Mr. Arthur asked " Is there any real difference between [Rittenhouse] and a child soldier on the Ethiopian border?" I replied, showing some of the differences.
Now he opines about "well-trained militia(s)", trying to imply that this has some bearing on his initial question. It's like pointing out that Ethiopian child soldiers and Rittenhouse both are members of the human species. True, but it has no bearing on the subject.
It's a typical gamma move in that gammas can't bring themselves to admit they made a mistake. Instead of acknowledging that his initial wisecrack was wrong, he has to find something else he can claim to be right about, and tell himself it cancels his previous error.
And note the phrase "well-trained militia." This is an attempt to set up an argument that Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't trained on his rifle, which appears substantially true, and that therefore he isn't legally in the militia (false: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10…).
🤡🌎 stuff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The #WaPo has a decent review of "The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story," the new book based on the notorious #NYTimes Sunday Magazine articles.
Reviewer @CarlosLozadaWP notes the basic dishonesty of the project, where criticisms are met by changing the definitions of words.
For instance, when Nikole Hannah-Jones says blacks fought for their rights "alone," that doesn't mean "Without aid or support," or "Without anyone else." It means "without the support of the majority of white Americans."
This is dubious as stated (did the majority of whites oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? If answering, please present evidence). It is also irrelevant. A minority of white Americans has always fought for black rights. NHJ lies about this.
Amusingly, the Times says the quiet parts out loud twice.
First, this quote from a cop that lots of people were openly armed on the night of the shooting. That undermines #TheNarrative on how open carry was so provoking.
Second, the part about people approaching Rittenhouse.
In fact, all the so-called victims made it a point to approach Rittenhouse. Those who backed off when he pointed the rifle at him were not shot at. The ones who were shot had all attacked or attempted to attack him.
@robkhenderson .Evolution does something? How can it, unless objective reality exists?
And the "computer simulation" is bullshit. One computer "organism" can see "objective reality" but can't recognize danger, but another can see "danger" but not the computerized "reality"?
@robkhenderson Within the context of the simulation, recognizing "this will kill me" is recognizing "reality."
This is another example of people proving 2+2 can equal five, by substituting other numbers for 2. It's just dishonest.
Then there's the perception nonsense.
@robkhenderson ‘In like manner, we create an apple when we look, and destroy it when we look away. Something exists when we don’t look, but it isn’t an apple, and is probably nothing like an apple,’ Hoffman writes.”
No, we see an apple. This is just being systematically dishonest.
Reading ‘When the Culture War Comes for the Kids’, archive.md/gznDx, and I find this: “Liberals are always slow to realize that there can be friendly, idealistic people who have little use for liberal values.”
This is a subset of a larger problem, IMAO: Projection.
A lot of people just can’t grasp, emotionally, that some people want different things than they do, like or dislike different things, and will do different things given the opportunity. And so they operate on false assumptions. Grief inevitably ensues.
There's a worse problem.
Call it self blinding. Call it refusal to face facts. The article talks about how the author’s son got into a good middle school, but it turned out to be ‘segregated.’
You mean children were assigned to this school on the basis of their race, and it was all one race. Nope.
Zaid Jilani notes an email Supt. Ziegler sent out the same day as the first incident. Deevoe replied with a quote from the letter.
I replied to Deevoe, incorrectly, "The Sheriff's Dept. was apparently not notified till Scott Smith showed up at the school to complain."
But my tweet did say that the Sheriff's dept. was notified the same day as the alleged rapes occurred. So I never made the claim he wishes to pin on me.
3) I never said or implied that the Sheriff was trying to cover anything up. That's just more 🐴 💩
The #gamma just couldn't leave it alone. Long thread, probably boring.
By the "deputy" I presume he is talking about the School Resource Officer. The Daily Wire story that was my source said the SRO was "investigating" under the guidance of the school administration.
He now implicitly concedes that the DW story was correct: no one outside the school was called there to investigate until Scott Smith showed up.
Well before reading this latest post, I'd formed a hypothesis. Deevoe read a story about the incident, and misunderstood it.
He somehow got the idea that multiple agencies were involved. He tweeted to that effect. Then, when I asked for his source, he reread it and realized he was wrong. Rather than admit that, he tried to bluff.