The Protest Thread

[macphisto]

Lol, nevermind!

Kind of a side point, but I think a number of folks in this thread would like to call someone "boy" and it's not Rittenhouse.

[Mickey]

That was cheap. Sorry. But seriously Mickey maybe you can explain Burt's position better and why you agree with him. At a certain point I got lost in what he was trying to say.

I think if I'd known he wanted a moral philosophy discussion from the jump things would have gone differently. Is that where you agree with him? On moral philosophy terms?

I don't know if I agree with Burt's position overall--to the extent that there is one, rather than a variety of only somewhat interlocking takes--but I would summarize it like this:

--Burt's biggest point, as far as I can tell, is that once Rittenhouse is being threatened or chased he is morally and legally in the right--or at least, not wrong--to use his weapon. I haven't watched all the videos, but I think there's a strong case for this in both the first and second instance (the first because of the reported gunshot from behind him, the second because of what looks to be a handgun in the hands of one of his pursuers). I don't know that I would say "morally right" (more on this below) and I think anyone trying to call him a "hero" is a pretty sick fuck, but I would not condemn him for using his gun here on the grounds of self-defense, and I think there's a case to be made that those grounds do exist. More broadly, I do not think that murder is automatically immoral (at least between civilians). Rittenhouse did a lot of things wrong but I don't think pulling the trigger was necessarily one of them, and I am actually a little surprised that more folks don't see the argument for this aspect of the situation.

--I think the biggest gray area for all parties is what happened before Rittenhouse is being pursued. On these grounds Burt and mac make a number of errors, such as citing the first victim's criminal past (Rittenhouse certainly didn't know this, it's relatively immaterial and is actually the same kind of victim blaming as "look at what she was wearing."). It's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse instigated the situation, which I think would erode (at least morally, not sure about legally) the claim of self-defense. But most importantly, we don't know.

--Where I disagree with Burt is the idea that Rittenhouse had a moral right to be there with his weapon in the first place and that this decision doesn't affect the morality of ultimately pulling the trigger. I don't think there is a legal right to protect other people's property as a citizen, but maybe someone else can clarify this--I'm going to leave aside the question of legality, because I don't really know. But I think taking a weapon with you to help defend someone else's private property is a broadly immoral act, insofar as it indicates a readiness to kill in defense of private property. Put simply, there's no reason for him to be there with a gun and doing so constitutes an act of aggression whether or not he articulated the idea (to himself or others) that he wanted to kill someone. In fact, I don't think he wanted to kill someone. But he wanted to be ready to violently defend private property, and this is, to me, immoral, though I suspect many here would disagree based on other first principles. Given this, I think Rittenhouse behaved immorally from the outset even though the act of pulling the trigger might have been justified in a narrow sense.

--As a related point, insofar as looting is theft from commercial agents, I do not condemn looting. I don't promote it either but I strongly break from those here who see it as something that necessitates non-police defense of private property.

--Zooming out, I think Strat and others are largely right that Burt's worldview as expressed on this board is highly paranoid and frequently misdiagnoses a given situation in favor of white grievance politics and in defense of private property and existing structures of power. Just because I think that Burt is right in the narrow case outlined in my first bullet-point does not mean that I agree with, say, his assessment of BLM (which, like many others here, seeks to impose a vertical structure on a horizontal organization). If I'm being honest, I think a number of posters here are assuming something from the gestalt of Burt's posts which is broadly true but walks them into some strange positions here.

[Bammer]

Here’s some help with #3 for Jorge.

Spoiler: show

Kyle will walk.

This video would be more digestible for me if the guy doesn’t wear the hat and t-shirt, filmed in front of the huge safe.


Anyway, pro tip: Stay out of situations which might lead you to carry self-defense-shooting insurance coverage.

[elliseamos]

Edited down from "a few years" to "a couple years"... did you think it would be too apparent that Trump's dog whistle has helped your ego security development?

Trump's election was actually pretty transformative, as it seems to have been for many here, not gonna lie. It really opened my eyes to a lot of things.

For instance...

- And I'm guessing bc, as stated by others, elsewhere, all I can reference are your posts and I have no idea who you are -

That some of your beliefs have been confirmed by there promotion of some in the media and within the administration?

[elliseamos]

let's recap:

- Jake Blake who digitally rapes a woman twice a year when he's drunk shows up at her place again with a knife and his kids in the car

- Cops shoot him

- A bunch of people angry about cops shooting people take to the streets and attack businesses and each other

- More people die

- Durden hates burt cause he's not a self-loathing white

- Strat hates burt because he won't join the righteousness hoarde

- Ruddo hates burt because he doesn't know the terrifying darkess of a fresh kill

- Jorge hates burt because he won't complete point #3 for him

- McP hates burt because he hates burt

- dad hates burt because dad inhaled white phosphorus in fallujah

- 96583UP hates burt because it's the right thing to do

I'm glad you left me out of this.

I lolz to the Burt character on the reg.

[macphisto]

Here’s some help with #3 for Jorge.

Spoiler: show

Kyle will walk.

This video would be more digestible for me if the guy doesn’t wear the hat and t-shirt, filmed in front of the huge safe.


Anyway, pro tip: Stay out of situations which might lead you to carry self-defense-shooting insurance coverage.

Well, he’s a gun rights activist, so yeah. He’s also a lawyer and very sharp guy.

I take reasonable precautions against losing my home to a fire...should probably cancel my homeowner’s insurance policy.

[Bammer]

Here’s some help with #3 for Jorge.

Spoiler: show

Kyle will walk.

This video would be more digestible for me if the guy doesn’t wear the hat and t-shirt, filmed in front of the huge safe.


Anyway, pro tip: Stay out of situations which might lead you to carry self-defense-shooting insurance coverage.

Well, he’s a gun rights activist, so yeah. He’s also a lawyer and very sharp guy.

I take reasonable precautions against losing my home to a fire...should probably cancel my homeowner’s insurance policy.

From that video, the short angry bald meathead guy who got shot first is the real problem.

That reminds me to pick up self-defense-stabbing insurance.

[digster]

--Burt's biggest point, as far as I can tell, is that once Rittenhouse is being threatened or chased he is morally and legally in the right--or at least, not wrong--to use his weapon. I haven't watched all the videos, but I think there's a strong case for this in both the first and second instance (the first because of the reported gunshot from behind him, the second because of what looks to be a handgun in the hands of one of his pursuers). I don't know that I would say "morally right" (more on this below) and I think anyone trying to call him a "hero" is a pretty sick fuck, but I would not condemn him for using his gun here on the grounds of self-defense, and I think there's a case to be made that those grounds do exist. More broadly, I do not think that murder is automatically immoral (at least between civilians). Rittenhouse did a lot of things wrong but I don't think pulling the trigger was necessarily one of them, and I am actually a little surprised that more folks don't see the argument for this aspect of the situation.

I think when viewing how some people are assessing the situation (and this really is a statement about what I've generally seen vs. anything I've seen here), I think the absurdity of the dialogue stems from this, as opposed to discussing the correct charge to be filed in an assessment of the moment he killed these people. This teenager basically strapped on a rifle to cosplay as a SWAT officer in the middle of an extremely tense situation, and some are acting like not only is this not a pouring a healthy heaping of lighter fluid onto a fire, but is a totally expected and normal reaction to have. And this isn't even touching upon how people would react to this situation differently if the person in question wasn't white.

[Bi_3]

I think the image of a young black man with a gun defending his neighborhood from arsonists and looters would be a pretty powerful thing actually

[simple schoolboy]

I think the image of a young black man with a gun defending his neighborhood from arsonists and looters would be a pretty powerful thing actually

Where was that where multiple dudes were posted up in front of a building and for whatever reason some news outlet cropped out the one black guy. Minneapolis?

[digster]

Someone 'defending his neighborhood' isn't what happened here, though.

[simple schoolboy]

Someone 'defending his neighborhood' isn't what happened here, though.

Did you watch any of the interviews with the kid? Read anything I've posted regarding his declared intentions?

[digster]

I'm not seeing how what I'm saying has anything to do with intentions. Maybe I'm wrong on the facts, but did he keep an eye on his property and neighborhood to stop bodily harm or property damage, or did he grab his rifle, get in his car and proactively enter an area where there was protesting and looting happening?

[epilogue]

That was cheap. Sorry. But seriously Mickey maybe you can explain Burt's position better and why you agree with him. At a certain point I got lost in what he was trying to say.

I think if I'd known he wanted a moral philosophy discussion from the jump things would have gone differently. Is that where you agree with him? On moral philosophy terms?

I don't know if I agree with Burt's position overall--to the extent that there is one, rather than a variety of only somewhat interlocking takes--but I would summarize it like this:

--Burt's biggest point, as far as I can tell, is that once Rittenhouse is being threatened or chased he is morally and legally in the right--or at least, not wrong--to use his weapon. I haven't watched all the videos, but I think there's a strong case for this in both the first and second instance (the first because of the reported gunshot from behind him, the second because of what looks to be a handgun in the hands of one of his pursuers). I don't know that I would say "morally right" (more on this below) and I think anyone trying to call him a "hero" is a pretty sick fuck, but I would not condemn him for using his gun here on the grounds of self-defense, and I think there's a case to be made that those grounds do exist. More broadly, I do not think that murder is automatically immoral (at least between civilians). Rittenhouse did a lot of things wrong but I don't think pulling the trigger was necessarily one of them, and I am actually a little surprised that more folks don't see the argument for this aspect of the situation.

--I think the biggest gray area for all parties is what happened before Rittenhouse is being pursued. On these grounds Burt and mac make a number of errors, such as citing the first victim's criminal past (Rittenhouse certainly didn't know this, it's relatively immaterial and is actually the same kind of victim blaming as "look at what she was wearing."). It's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse instigated the situation, which I think would erode (at least morally, not sure about legally) the claim of self-defense. But most importantly, we don't know.

--Where I disagree with Burt is the idea that Rittenhouse had a moral right to be there with his weapon in the first place and that this decision doesn't affect the morality of ultimately pulling the trigger. I don't think there is a legal right to protect other people's property as a citizen, but maybe someone else can clarify this--I'm going to leave aside the question of legality, because I don't really know. But I think taking a weapon with you to help defend someone else's private property is a broadly immoral act, insofar as it indicates a readiness to kill in defense of private property. Put simply, there's no reason for him to be there with a gun and doing so constitutes an act of aggression whether or not he articulated the idea (to himself or others) that he wanted to kill someone. In fact, I don't think he wanted to kill someone. But he wanted to be ready to violently defend private property, and this is, to me, immoral, though I suspect many here would disagree based on other first principles. Given this, I think Rittenhouse behaved immorally from the outset even though the act of pulling the trigger might have been justified in a narrow sense.

--As a related point, insofar as looting is theft from commercial agents, I do not condemn looting. I don't promote it either but I strongly break from those here who see it as something that necessitates non-police defense of private property.

--Zooming out, I think Strat and others are largely right that Burt's worldview as expressed on this board is highly paranoid and frequently misdiagnoses a given situation in favor of white grievance politics and in defense of private property and existing structures of power. Just because I think that Burt is right in the narrow case outlined in my first bullet-point does not mean that I agree with, say, his assessment of BLM (which, like many others here, seeks to impose a vertical structure on a horizontal organization). If I'm being honest, I think a number of posters here are assuming something from the gestalt of Burt's posts which is broadly true but walks them into some strange positions here.

This is a great post. Thank you for this reply.

Your academic career has afforded you a clarity of thought and articulation that I truly envy and admire. All that to say, I think what you said is right. Almost entirely.

What I wanted to say was very in line with what you posted above. There are many reasons why I didn't get my thoughts across as well as I'd hoped. One is my own shortcomings. Another is my tendency to react rather than respond -- emotions overwhelm me and it's hard to work through them. Another is focus -- I was doing too many things at once to have the conversation that needed to be had at the time. Another is my admitted bias against Burt. He isn't someone I can take seriously given the canyon between our worldviews (which is bad of me) and as such my replies to him are often superficial, sarcastic, or dismissive. Whether or not it's fair, I assume he isn't actually listening to what I'm saying as much as trying to fight me and expose me as an idiot. That probably goes both ways if I'm being totally honest.

The only issue I have with what you posted -- and it's really a small thing -- is the stuff about self-defense as it relates to others having guns, too. I can work my way toward understanding you and seeing your point about the first killing, given that a shot was fired (my beliefs on guns in general keeps me from totally agreeing with this point). However, the second incident is harder for me. So someone else had a gun. If the killer was allowed to have a gun, his victim was allowed to have a gun. And if it's true that the victim was working to disarm person who had just shot someone else, as many accounts attest, it's difficult for me to empathize with a self-defense argument. At that point, he was the threat.

But otherwise, you said everything I'd hoped to say, far better than I was able to last night. We are almost entirely on the same page. Thank you again, for your post. I'm sorry to Burt that I wasn't able to speak as clearly last night. I think this is important stuff. And I appreciate that Burt entered into a good faith conversation about it. I wish I had been able to speak to the issue better in real time.

Anyway, great post, Mickey.

[BurtReynolds]

Edited down from "a few years" to "a couple years"... did you think it would be too apparent that Trump's dog whistle has helped your ego security development?

Trump's election was actually pretty transformative, as it seems to have been for many here, not gonna lie. It really opened my eyes to a lot of things.

For instance...

- And I'm guessing bc, as stated by others, elsewhere, all I can reference are your posts and I have no idea who you are -

That some of your beliefs have been confirmed by there promotion of some in the media and within the administration?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I was gonna post more in the trump thread I made but was feeling pretty low energy today.

Basically it obliterated any faith I had in major news outlets, government agencies (17 intelligence agencies...), and the general dominant narrative put out by them. Not only did they get it wrong, but they were purposefully deceptive.

It also really opened my eyes to the nature of democracy and what voters respond to.

Etc.

[BurtReynolds]

I'm not seeing how what I'm saying has anything to do with intentions. Maybe I'm wrong on the facts, but did he keep an eye on his property and neighborhood to stop bodily harm or property damage, or did he grab his rifle, get in his car and proactively enter an area where there was protesting and looting happening?

Both, minus perhaps the "his", depending on how willing you are to stretch "neighborhood", not that it matters, as no one is claiming he defended his property.

And for the thousandth time, arming oneself and entering an area where violent thugs are operating with impunity is not immoral in any way.

[Higgs]

I know you totally disagree but I personally feel arming oneself as a civilian and going out in public is immoral. Legal, unbelievably (imo) yes, but I personally can't see it as moral.

That goes for all civilians with guns at these protests.

[elliseamos]

Basically it obliterated any faith I had in major news outlets, government agencies (17 intelligence agencies...), and the general dominant narrative put out by them. Not only did they get it wrong, but they were purposefully deceptive.

Specific to your epiphany related to media: Had you never heard of FOX previously?

It also really opened my eyes to the nature of democracy and what voters respond to.

The majority voted against him, did you think that Red states would not vote him in?

[Birds in Hell]

I know you totally disagree but I personally feel arming oneself as a civilian and going out in public is immoral. Legal, unbelievably (imo) yes, but I personally can't see it as moral.

That goes for all civilians with guns at these protests.

I agree. If the world were operating according to my preferences, all of the people in this circumstance would've been a. dispersed by the police in the first instance, or failing that, b. arrested for being armed in public.

That said, given the prevailing circumstances, I think there's a strong argument the kid was acting in self-defence with an appreciable degree of self-control. He "shouldn't" have been there in the first place, nor should have the other guys, but he was and they were; once that whole situation was playing out as it was, I can definitely understand how the kid felt he was genuinely under threat for his life. To be honest, I can't see how anyone can dispute that without engaging in some weird blind spot reasoning.

[Higgs]

I agree with you spenno. I can't fathom that he was there in the first place, but I can't really fault him using the gun once he found himself in the situation he did.

How fucked up is this whole situation though?