I accept that my first statement is an assumption. I did actually expect this back from you.
However regarding the America being truly fucked statement, I see the use of semantics in what is clearly obvious to the outside world as every bit as telling.
Everyone has a right to a defence but if you look at the logic of the societal situation you have, you are correct in saying that people’s views on the right and wrong of things are getting polarised, more and more.
We are in agreement here. See not so different afterall :)
I believe the flak you take in here is very much as a result of you seemingly mirroring Trumps MO of defending one sides actions rather than acknowledging how or why these actions come about.
The right and the wrong of this situation as far as I’m concerned is that kid had no business being there.
A militia had no business being there.
Whether it was legal or not has little bearing on the right and wrong of it in my view.
I'll disagree slightly on why I get flak. I think it's coz I don't bend the knee to whatever the prevailing view is here when I think a point is wrong. But I'll accept you think otherwise.
But to illustrate my point, let's take your view of what you think I do from above (i.e. I don't acknowledge why actions come about and simply mirror Trump's MO.). Fair enough. Now you've concluded that the kid shouldn't have been there. Period. Yet at no point did you acknowledge why he was there. You have in essence done the very thing you've accused me of doing. I.e defending ( in this case, attacking) one sides actions without acknowledging why it came about.
I point the above out to show you that the claim of not acknowledging (X) or dismissing (Y) is often an argumentation trick. One that can be lobbed at anyyone. Often including those lobbing it.
I make no apologies that I consider Trump a vile self interested piece of shit.
I did before he entered politics and I see that hey only getting worse.
He is pushing division and antagonising situations like the shooting of Blake in the back 7 times in front of his kids purposely for his own ends.
He goes to the scene and defends the kid and doesn’t mention Blake. Doesn’t mention the why’s of the protest. Highlights that left wing terrorists are being flown in for protests in all the Democratic cities for these protests with contradictory statements and no actual detail or evidence.
Where are the facts there.
Where are the facts in anything he comes out with.
You are well within your rights to hold any view of Trump. And I'd never ask you to apologise for it. And I even agree with some of those views about Trump.
But the difference between me and many here is that my opinion of Trump seldom clouds my judgment about what the facts are. And when those facts don't support an Anti- Trump conclusion, I don't back down to the twisted viewpoint.
Trump is a politician, so you can always assume he'll say things to suit his agenda.
But here's the fact: 102 of the 175 people arrested were Not from Kenosha. That's not conjecture or supposition. It's a fact.
If this is what you repeatedly choose to defend you can expect flak because what I regard as normal people will find what is going on as very transparent.
Again, I have addressed this many times. There is a penchant here for purposely conflating correcting erroneous claims with 'defending' Trump.
Whatever I say about a fact or claim is either true or false. You can objectively reach that conclusion without ever broaching the topic of whether I'm supporting, attacking or defending Trump.
But just to make getting to the facts easier, let's all assume I am defending Trump at all times. So we can all skip the detective work of trying to decipher what I'm doing and simply focus on whether what I've said is right or wrong, and why.
Of you read, most of my responses it follows that factual pattern. I see something I think is wrong, I say it's wrong then give reason for why I believe it's wrong. I am either right or wrong about my claim, the evidence I provided as support or the conclusions I reached.
Back to my original assumption.
Whether you believe it or not I’ll repeat, if that kid was black walking through a protest with an assault rifle, he’d be one of the deceased now. I assume.
Again, the point wasn't to believe or disbelieve an assumption. That would be stupid of me. It's an assumption. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve. I am sure you have assumed that in good faith. My only objection was that it was labelled a fact. We both now agree it wasn't. As to the assumption, I'd have concluded the opposite and here's why:
If every known fact about the shooter that night was true about a black kid, he almost definitely would NOT have been shot.
Again, knowing what the facts are is KEY here!
At the risk of being accused of humanizing the shooter, I'd provide some of those facts here.
The cops who were patrolling that night knew almost all the Militia guys. The cops were clearly overwhelmed the first 2 days and there are videos of them giving water to Militia men and thanking them for helping with keeping things calm. There are videos of Militia men talking to reporters about how the cops would funnel protestors away from unguarded places to areas where Militia men were guarding.
There are videos of the shooter getting water thrown to him by cops.
Earlier in the day he was amongst the communty clean up team clearing the debry and grafitti from the prior day's 'protest'. The point of the above statements is to show you the cops knew the Militia men well
Now imagine if there was a black guy in the Militia who had interacted that much with cops and was in essence backups for he cops, he'd be easily the most recognizable of the group and ALL the officer's would know him and definitely would not have been shooting him.
But I admit, you'd have to be aware of these facts to start with. And if you are not, you are more likely to reach the conclusion you have.
