FYI Sargon's vid, 41 mins long & you don't need to watch to understand this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpabAwUk6Z4
Here's video https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1299107667839909888
Man, how did #KyleRittenhouse see a potential killer’s handgun that quickly in the dark, and make the life-or-death decision to defend himself? Astonishing situational awareness and courage. This kid is a poster hero for the Second Amendment.
https://twitter.com/firstcitizensam/status/1299087825854316549
It looks like Kyle Rittenhouse was about to get a bullet in the head from a handgun from this angle.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1299086141329563648
GRAPHIC: A friend of the man who rushed at the #Kenosha teen with a pistol and was shot in the arm has posted an update about his status. Doctors were able to save Gaige Grosskreutz's right arm. The friend says Gaige regrets not being able to kill the teen.
Kenosha Mile Challenge: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egdbsz3UcAACpt0?format=jpg&name=900x900
The military has long known that teenage boys make better soldiers than grown women.
Better everything*
Well, except for victim acting. No one can beat women at that.
That photo looks operator as fuck.
You saw what he did. It WAS operator as fuck. 3 shots, 3 hits, all from the ground, scooting backwards with a long-gun at close range.
That's action movie prowess.
No, that's not true.
First incident was multiple shots with only one hit to the head. It sounded like 4 initial shots, then 3 more.
Second incident was 5 shots hitting two and, of those, killing one. The person who tried a running stomp on him may not have been hit.
I still have no idea where the other 2 wounded came from that night. The cops said 2 dead 3 wounded.
He seems to be responsible for up to 12 shots, 2 dead, and 3 wounded, or 9 shots, 2 dead, 1 wounded.
Still pretty good, though.
Sure, not to shabby when you're firing off your ass.
Gunny says you gotta bayonet one of them for it to count.
"Surrender to the mob" sounds like a great idea, if you are tired of your life and wish to be beaten to death.
To be fair to Gaige, I'd be pissed too if I lost a gun fight.
Colonel Armstrong thought he was stopping a spree shooter when he was drawing on Kyle's head. In his mind, Reinhard Heydrich survived the ambush by shooting his bicep. Grosskreutz doesn't live in reality because he's been subverted by communism.
Much as I wish this could be used in Rittenhouse's defence I suspect that's not going to be possible. Ngo saying another guy said Gaige wanted to kill Rittenhouse isn't the kind of thing any court could or should allow.
Andy Ngo is posting a screenshot of another guy saying that, so it's still hearsay (I know all about these things, because I used to watch a lot of Law and Order).
The interesting thing, though: The gun is in Grosskreutz's hand as he is running up. You can see it in the NYT breakdown, and the original video from @BGOnTheScene.
I don't know why some other angles look like he is empty handed, but he is not, when he does his "I surrender" act.
This brings me to a point. Grosskreutz "surrenders" by putting up his hands, appealing to the compassion of his enemy. Then, when he thinks he has an opportunity, he goes in for the kill (and gets shot).
If he truly thought his enemy was a bloodthirsty murderer, why would he give up at that point?
If he was truly facing a merciless fascist, why would he expect mercy?
Because he doesn't believe his enemy is heartless and evil. He is counting on a moment of mercy, so he can strike in retaliation.
I find this consistent with the methods leftists have been using in Western nations for decades. They make appeals to the compassion and mercy of the mostly decent people who comprise these nations, then exploit that compassion and mercy to achieve their goals, which work against those compassionate people. They are cynical, manipulative, and vile to the core.
I'm not saying Grosskreutz was thinking this through in this exact moment (he probably doesn't have an inner dialogue), but I think this is a sociopathic behavior that is intrinsic to leftist subversives.
Yeah, the false surrender should bite him a lot harder than what's hearsay on two counts (I personally doubt Ngo's been 'shopping evidence, but we're talking about what can be proved to a court).
Completely agreed on the type of person this shows the injured man to be - not only personally abhorrent, but what's the wider implication? What will happen to surrendering rioters if this becomes a more common thing? Will they even be allowed to surrender if they're perceived to merely be doing so as a ploy to get to within their own engagement range of their intended victims?
One of the downsides of exempting yourselves from the rules of civilised behaviour is that, well, you've exempted yourselves from the rules of civilised behaviour.
This is why we must harden our hearts. We must develop defenses against these tactics.
I wouldn't say harden your heart. Compassion and mercy are key traits that make the difference between good people and bad people. BUT, good people must be wary, and gain the wisdom to recognize the tactics of the people who would exploit our compassion and mercy. People who would exploit your better nature to harm you deserve neither compassion or mercy.
This is pretty legit. It's religious sounding practically, "Well, I've got compassion and mercy, that makes me good - but if you're going to exploit my goodness, well, I'll stop being those things."
But it's absolutely true. Through most facets of life too. Whether it's constantly having to cover for someone at work, someone who always needs a loan or to borrow money, all the way up to the manipulative types and so on. Compassion, empathy, understanding, mercy - they get taken advantage of on a daily basis. I just prefer to word it as "Hone your judgement, so you decide - don't be too harsh, but don't get taken advantage of either."
Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. -Matthew 10:16
eric weinstein calls it "critical feeling"
You bastard! You stole my post!
Fuck it, here it is in Comment form:
So, I watched this Sargon video of a debate between Vaush and Destiny. And while normally I wouldn't care about an argument between a Leftist and a Leftist, I have to point out the extra-ordinary rationalization of lynchings that Vaush and a bunch of his Leftist sycophants are making. This is the rationalization of someone who will murder you and your entire family without batting an eye because he believes the lynch mob is a moral agent in and of itself.
Hence, this kind of thought process needs to be exposed.
One argument he makes is that it is a 'dangerous precedent' to allow someone to defend themselves if the lynchmob decides to attack someone they believe is a threat. He claims that it would be a terrible precedent to allow someone to kill many people who are attacking a shooter, rather than simply succumbing to the will of the lynchers. EVEN IF the shooting was justified.
This is some genuine Reign of Terror/Jacobin/Robespierre level insanity on it's own. That you must submit to the will of the lynchmob because they suspect you of being in the wrong... in order to protect the lynchers from violence. At no point are the lynchers required to not murder you; you are simply required to submit to their will and pray for whatever mercy they may or may not decide to allow you.
And just to be clear, Destiny objecting to removing an individuals right of self defense is sociopathy to the Left. I can only assume that this is because the Left has redefined sociopathy to 'anyone that is not of the lynch-mind is anti-social and has a pathologized socialization, therefore making the a sociopath'.
This comment is particularly galling:
It takes the abandonment of personal responsibility to the lynchmob, runs with it, and rejects the lyncher's agency. And if the lynchers have no agency, their victim must use his agency in order to make the lynchers stop killing them... whenever the lynchers feel like it.
Note the additional rationalization of: running from the lynch mob justifies the lyncher's attack on you.
This is another style of comment that came up. The idea that the lynchmob can be trusted to disarm you, but then not kill you, even though the lynchmob in the comment section is screaming that the shooter was an active shooter who was slaughtering innocent people. That you can't know that the lynchmob will kill you when they disarm you, despite the fact that all humans on Earth understand the danger of someone reaching for your gun.
As for Vaush, you simply can't pass judgement on a mob that is attacking you. You have no right to just assume that when they attack you, that they'll kill you, and therefore you shouldn't be using lethal force to defend yourself. Now, in the real world, even if they didn't intend to kill you, lynchmobs typically use such reckless amounts of force that grievous bodily harm and death are possible and likely even without a direct intention of killing you. This is why you should defend yourself from the BLM and Antifa lynchers that are attempting to punt you in the fucking skull.
But then there's this gem. Hold onto your butts:
That's a real quote.
If you're running from people who are trying to kill you, and you turn around and see a gun in your face: that's an indication of non-lethal intent from the guy pointing a pistol
Welcome to 2020.
However, Destiny makes one of the most based fucking points I've heard from the Left in a while:
They didn't like the truth.
Vaush actually goes on to clarify his position even further and re-iterate that there is going to be less of a chance of violence and death if you surrender to the mob, than if you shoot into the mob that won't stop attacking you. Sargon and Destiny both think this is a disingenuous position, but I don't think so. This is a purely collectivist position. A violent mob attacking a single person could lead to two outcomes. In the first outcome, the victim surrenders and is literally torn to pieces and beaten to death with his own arms and legs. Only one person dies. In the second outcome, many members of the violent mob are shot, and some are even killed. Thus, not accepting your dismemberment by the lynchers is less violent, and the better option.
That's why this galling exchange happened:
Defending yourself with lethal force, guarantees that the person attacking you will get mauled or killed. But not defending yourself means that there's a 50-50 chance that a person (specifically you) will die. Therefore, it's better for you to potentially die, than for them to be stopped.
You're wrong. They have one principle: The acquisition of power.
Vaush is inherently mentally compromised. He's weak minded, his ego is small, he can tell when he's having the shit beaten out of him verbally while trying to defend his insane ideas - he just keeps reaching, trying to sound like he's smart enough to keep up and never ceding a point... And the result of never ceding a point is that he comes out with lynch mobs and communism. Because he puts the collective above everything else. That's how a "mob" because "they're just witnesses, man! Why would you run from witnesses?"
I had to stop watching and take a break, because I couldn't imagine a person saying those things. It was hard to believe.
Pure evil. I know what I stand against now, though.
I don't lean that way. Pure evil is something else. It really does feel like the banality of evil though. Like the evil done by people who are too self-centered, egotistical, have-to-be-right-no-matter-what.
It says he's 26. Maybe after he keeps getting voluntarily humiliated by defending the worst positions possible and has open and honest dialogues, he'll grow. Until then, he's just a moron that makes it easy to bash on far-leftism.
I've always felt that the banality of evil was the purest form of evil.
It's the General who orders his soldiers to rape all the women of a captured city because it will a) improve morale, b) break any desire to resist the army.
The decision is banal, ruthless, and the purest form of evil.
I don't think I disagree with that, though I've only given it a bit of thought. What struck me when I read what you wrote however is how the right communicates. The right will often call the left evil - specifically because of let's say more mild forms of the banality of evil. The left only hears the "evil" part - they don't understand the thought that goes with it - and I've managed to sway some leftists when having to explain it, step by step. But others are more true leftists, they want authoritarian government to enforce things and those types tend to think freedom and liberty is evil. I also think of them as the type who would be freed from slavery and then go "Wait. Sure, I was a slave, but they fed me and clothed me, put me back!" -_-
Of course they would. They did.
The Democrats have always been a highly racialist party. They've just been bouncing around between what kinds of racialism they support. What you said is the old Democratic revisionist argument for Slavery. The idea was that blacks were better off as slaves because they could be cared for more appropriately, and that civilization was brought to them through slavery.
Their welfare, corporate, and campus environments are all effectively plantations with fewer whips. That's why they look at rural communities as particularly uncivilized.
Well, it just speaks to the greatest psychological divide of the human species - the valuing of the individual vs "the group". Ever notice how the lefties are attracted to Eastern spiritual thought? Western thought sees the "soul" as a sort of fixed individual, no matter what body that soul occupies (look at any Western comedy that involves reincarnation. Even Virgil described Roman reincarnation as involving a loss of memory, but not a loss of basic personality/individualism.) In Eastern religions, the soul is a formless thing, a lost shard of a larger ... entity ... shaped and given personality by whatever vessel it happens to find itself in, and wants nothing more than to eventually meld with the "All" and not be an individual thing any more; and even that "All" isn't any kind of "conscious individual" itself.
Haha, that's one hell of a way to look at Instrumentality in Evangelion ;) Gendo certainly thought that way.
Actually that reminds me a lot of "The Human Hive" faction from the game Alpha Centauri. It was highly collectivist faction that rejected the material world almost a failing, and that the benefit of the collective was more important than all other things, and you could only achieve enlightenment once you have ascended past all individual and materialist things.
A descriptive quote from the faction leader is: "What do I care for your suffering?..."
It's a blend of collectivism, futurism, and eastern theology all together at once. The idea is that all suffering, even your torture and murder by the state, is irrelevant to the greater good and spiritual enlightenment. Freedom is purely a negative thing.
Well, they do when it comes to defending yourself. But Jacob was the aggressor through the whole incident.
my god, i never thought there would be someone that made destiny look good in comparison.
Dude, he comes off straight up based.
Communists BTFO'd
There's another point where he's saying, "So long as they're attacking me, I'll kill as many as I need to" or something like that.
Fuckin' 2020 dude, shit's breakin' down.
One of the worst parts of that video was that I had to take Destiny's side lol.
Forgot this gem
Vaush is a complete lunatic.
He's the stupidest person's intellectual. Which isn't very good, because he's quite mentally weak. Maybe he can form logic, but his LOVE of communism makes him say stupid stupid stupid things, over and over and over - even when various people run circles around him, try and teach him... he will not learn. Even when the stress is all over his face, he knows he's totally in the wrong, he will keep going. Ego and stupidity. His value to most is that we get to watch others dunk on him, both in terms of funny and terms of "Oh. So this is what one of those "real communism's never been tried." people are like"
Wait, the "victim's" names are Grosskreutz, Huber, and Rosenbaum? These are names I would give to time-traveling communist agitators that came from 1920 Munich to the present to start shit.
Has Gaige been arrested yet
Shame the bullet only got his arm.
It's hilarious when Destiny is in the right in a debate with someone largely on his own side, and he just can't even comprehend that Vaush would take such a horrible stance justifying similar instances like lynchings of blacks in the south in the 1800s. "Well the mob thought that the victim did something wrong! They should just take the coinflip!" Socialists and Communists literally don't understand how to have a functioning and trusting civilization. They can't even get past the moral hurdle of self-defense.