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
The most prominent explanation being that he was stopping an active shooter. But even if we accept that story, it completely undercuts the effective argument of "but he just had a skateboard and flinched!"
I think everyone in this situation thought they were doing the noble thing. It's just easier to process if we assume one person is a bad guy, and the other person was acting nobly and rationally in pursuit of some higher purpose, rather than accepting the messy truth.
Except you are suggesting that the person with the skateboard was in the wrong. If he was stopping what he thought was someone about to kill people, which is not the most unfair assumption to make of a kid with a rifle who is obviously not approving of what he's seeing, how was he in the wrong? Isn't that the sort of person the news usually presents to us as the hero?
No I'm not. I said what I said: he was not some person just holding a skate board who flinched, as painted, but an aggressor. Or are you arguing that charging someone and then hitting them with a skateboard is not aggressive?
Again, I did not say he was in the wrong. I just explicitly said I think he believes he was acting nobly.
Is defending people aggression? Because it seems like that is what he was doing just based on inference.
You realize that you're ultimately agreeing with my point: this is not some guy who just flinched, but as you are painting him some hero that chased down someone he thought was about to kill people.
You think he was justified, and maybe he was, but the top level commenter tried to paint this as some innocent person getting shot for not doing anything other than flinching, which grossly misrepresents what you and I both think happened.
I certainly don't agree with your point that defending people is aggression.
I understand that, and I certainly did not say you do. I said you agreed with my ultimate point which I made clear. Why misrepresent what I said?
We had moved on to talk about whether or not defending people is aggression, something you suggested. I didn't misrepresent anything.
Your words:
Again, I would argue that defending people is not aggressive. Something I have yet to see you even acknowledge I said, let alone agree or disagree with.
Maybe you've moved on, certainly it appears you want to, but I've reiterated my point in each of these posts. To argue that I've moved on is patently incorrect.
Our disagreement over whether chasing a fleeing person down and hitting them with a skateboard counts as aggression ultimately makes no difference to my point: I'm not here to take sides and announce who was justified, but to point out that by blatantly misrepresenting what happened it makes it clear that the poster also isn't really confident in their definitive conclusion.
You brought it up. If it makes no difference, don't bring it up. I can't help it if you bring up things you think aren't relevant and this sealioning you're doing is extremely tedious.
The other poster implied that he just had a skateboard and flinched. I pointed out that it was more than that. You disagreed with my classification of it being aggressive, but ultimately agreed with my point that it was more than just a flinch. It wasn't irrelevant, just your classification of it being aggressive was irrelevant. Which is what I already clearly said. Why grossly misconstrue it?
Blatant projection because your posts have been peppered with questions, the last post you are responding to from me is just me restating my argument.