5 ms·

> Facebook removes lots of truthful stuff Such as? Examples would be appreciated.

souprock 6y ago
Anything pointing out that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense seems to get banned. All https://JoeBiden.info/ https://JoeBiden.info/ links are banned. It's 100% truthful, with citations, and unmodified video that you can watch with your own eyes.
- scarface74 6y ago
  How do you go across state lines with a gun in the middle of protest and then claim “Self defense”?
  - rbecker 6y ago
    What do you mean? Does crossing state lines with a gun in the middle of protests protect you from attack, so he couldn't have been attacked? Or did you perhaps intend to say the attack against him was justified, because he was carrying a gun? But then, wasn't one of the attackers also armed? But, maybe he didn't cross state lines, so that's what made his behavior justified, and Kyle's unjustified?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Why do you think he actually went?
      - souprock 6y ago
        Which "he", and "went" where? You mean why Kyle crossed a state line, why he went to the riot, or...? Kyle crossed a state line to go to work. He had a job as a lifeguard at the YMCA. After work, he stopped to help a group of people cleaning graffiti off of the local high school. (there are photos) He then, with his local friends, responded to a business owner who wanted help guarding property. Those friends supplied the rifle. Kyle brought a medical kit and helped bandage a rioter who got an injured foot. At a gas station, rioters set a fire in a wheeled dumpster. It seems they intended to push it toward the police. Kyle is seen in video running with a fire extinguisher. Somebody then used the fire extinguisher to put out the fire, enraging the rioters. So I think it is obvious that Kyle was trying to save people and property. You might find that unbelievable, but some people feel a duty to do that kind of thing. It's notable that he only shot people who were actively attacking him. Former attackers and armed potential attackers were not shot at. It's a surprising amount of restraint.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Yes I am sure a 17 year old believed that he had to protect the defenseless police. Isn’t that called vigilantism? https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/27/906566596/alleged-kenosha-shooter-fervently-supported-blue-lives-joined-local-militia https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia... > In another video recorded before the shootings, a teen who appears to be Rittenhouse describes himself as a member of a local militia that was effectively protecting businesses in Kenosha. A third video again shows the teen armed with a gun and strolling among what appear to be uniformed police officers.
      - rbecker 6y ago
        My goodness you are slippery. Let me speed things along - you are trying to imply he went with the intent of shooting someone. For the sake of argument, lets assume that's true. Now his attackers were also armed - lets assume that, unlike Kyle, their motive in bringing guns to a protest was self-defense. Despite all of this, there's video showing he wasn't the first to shoot, was running away, and was on the ground being kicked and hit in the head when he shot the second time. You are saying that, despite this exculpatory video evidence, the mere fact he went to the protest with a gun is so damning, he simply must be guilty? That he must have done something, not caught on video (such as threatening the protesters with his rifle), that justified their attack? Not could have, but must have, since if it was a mere 'could have', then you wouldn't find his self-defense claim so unbelievable. Because he had the wrong reason for coming, he simply couldn't have been attacked? And none of this logic applies to the protesters who also brought guns?
  - souprock 6y ago
    According to Kyle's lawyer, that never happened. The gun never crossed a state line, not that it matters. The lawyer is a reputable source. See what happens when information is suppressed? You didn't know that fact.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > The lawyer is a reputable source I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
      - rootsudo 6y ago
        At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, and start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
        ianleeclark 6y ago
        > At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money. So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system. > start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient? I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
- shureluck 6y ago
  People who are downvoting you cannot see the irony.
- matchbok 6y ago
  The fact that you're a fan of that site show us how you value meaningful debate.

Anything pointing out that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense seems to get banned. All https://JoeBiden.info/ https://JoeBiden.info/ links are banned. It's 100% truthful, with citations, and unmodified video that you can watch with your own eyes.

scarface74 6y ago
How do you go across state lines with a gun in the middle of protest and then claim “Self defense”?
- rbecker 6y ago
  What do you mean? Does crossing state lines with a gun in the middle of protests protect you from attack, so he couldn't have been attacked? Or did you perhaps intend to say the attack against him was justified, because he was carrying a gun? But then, wasn't one of the attackers also armed? But, maybe he didn't cross state lines, so that's what made his behavior justified, and Kyle's unjustified?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Why do you think he actually went?
    - souprock 6y ago
      Which "he", and "went" where? You mean why Kyle crossed a state line, why he went to the riot, or...? Kyle crossed a state line to go to work. He had a job as a lifeguard at the YMCA. After work, he stopped to help a group of people cleaning graffiti off of the local high school. (there are photos) He then, with his local friends, responded to a business owner who wanted help guarding property. Those friends supplied the rifle. Kyle brought a medical kit and helped bandage a rioter who got an injured foot. At a gas station, rioters set a fire in a wheeled dumpster. It seems they intended to push it toward the police. Kyle is seen in video running with a fire extinguisher. Somebody then used the fire extinguisher to put out the fire, enraging the rioters. So I think it is obvious that Kyle was trying to save people and property. You might find that unbelievable, but some people feel a duty to do that kind of thing. It's notable that he only shot people who were actively attacking him. Former attackers and armed potential attackers were not shot at. It's a surprising amount of restraint.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Yes I am sure a 17 year old believed that he had to protect the defenseless police. Isn’t that called vigilantism? https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/27/906566596/alleged-kenosha-shooter-fervently-supported-blue-lives-joined-local-militia https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia... > In another video recorded before the shootings, a teen who appears to be Rittenhouse describes himself as a member of a local militia that was effectively protecting businesses in Kenosha. A third video again shows the teen armed with a gun and strolling among what appear to be uniformed police officers.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      My goodness you are slippery. Let me speed things along - you are trying to imply he went with the intent of shooting someone. For the sake of argument, lets assume that's true. Now his attackers were also armed - lets assume that, unlike Kyle, their motive in bringing guns to a protest was self-defense. Despite all of this, there's video showing he wasn't the first to shoot, was running away, and was on the ground being kicked and hit in the head when he shot the second time. You are saying that, despite this exculpatory video evidence, the mere fact he went to the protest with a gun is so damning, he simply must be guilty? That he must have done something, not caught on video (such as threatening the protesters with his rifle), that justified their attack? Not could have, but must have, since if it was a mere 'could have', then you wouldn't find his self-defense claim so unbelievable. Because he had the wrong reason for coming, he simply couldn't have been attacked? And none of this logic applies to the protesters who also brought guns?
- souprock 6y ago
  According to Kyle's lawyer, that never happened. The gun never crossed a state line, not that it matters. The lawyer is a reputable source. See what happens when information is suppressed? You didn't know that fact.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > The lawyer is a reputable source I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
    - rootsudo 6y ago
      At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, and start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money. So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system. > start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient? I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
shureluck 6y ago
People who are downvoting you cannot see the irony.
matchbok 6y ago
The fact that you're a fan of that site show us how you value meaningful debate.