He didn’t carry a weapon across state lines.
He isn’t a white supremacist.
He didn’t start any of the conflicts.
None of it had anything to do with race.
Why do we believe anything these people say?
4 thoughts on “How many facts did the media get wrong about Rittenhouse?”
Comments are closed.
How about…
1) He crossed state lines. (He was already there from the night before for his job. And while we’re at it…the border between Illinois and Wisconsin seems to be the only border that matters in the minds of MSNBC, etc. Cross the southern border, ok. Cross the Wisconsin border…watch out. Laughable because where Kyle lived was closer to Kenosha than Ft. Worth is to Dallas. It’s closer than Baltimore is to Washington, or Ann Arbor is to Detroit, or Albany is to NYC, or San Diego is to Los Angeles, or Ft. Lauderdale to Miami).
2) His mother drove him “across the border.” (He was old enough to drive, and did. Again, the only border that matters is between Wisconsin and Illinois apparently.)
3) It was illegal for him to carry an AR-15. (Nope. It was a long rifle, and legal for him to carry like countless kids going hunting with their dads/uncles).
4) He murdered 2 people. (Nope. Killed? Yes. Murdered? No, that is what a court decides.)
5) They were peaceful protests. (If you call blocks of burning buildings, peaceful, then ok, they were peaceful protests)
6) He had no connection to Kenosha. Just wanted to attack strangers. (His father, grandma, aunt, uncle, and cousins lived there)
(1) A technicality: he shouldn’t have had a gun anyway.
(2) He is a white supremacist, because he was white, which is 90% of being a white supremacist in the first place. The other 10% is easy to fill — opposing rioters counts. Blacks who support non-leftist positions can also be granted dishonourary white supremacist status. Admittedly if someone is sufficiently masochistic and is willing to start every conversation with “I am a racist trying to overcome it” he might be granted temporary and provisional ally status, but that can be revoked at any moment.
(3) He started the conflict by not immediately retreating in the presence of violence justified by a connection to a racialized situation, and by taking steps (such as carrying a weapon) which made it clear he wasn’t planning on simply accepting anything which happened to him. The fact he was there in the first place was an inciting incident: he was invading other people’s space, and they needed space to destroy.
(4) Of course it had to do with race, because EVERYTHING has to do with race. One white guy is attacked by some other white guys, he fights back and kills some of them. Why *shouldn’t* black people everywhere need time off to process this? The riot was loosely associated with a cause supported by many black people, after all.
There’s a certain kind of quasi-consistent funhouse logic to the whole thing.
Indeed, the media rarely gets it 100% correct, especially in high profile cases where the more sensational the story, the more it’s tempting for them to play fast and loose with the facts.
QUOTE: He isn’t a white supremacist.
We don’t know if he is or isn’t. Albeit there was no social media association, there was a birthday bar incident that raised some question.
QUOTE: He didn’t start any of the conflicts.
He didn’t initiate any conflicts. Yet, his actions set into motion events that contributed to his attack, left two dead and one seriously injured.
QUOTE: None of it had anything to do with race.
It’s tangentially related in that event was a protest of recent shooting of a Black man by White police officers.
Now, the next question — How long will the media persist in telling these lies after they have all been blown away by evidence?