41–50 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of the trial did you watch?
Enough to be sick of it. This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. But please ignore me, and ignore the future consequences as well, this isn't going to solve anything.
The immediate consequence of the shooting was an end to destructive riots in Kenosha. As an American, I hope future consequences include a tapering-off of destructive pointless riots. If you come to my town, threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses, light a bunch of the town on fire and then pursue and attempt to kill said kid, you deserve whatever happens to you. If Rittenhouse hadn't been armed, he'd likely now be dead.
> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…
This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.
I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
Quoted post unavailable.
BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.
> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…
This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
Quoted post unavailable.
Between Facebook banning any support, President Biden labeling him a white supremacist, and the Democrat head of the judiciary committee Rep. Jerry Nadler suggesting a unanimous jury verdict was a “miscarriage of justice” which needs to be investigated, Rittenhouse is going to a busy man.
The whole self-appointed "fact checker empowered to cancel" movement has to stop. Far too much fair disagreement, and objective truths, have been maliciously "cancelled" for not adhering to a given narrative on public forums. I get that "freedom of the press" does not include freedom to use someone else's press, and the owner has the absolute right to decide who may use his press. That said, we have a legal different…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe. As a result, the general public's first impression of your…
Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.