the Rittenhouse trial.”
“Schroeder, according to the Associated Press, acknowledged the intent of the statute was murky but decided not to dismiss the charge. The issue came up again on Nov. 15 as lawyers were debating instructions to the jury,” the editor’s note continued.
The site concluded, “These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being ‘perfectly legal.’ Our fact-check remains unchanged.”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/16/politifact-slammed-for-fact-check-on-rittenhouse-legally-owning-gun/
PolitiFact slammed for ‘fact-check’ on Rittenhouse legally owning gun
By Jackie Salo
November 16, 2021 4:05pm
PolitiFact has been slammed for a “fact-check” that claimed to readers that Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of a firearm was illegal — after the judge presiding over his murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, threw out the weapons charge against him.
Rittenhouse, 18, was initially charged with possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor, but the judge tossed it after the charge — and the site’s claim — didn’t hold up in court.
Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed with Rittenhouse’s lawyers that the ban on minors with dangerous weapons only applies to those weapons that are short-barreled, unlike the one that the teen used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third.
In the aftermath of the shooting, PolitiFact had challenged a claim made by a Facebook user who wrote, “Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal.”
“Is that true? State laws suggest not,” a fact-checker wrote on the site.
“The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin,” the post continued.
FACTCHECK: A Facebook post says, “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” That's False.
“Wisconsin law says that ‘any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.’ In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt,” the editor’s note said.
The note pointed out that the “same legal debate played out a couple of times during the Rittenhouse trial.”
“Schroeder, according to the Associated Press, acknowledged the intent of the statute was murky but decided not to dismiss the charge. The issue came up again on Nov. 15 as lawyers were debating instructions to the jury,” the editor’s note continued.
The site concluded, “These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being ‘perfectly legal.’ Our fact-check remains unchanged.”
Yes, it is an often used political tool. Example provided above. Of course sometimes the fact check is accurate, but often times it is opinion based spin and not fact base analysis of truth. The example provided above is a case that is not even political opinion spin, but actually the fact check was factually incorrect.
squistion
Footballguy
And I have seen Schroeder's interpretation of that statute criticized by several legal experts, who would probably agree that Politifact was correct in their fact checking.
Last edited by a moderator:
My record vs. "legal experts" in the media is perfect. The media can always find a 'legal expert' somewhere to say what they want, but the statue is clear and once again they are wrong. There is a long gun exception AND a hunting permit exception for 16 and 17 year olds in Wisconsin.
squistion
Footballguy
I always love the argument that he was hunting, except I remember reading that hunting season was not open anywhere in Wisconsin on that fateful day (someone on Twitter linked to all the State of Wisconsin site which lists hunting season dates and locations).
Are we really arguing that Fact Checkers aren’t biased? Really? If we’ve learned anything the last 5 years it’s that these sites are extremely partisan in how they interpret “facts”. @jon_mx just provided the perfect example of it. Even after it was adjudicated and decided upon, Politifact still insists it’s a “fact” that Rittenhouse broke the gun possession law. At that point it’s no longer fact checking - it’s propaganda.
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument does not require that he was hunter. There are TWO SEPARATE exceptions. Another widely told lie by the media. And I am sure you do love eating up all the lies by the media.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think the argument is biased vs just a hack. IMO there is a big difference.
And there appears to be differing legal opinions. You can be critical of them disagreeing…but does that automatically make it a hack opinion? Im sure quite a few have disagreed with a court ruling before…doesn’t make someone necessarily a hack.
squistion
Footballguy
But even if he fell under an exception to the permit requirement, hunting season was not open in any Wisconsin jurisdiction on that date, so it a specious argument IMO.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Biden did "ok" sign. Is he a proud boy sending a message to his right wing homeys?sho nuff said:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Did he do so standing next to the proud boys? It was that image that paints a certain picture for some. That is all I am saying with that.
Jon I agree that you've been correct much more often than not regarding this case. But your constant and extreme inflammatory posting style like above really doesn't help your cause nor does it make posers want to legitimately engage with you.
Just a suggestion.
It does when they advertise themselves as "Fact Checkers". An opinion journalist would write a piece disagreeing with a Judge's interpretation of the law. That's fine - it's done all the time. But what we have here is a Fact Checker that interpreted the law before adjudication and listed as "fact" that Rittenhouse broke the gun law. That "fact" was then adopted by Twitter and Conservative posts disagreeing with it were censored. And then - get this - AFTER the Court decided that Rittenhouse didn't break gun laws, Politifact STILL reports as "fact" that he violated gun laws. The is hackery at it's finest.
squistion
Footballguy
I just looked again. No, you didn't address the FACT that Maddow has been SUED for defamation and used the same argument as Tucker Carlson.
The statute is unclear. EVERYONE acknowledges this. When a law is so confusing, legal doctrine calls for judges to interpret it in favor of defendants.
For the third time, it has nothing to do with hunting or a permit requirement. It was an exception to the entire statue.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Perhaps not if he has the right letter next to his name. Such things are only weaponized for those ideologically opposed to The Party....
dkp993
Footballguy
The law WI is poorly written, which could very well be a feature not a bug, but as it’s written the Judge made in my layman’s understanding the correct ruling.
With that said if a fact checking site is calling it a fact KR broke the gun law when a judge ruled he didn’t (and it seems to be overwhelming agreed the judge ruled correctly) they are wrong. And when you base your whole site around ruling on if something is a fact or not you can’t afford to be wrong.
With that said if a fact checking site is calling it a fact KR broke the gun law when a judge ruled he didn’t (and it seems to be overwhelming agreed the judge ruled correctly) they are wrong. And when you base your whole site around ruling on if something is a fact or not you can’t afford to be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
It’s an embarrassing response from himIvanKaramazov said:
Similar threads
