Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
newsweek.com
Kyle Rittenhouse's sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her "brother's unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family."
You are viewing a single comment
No, I'm contradicting the ridiculous argument that existing in public while armed, in an open carry state, is somehow, in and of itself, provocation.
No one is making that argument.
:/
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, Flying, but there is a lot of misinformation being spread around that makes our side look bad. I know it's an emotionally charged topic.
If Hitler rescues a dog he's still a bad person. But it doesn't help to mythologize characters through false narratives because it empowers them even further. Just my opinion. I'm not on team Kyle and I'm not a fascist (sad I have to state this last tag on Lemmy in case I get misconstrued).
And yet no one was making that argument.
Everyone is talking past each other in this thread. I understand, it's an emotionally charged topic.
Well, the guy I replied to who said:
is certainly talking past everyone else since literally no one made that argument.
And then for some reason you criticized me for telling them that no one made that argument, despite that being a fact.
Yeah I think you're saying that --correct me if I'm wrong-- him
bringing the AR to the protests is an act of provocation
while the person you're arguing with said
open carry is not uncommon and no one felt provoked
At least that's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong. I can see how both statements could be true to some extent. Many protesters were from out of state and possibly not familiar with the open carry laws in WI so it's possible they felt threatened immediately. I'm no longer living in the US, and I never lived in an open carry state, so the sight of an AR strapped to a kid would make me uncomfortable in that situation. However, I've also lived in the middle east were the sight of soldiers walking around not in uniform carrying semi automatic rifles was very common and that did not make me uncomfortable. So context is important.
This is Kenosha, not Fallujah. If you think people walking around with ARs is a common or non-worrying sight there, you really know nothing about this subject.
I don't understand this response. There are several states in the US where open carry is quite common. There's a whole subreddit dedicated to pictures of dudes walking around like para militias. What's your point in comparing it to Fallujah after I already conceded that it likely made many protesters uncomfortable. No need to go all agro on me man, I'm just pointing out the two perspectives that's all.
Sorry... you're taking anecdotal pictures from a subreddit to argue that people walking around Kenosha with ARs is a common sight?
I live in an open carry state. I drove through Wisconsin in March. I didn't see a single person walking around with an AR then and I never see them here either.
You took my position:
open carry is not uncommon in Wi
and transformed it into
people walking around Kenosha with AR's is a common sight
These are two completely different statements. Is the opposite of uncommon by default common? Even after I conceded that it would still alarm some people. I don't get it. Is there a different way I should explain myself? I'm so lost :( What am I doing wrong? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word uncommon. There has to be a better word. Maybe surprising?
Okay, if it is not a common sight to see people carrying ARs in Kenosha, then it makes sense that people at a protest would take that as a threat and act accordingly. I really don't know what you're saying here other than doing some ridiculous "both sidesing" when only one side committed murder.
I don't really remember any more because I had to translate my position through several iterations since it kept getting twisted. I have to figure out how to make my points more direct and succinct. It seems no matter how much preamble and explanation I offer, my position gets twisted one way or another.
All I'm trying to say is that when we argue with the other side (in this case conservatives that defend Rittenhouse) we should be mindful if we are addressing the ethical argument or the legal argument. Typically, conservatives will overstate the legal argument and dismiss the ethical argument.
If I had an elevator pitch it would be this:
>> It's helpful to steelman the opposition to be able to refute it better. <<
That's all. I need to go walk my dog now.