Posted on 11/22/2021 4:00:13 AM PST by MtnClimber
The Kyle Rittenhouse trial has given us an unusual opportunity to contrast uncontestable facts as shown on many video recordings with an endlessly repeated media narrative that seems to exist in an alternate reality. To my amazement, even after two full weeks of livestreamed trial, most notably featuring videos taken on the night at issue and a witness testifying that he had pointed a gun in Rittenhouse’s face, many on the left cling to the prior narrative of the case as though it contains a greater truth about our justice system and racism in this country and therefore cannot be disputed by facts.
Could they just not have been paying attention? Or alternatively, do they have such a strong sense of emotional conviction that no amount of evidence, rationality, or logic can persuade them that Kyle Rittenhouse deserved the presumption of innocence and a fair trial?
I decided to test these hypotheses by engaging with a Progressive friend of mine when she posted an angry Instagram story in response to the Rittenhouse verdict. She was not the only one in my social media feed to do so, or even an outlier: Among the people most would consider my peers (in age, educational background, and location), the near unanimous opinion, even after the trial and jury verdict, is that Kyle Rittenhouse should spend his life in jail. But she and I have had productive conversations on other subjects in the past, so I thought she was a good target.
In her post about the verdict she wrote, “I don’t normally use my instagram for political commentary but this is a step too far” along with a series of angry emojis.
I responded with: “Did you follow the trial?” I wanted my opening comment to come across as innocuous. I was also genuinely curious to know if she had followed the facts of the case.
“No,” she replied quickly, “what did I miss? I heard he was a blubbering idiot.”
“A lot.” I responded. “I’ll send you an email that I think has an even-handed breakdown of the case.” I then forwarded her this article by Bari Weiss, which I sincerely think does an excellent job contrasting the media’s narrative about what happened with the facts. I also thought that if any journalist could get through to someone on the left, that person had to be Bari Weiss.
I was wrong. This morning I received this email from my friend in reply [unedited]:
“Bari Weiss is a racist is all I can garner from this ignorant article. Show me a world in which a black weaponless kid standing on that street corner doesn’t get shot or jail time. When the law only applies white people it’s not the law. F*ck this perspective.”
I was stunned. So I followed up: “Which part is the racist part???” Noting when I did so that the three men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were all white.
To which she said [unedited]:
“To write an article that justifies the verdict based on the simple suggestion that the law will set you free when that simply does not apply to black Americans is disgusting to me. This was a highly racially charged news story and has been since it happened and if he was black with the same exact situation he would be in jail - and often it’s for a lot less. Until the system works for everybody - this kind of blanket unwillingness to acknowledge the imbalance in our country disgusts me. The article is racist because she wrote it, I’m not saying he [Rittenhouse] is racist - that isn’t the point.”
To avoid turning this into a literal “she said/she said,” I’ll summarize the rest of our multi-email conversation. In my summary below, I have made a concerted effort to represent her argument as fairly as I possibly can. I found our conversation eye-opening, and a useful insight into the prevailing Progressive view of the Rittenhouse case.
Her opinion: The criminal justice system is fundamentally racist and treats black people unfairly. Therefore, in the racially charged context of the Rittenhouse case, it does not matter whether or not self-defense was justified. Rittenhouse should be thrown in jail because that’s what would have happened to a black man in his position. Jurors should make an example of Rittenhouse. White lawmakers will only be motivated to take action on criminal justice reform when they see that actions have consequences that can affect children who look like their own.
My opinion: If we believe the justice system is unfair, it doesn’t become more fair by using this case to set a precedent that trial outcomes can be determined based on our desire for emotional satisfaction and revenge. The only way to create a “more equitable” system, is to agree on a set of principles (such as the right to self-defense) and then continually uphold those principles even when it’s politically inconvenient or unappealing to do so. I want to live in a world where, if Kyle Rittenhouse were black, he too would be acquitted because he acted in self-defense. We undermine that future possibility by undermining the very notion that acting in self-defense is a legitimate defense. We reduce the notion of justice to taking an eye for an eye.
Predictably, my friend and I ended our conversation exactly where we began. After 20 emails back and forth, I finally admitted “we’re not going to get any further on this.” No matter what I said, she could not get past the idea that the criminal justice system can only be made more fair by making an example of Kyle Rittenhouse, even if it would require making the justice system unfair to do so. Her view did not change when I pointed out ending the drug war would do far more to get black men out of prison, nor when I argued that black men would benefit by our upholding the right to self-defense (such as in the recent, barely reported case of Andrew Coffee), nor when I suggested that the unintended consequences of sentencing Rittenhouse could easily be used to justify sending even more black men to jail down the line.
I left the conversation more discouraged than ever. There seems to be no understanding or awareness among my peers that in pursuit of “equity,” Progressivism is pulling us further and further from something that resembles true equality — that is, a world where we can trust that the same rules will apply to all and people will be treated equally under the law.
Is there any point engaging with Progressives on these subjects, when no arguments -- even those grounded in protecting the groups they claim to care most about -- seem to move the needle? I’m tempted to throw up my hands and say no, but then I remember that our democracy gives them a voice in how justice is carried out in this country. These views are echoed by leftist politicians with the ability to write or enforce law. A few examples following the trial verdict:
Said Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers: “No verdict will be able to bring back the lives of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, or heal Gaige Grosskreutz’s injuries, just as no verdict can heal the wounds or trauma experienced by Jacob Blake and his family. No ruling today changes our reality in Wisconsin that we have work to do toward equity, accountability, and justice that communities across our state are demanding and deserve.”
Said Wisconsin Representative Gwen Moore, “A system that legitimizes vigilante murder is deeply broken.”
Said NY Mayor Bill DeBlasio: “Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today. The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people. To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.:
If these opinions didn’t have the potential to affect my life, I wouldn’t care so much, try so hard, or be so afraid.
They discredit your sources, discredit your moral principles, discredit your intelligence, and consider any political or moral alignments you have to be evil, stupid, and ignorant. Liberals imagine themselves to be superior in every way, so to even to consider for a moment that there can be justified opposing opinions is impossible and maybe demeaning.
We'll need a shooting civil war to fix this.
NOPE
for lefturd loons, living in the world of MAYA is bliss:
ignorance
delusion
illusion
confusion
evasion
misunderstanding
cluelessness
stuck on stupid
can't handle the truth
They are mentally ill. Cognitive dissidence is the only rational explanation.
But they seem to be impervious to most humiliation...I say most, because their only weak spot appears to be genuine, on-target ridicule...that causes them to lose their minds!
No.
Facts and truth
don’t exist
to
post modernist progressives.
I think many on our side pooh-pooh the potential destructive power of cognitive dissonance.
I know how powerful it is for me when I see it in myself. I have to squash it, or it deeply disturbs me over time.
They don’t investigate the root of the discrepancy when they see one, they simply paper it over. But that discrepancy in the form of cognitive dissonance still ricochets around like cancer therapy involving heavy nuclear particles in cancer tissue which can destroy healthy tissue as well.
I think that explains why many appear to be (and often are) mentally ill.
I mentioned Terence McKenna earlier on in this thread, and I think his view explains a lot.
He argues that language creates a separate bubble of reality for each person.
We all have “different” views of reality than every other person.
Language is our attempt to make our version of reality understandable to other people, but it is a very imprecise tool.
All of us censor ourselves all the time when we deal with other people. We automatically practice “when in Rome do as the Romans do”-otherwise we would be getting in fist fights with almost everyone we encounter.
Once you understand how this works, then the existence of crazy belief systems becomes totally understandable.
Some folks can be reached by logical argument, but many are highly resistant to that form of communication.
I see that here all the time. I may agree with a person on ninety nine out of a hundred issues and think we agree on everything, and then one of us touches the previously unknown “third rail” where we strongly disagree.
I see that all the time, and I do work hard to avoid it. It doesn't mean I avoid discussion. I just know that stoking a certain fire that will have no effect beyond damaging my enjoyment of this site is simply not worth it.
Granted, I do have my limits as we all do, and there are certain things that I won't allow to pass, but...that is life.
I will say, that one of the issues I see that goes beyond that "bubble" created by language is the Leftist practice of relativism, where they ostensibly maintain the veneer that any "reality" is just as valid and worthy of consideration as any other "reality".
(I say "ostensibly", because it only covers their bizarre versions of reality. Yours and mine are not worthy of consideration.
The problem is, it balkanizes reality, in that everyone is allowed to have their "own reality". In this world, there is no such thing as a common reality, and I have seen that an allowance such as that is exceedingly dangerous and is corroding the very foundations of society.
Notice that I made no claim that any one person’s “version” is more “valid” than any other persons “version”.
That is not a value judgement. That is just an observation.
That is not “relativism” either.
If we can’t agree about the most basic facts with leftists, it makes it kinda hard to even begin to talk about values.
I did understand that distinction.
I was speaking from the destructive viewpoint of the Left, not yours or the viewpoint of Terence McKenna.
The “bubble” inspired reality created by language is largely navigated by our intellect, and cuts across all ideological (and need I say marital) boundaries...and has been here as long as we have been here.
I (and others) are of the opinion the the Left has taken this to an entirely new phase.
Sorry for the confusion.
The answer is: NO. But we all knew that.
For people like my sister in law facts are what you get from CNN and MSNBC. I am certain she sincerely believes that Rittenhouse, was an active member of the KKK, who shot three innocent unarmed Black men who were peacefully protesting a racist police shooting of another innocent Black man. Not even seeing the videos of the shooting would convince her otherwise.
One of McKenna’s most hilarious (and depressing) comments is when he says that evil people seem to be the only ones who have figured out how to manipulate language...
Hooo boy.
Was he ever right there. I view Leftism as evil incarnate today, and they sure as hell have figured out the manipulation of language and symbols.
I guess that makes sense...WE tend to look at differences in “bubbles” and figure out ways to ameliorate those differences. We make the naive mistake of thinking the Left looks at those bubbles and approaches them the same way.
Leftists look at those differences in bubbles, and in their evil Alinskyite minds, try to find ways to exacerbate a problem where they see one, create a problem where there isn’t one in order to suit their agenda, and want to make differences more acute rather than improve them.
As the saying goes: It is what they do.
I am going to have to look up works by McKenna. Do you have one in particular that is better than others in this respect?
McKenna has books but his podcasts are best since he was an amazing public speaker.
The place to start imho is this podcast:
https://psychedelicsalon.com/podcast-261-the-definitive-ufo-tape/
Don’t let the title deceive you—this is a discussion of why people believe what they believe—including of course ufos.
A couple more to start:
https://psychedelicsalon.com/podcast-596-terence-mckenna-on-art-bell-part-1/
https://psychedelicsalon.com/podcast-597-terence-mckenna-on-art-bell-part-2/
You can’t convince a fool no matter how much evidence you have.
Thank you, that is much appreciated.
I get a lot of my ideas for books from Freepers nowadays...it rarely sends me down the wrong path...:)
I think you have to look at why someone is a liberal. I’ve found government workers to be a rich source for this reason defying population.
They feel resentful because they are serving humanity at personal sacrifice and have nothing in the way of satisfying wealth/adulation to show for it. Democrats feed this.
Getting back at those they deem Trump supporters feels good. It doesn’t matter that their quality of life is compromised as long as the Trump supporter suffers. Nothing challenges this for them.
Make her defend her opinions about the basic, color-blind facts of that event only, not her feelings about the greater societal events and what they mean.
Make her be a juror and see if her mind can overcome her emotions to see the case as it is.
The 17 yo kid that night is the who and what really on trial here, not her opinions about society.
Put her in his shoes as the facts demand and let her feel his reasons, his fears, his restraint in the moment and finally his self-defense or likely die by mob justice … followed by all the remorse that naturally comes with it, whether justified or not.
If she is unable to go there with her thoughts and her empathy, then there’s not more you can do for that girl but pray and be patient and then be there if and when she starts to come around.
THAT is very typical of the responses one gets. I good friend of mine I tried to put the number of US gun deaths in perspective saying more people die from falling deaths than gun deaths. She agreed my stats were correct but that 5000 deaths per year is still too many,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.