Media Bias

[pErvinalia]

Yes, you insist, while dramatizing by listing the wounds suffered by the felon who was screaming racist crap.

While you dramatised by mentioning he was a convicted pedo.

You tell a very dramatic story. I'm sure it would fit right in on a newscast.

And yours is probably lifted wholly off some right wing podcast.

[Cunt]

And yours is probably lifted wholly off some right wing podcast.

No, only the parts that blue-anon can't admit to.

[BarnettNewman]

I don't know that your take on it is accurate. It doesn't mention who was trying to set fire to the gas station.

At the 'protest'.

So you believe people should be shot in the streets for arson. That’s a good look on you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cunt]

I don't.

I believe that people who see riots and fires and call it a 'protest', are using language to obscure the truth. It's an insult to people who protest without violence.

A biased media or their well-behaved acolytes, would call riots, fires and looting a 'mostly peaceful protest'.

For those acolytes, we should all wish them a mostly faithful marriage, or a mostly tumor-free cat scan. Or a mostly peaceful bowel movement.

[BarnettNewman]

So you can include yourself in “obscuring the truth?”

Riots are a form of protest. When a protest becomes a riot it would be good to see why. Typically it’s indicative of a corrupt system of governance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cunt]

So you can include yourself in “obscuring the truth?”

Riots are a form of protest. When a protest becomes a riot it would be good to see why. Typically it’s indicative of a corrupt system of governance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And a biased media would call some 'protest', and others 'armed insurrections', based on what they wanted their acolytes to repeat.

[BarnettNewman]

What would you call trying to overthrow a legal election by force?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cunt]

lol

How would a biased media report such a thing? Would they report on attacks on a federal building differently if one political group did it, rather than the other?

Would they report attacks on a federal courthouse as a 'protest'?

[Sean Hayden]

Attacks on courts and even the feds are not unheard-of --McVeigh ffs.

[BarnettNewman]

lol

How would a biased media report such a thing? Would they report on attacks on a federal building differently if one political group did it, rather than the other?

Would they report attacks on a federal courthouse as a 'protest'?

JAQing off instead of answering the question. More dishonesty. Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rainbow]

So you can include yourself in “obscuring the truth?”

Riots are a form of protest. When a protest becomes a riot it would be good to see why. Typically it’s indicative of a corrupt system of governance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And a biased media would call some 'protest', and others 'armed insurrections', based on what they wanted their acolytes to repeat.

You are talking Donket Doo.

Insurrection is when you go to the seat of government and try to prevent a democratically elected President from taking office.

Silly man.

[Seabass]

I don't.

I believe that people who see riots and fires and call it a 'protest', are using language to obscure the truth. It's an insult to people who protest without violence.

A biased media or their well-behaved acolytes, would call riots, fires and looting a 'mostly peaceful protest'.

For those acolytes, we should all wish them a mostly faithful marriage, or a mostly tumor-free cat scan. Or a mostly peaceful bowel movement.

Civil unrest is ALWAYS accompanied by property damage because there are always ne'er-do-wells who use the protests as an opportunity to break shit.

What you're doing, Cunt, is using the rioters to smear the entire movement. This is EXACTLY what racists did in the '60s.

So once again: why was the property damage that happened alongside the black civil rights movement of the 1960s acceptable if the property damage that happens in the wake of BLM protests is unacceptable?

[Cunt]

I'm not talking about the movement, I'm talking about the media, portraying some unrest as 'mostly peaceful protest' while portraying others as 'armed insurrection'.

It's you who constantly wants to make it personal.

If you want to find our 'overton window' on this, I might believe you were being honest. I don't.

[Seabass]

I'm not talking about the movement, I'm talking about the media, portraying some unrest as 'mostly peaceful protest' while portraying others as 'armed insurrection'.

It's you who constantly wants to make it personal.

If you want to find our 'overton window' on this, I might believe you were being honest. I don't.

The protests have been mostly peaceful. BLM is the biggest civil rights movement in US history. The property damage has been minimal in comparison to the size and number of protests.

And the insurrectionists were armed. In addition to guns and kevlar, they also had a working gallows and homemade napalm FFS.

[Brian Peacock]

Who was it, with that handgun? Was it legal for him to be carrying it around a protest?

Or is it only important to be critical of one party?

You brought this up. You are only critical of one party.

Did Crowder cover the Kyle Rittenhouse story? I'd be interested to see how he made that into a hilarious 5 mins.

Rittenhouse? Is that the young chap who was set upon by a convicted pedophile named Rosenbaum?

How did that go for the pedophile?

He did cover it, don't remember exactly what jokes he made, though I think something about firing a gun into a crowd of antifa, and hitting all convicted criminals.

I did my research. Yes I fact-checked things before I started asking you to back-up your claim: that Rittenhouse "was set upon by a convicted pedophile". I didn't dispute the claim, but I wanted you to acknowledge the context. Without that acknowledgement your statement stands as an attempt to make the story about the character of his victims, to deflect attention from what the 17 year old Rittenhouse actually did and to imply actions are somehow acceptable, reasonable, justified or even necessary. In short, you've sought to create an argument around Rittenhouse's victims to avoid an argument around Rittenhouse himself. This is similar to the tact of creating an argument around the protests being a riot to avoid an argument about what the protests was actually about.

"Rittenhouse? Is that the young chap who was set upon by a convicted pedophile named Rosenbaum?"

lthough asked, as well as being prompted, you've refused to acknowledge some important and necessary context. Rittewnouse wasn't some random bystander but an active participant in events - he was not just 'set upon' for no reason. He didn't just happen to be there and got caught up in things he was part of an organised group of self-appointed armed volunteers who travelled to the 3rd day of the Kenosha protests, called after the police shooting of Jason Blake, to 'protect' businesses.

The protests that day had been mostly peaceful despite some angry confrontations between protestors and the police around the courthouse area and between protestors and the armed 'Kenosha Militia' who opposed the protest and arrived that day. When the local 8pm curfew kicked in the police attempted to disperse the crowd around the Kenosha courthouse building. In doing so they pushed a portion of the crowd towards the car dealership Rittenhouse and a friend had been allocated to protect. As that portion of the crowd passed the dealership hand-held phone video shows that they barracked and jeered at the armed Rittenhouse and his colleague. As the crowd moved on Rittenhouse followed along behind, with court depositions stating that his intention was to protect other business in the area. At this point the splinter group are moving away from the courthouse area and are being followed by a 17 year old with a long rifle - which we now know to be loaded. Further up the street Rittenhouse appears to have become agitated, with mobile phone video showing him running back and forth alongside the group. It is at this point that Rosenbaum is seen following Rittenhouse around the group. Rosenbaum in turn is being followed by a journalist who was shadowing Rittenhouse on the night. Video shows that Rosenbaum threw what appears to be a plastic bag containing unknown items in Rittenhouse's direction. The bag fell short, but probably made some noise because at this point Rittenhouse turned around, Rosenbaum appears to have reached for Rittenhouses rifle at which point Rittenhouse shoots a number of rounds at Rosenbaum - fatally wounding him. Hermit covered this in detail in the video you're not allowed to watch. Rittenhouse claims not to have fired first - although video footage seems to suggest that Rosenbaum wasn't arned. The journalist at the scene attempted to give medical assistance to Rosenbaum and while doing so reported that Rittenhouse moved away, called someone on his phone and was heard to say, "I just killed someone." This is also supported by phone footage. Rittenhouse then fled the scene followed at some distance by some members of the group who continued to film him on their phones. In the phone footage one can hear an angry and presumably fearful group of people shouting things like, "He shot someone", "Get him." and "Beat him up." Rittenhouse tripped an fell, and at this point turned over and fired four shots in the direction of the crowd from the floor. Nobody was injured at this point, but some members of the crowd moved on Rittenhouse and tried to disarm him. Rittenhouse discharged his weapon a number of times again - hitting Huber at very short range, who staggered back and collapsed. It appears that Huber may have struck Rittenouse on the shoulder with his skateboard just before he was shot. Rittenhouse then turned his gun towards Grosskreutz, who can be seen ducking and backing away with his hands in the air. Grosskreutz had a concealed-carry licence and very shortly thereafter drew his handgun and advanced towards Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot at Grosskreutz, hitting him in the upper arm. Grosskreutz then fled the scene without discharging his weapon. Rittenhouse got up and started walking away. Video shows a small group following him about 30 meters behind. Video footage again show that when Rittenhouse reached a police line moving out from the courthouse area he raised his hands and was let through without question while those following are heard trying to alert the police to the fact that he shot someone. Rittenhouse was not detained by police on the night and turned himself in the next day 30 miles away in Antioch, Illinois.

This is a summary of the known events supported by court documents, testimony, and mobile phone footage - much of which is in the public domain. You can check it for yourself. It is not a comprehensive account but sketches out the main flash points of the evening. At present there is no evidence that Rittenhouse was fired upon from the crowd. So far you have have deflected attention from Rittenhouse's active participation by saying that he had a right to defend himself from the people who were chasing him, or had set upon him, and/or who he considered intimidating or threatening by him...

... Ditto for BP. I don't care what you say about the event. You have only shown you saw one side.

Almost like you are not permitted to admit why those rioters were chasing Rittenhouse. Or what weapon they attacked him with. Or at what point he should be allowed to defend himself.

Like little kids, who dug a hole and cry because they can't take it indoors when it's bedtime.

This not only fails to acknowledge that Rittenhouse followed the splinter group of protestors away from the courthouse area, or that being followed by an agitated person with a loaded rifle might be considered threatening or intimidating to those in the crowd, but also that Rittenhouse was only being 'chased' after he'd already discharged his weapon and fatally wounded a member of the crowd. Here you also not only fail to acknowledge or extend a right of self-defence of the crowd against someone who has already fired at them, but seem to delegitimise such a right with your comments about crying children. Frankly, this is not merely applying a double-standard, but rank hypocrisy. If there is classic example of someone only seeing one side of things it is given in your comment above.

Putting aside the fact that Rittenhouse wasn't chased by an angry mob for no reason, or set upon by Rosenbaum, and was therefore forced to defend himself, let's look at the other element of your claim. Shortly after Rittenhouse turned himself in blog, Facebook, Reddit and Twitter posts like this one started to appear claiming that all three victims of Rittenhouse were convicted felons.

.. He [Crowder] did cover it, don't remember exactly what jokes he made, though I think something about firing a gun into a crowd of antifa, and hitting all convicted criminals.

Rosenbaum had been convicted and sentenced to 15 year for sexually abusing a minor in his care when he was 19. Huber had been arrested on domestic violence charges after threatening his brother and his grandmother with a knife when they were tried to take him to the hospital during a mental health crisis. He was charged with suffocation and false imprisonment. He'd also been arrested for the possession of drug paraphernalia. Both men were therefore convicted felons. Grosskreutz's interactions with the justice system amount to minor, non-felony tickets for disobeying police officers, making loud noises, with the most serious being that he contravened Wisconsin statues against being intoxicated while in possession of a gun - a misdemeanour offense.

The question pErvy put to you was why are the past records of Rittenhouse's victims relevant here?

Your government and the BBC has told me about how racist certain people are. Maybe it's time to stop dismissing their accusations.

I certainly can see your predelictions here. Taking the side of the gibbering racist rioter instead of the victim.

https://thenewamerican.com/court-record ... ld-rapist/

Court records reveal that Joseph Don Rosenbaum (shown), the convicted sex offender whom Kyle Rittenhouse shot to death on August 25 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was a pervert who molested five small kids, two of whom were brothers.

Initial reports about Rosenbaum, 36, based on his sex-offender registration in Wisconsin, said only that he had “sex with a minor.”

But yesterday, a fuller portrait of the deceased sociopath emerged. He was a child rapist who committed unspeakable crimes.

If you can't tell me why Rosenbaum was pissed off, and chasing Rittenhouse, I can dismiss you as ignorant, or willingly lying.

Your turn, handsome!

What does him being a pedophile have to do with anything? It's almost like you are suggesting he was deserving of being shot and killed.

So you ignore my question. Not surprising.

You are ignorant as to why Rosenbaum et al were chasing and attacking him. Keep ignoranting though. It helps me understand you.
...

Firstly I'm happy to answer your question. As I mentioned above one suspects Rosenbaum was 'pissed off, and chasing Rittenhouse' because Rittenhouse had followed the group away from the protest, was armed, and becoming increasingly agitated. One presumes that Rosenbaum wanted to deter Rittenhoue, to chase off, and when confronted by the 17 year old with loaded weapon attempted to disarm him for his own and the group's protection. We can't know of course because shortly after Rosenbaum was dead. What you did not show, and instead specifically avoided addressing, was the relevance of Rosenbaum's past record, what bearing it might have had on the incident, and/or how it may have mitigated or justified Rittenhouse's actions. You've dodged that question from the off...

Rittenhouse? Is that the young chap who was set upon by a convicted pedophile named Rosenbaum?

How did that go for the pedophile?

...

That's quite a claim Chuckles. Quite a claim indeed. Can you back it up though? I doubt that you can. I doubt that you're even interested in backing it up or whether it's actually true or not. Am I right? What's probably more important is that it's a story which the far-Right find comforting, because it casts Rittenhouse as a brave hero who took the law into his own hand to do society a favour - even if his actions amounted to an extrajudicial killing, or as that is sometimes referred to, a lynching.

Do you think people should be applauded for taking the law into their own hands and doing society a favour by permanently removing undesirables and wrong doers like this - or is it that people just don't have much of a reason to complain (if any) when something like this happens?

Asking for a friend.

Since this post you've focused on Rosenbaum being a pedo - and repeated it - something which wasn't really being disputed and which I've now explicitly acknowledged. Still, the question remains - why is this detail an important factor in what went on 25 Aug 2020? One can only presume that it somehow supports the idea that Rittenhouse did society a favour by killing someone who had served a prison sentence for child sex abuse, someone who had threatened family members during a mental health crisis and was caught with a bong in his backpack, and seriously wounding someone who annoyed their neighbours with loud music and who was once drunk and in possession of a licenced weapon. You seem to think that these people somehow had it coming to them, but there's no evidence to suggest that Rittenhouse knew anything about his victims let alone their past records. For all he knew he was shooting at people with clean sheets and no police records. It's worth noting that you've taken a similar tact with the death of George Floyd, citing past interactions with the justice system to deflect from the events surrounding his death and the part Derek Chauvin and the other police officers played in it. Similarly with the police shooting of Jason Blake, who was unarmed and shot seven times in the back by a police officer in front of his children - the incident which sparked the Kenosha protests - and who you were keen to tell us was a wife beater. For someone to question police action and use-of-force in the Blake case doesn't mean they tolerate or endorse domestic abuse. For someone to question Rittenhouse's action and use-of-force in the Rosenbaum case doesn't mean they tolerate or endorse the sexual abuse of minors. To create an dispute which pits questioning, challenging and/or criticising Rittenhouse's actions and account against a presumed sympathy or endorsement of sexual abuses is fundamentally intellectually dishonest imo.

This focusing on the character of the victims can only be read as an attempt to downplay the incident and imply that the people Rittenhouse shot were undesirables and wrong-doers, and therefore deserving of some kind of summary justice while casting him as the brave hero - as does the miss-telling of the events of the evening to claim that only Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself while disavowing that same right for those he followed, intimidated and threatened with a loaded rifle, a rifle he discharged multiple times, sometimes deliberately and sometimes indiscriminately, without evidence that he ever came under fire himself.

By this you've painted yourself as the willing tool of the far-Right: someone who is so far from seeing both sides of things that it's laughable that you even attempt to charge others with an obligation to demonstrate their even-handedness to your personal satisfaction.

Take from that what you will Chuckles.