It's the exact same argument in the form of: "I figured things out, so I feel no sympathy for anyone who didn't." Alternately, "I grew up in an environment I was able to escape, and fuck anyone who wasn't able to."
You literally do not have to have sympathy for white supremacists as they massacre people
He's literally a child.
You can think he should get the book thrown at him, you can think it would have been better if he had been gunned down on the spot, and you can simultaneously think it's a tragedy that a literal child wasted his life because he grew up around chuds.
It’s the exact same argument in the form of: “I figured things out, so I feel no sympathy for anyone who didn’t.”
That's the whole fucking point of "which side are you on?" We live in a world of exploitation and terror. I do not have sympathy for people who go to war to protect it.
Should I have sympathy for scabs because they "grew up in an environment which made them hostile to working class solidarity"? Should I have sympathy for slave-owners because "they grew up in an environment where owning humans was normalized"?
What the fuck?
You can think he should get the book thrown at him, you can think it would have been better if he had been gunned down on the spot, and you can simultaneously think it’s a tragedy that a literal child wasted his life because he grew up around chuds.
You do understand that we in a world plagued by tragedy? The tragedies you choose to center speaks volumes. Yes, it's horrible that Nazi families are training their child to slaughter anti-racist protesters. They are slaughtering anti-racist protesters. I do not give a shit about the Nazi terrorist doing the killings.
Again: he's literally a child. He's 17. By all accounts his brain is a few years from being fully developed. You can't be (rightly) upset about something like the military recruiting 17-year-olds and then turn around and have absolutely zero sympathy for a 17-year-old who gets talked into toting around a gun and shooting someone. That's incoherent.
The tragedies you choose to center speaks volumes.
Again: he’s literally a child. He’s 17. By all accounts his brain is a few years from being fully developed. You can’t be (rightly) upset about something like the military recruiting 17-year-olds and then turn around and have absolutely zero sympathy for a 17-year-old who gets talked into toting around a gun and shooting someone. That’s incoherent.
How is that incoherent? I support prevention. White supremacists should not be indoctrinating children. I still do not have sympathy for white supremacist terrorists slaughtering anti-racist supporters.
It is disgusting that the military preys on children to carry out their imperial project, too. That does not change the fact a soldier raping and pillaging the Global South is undeserving of sympathy for their actions.
Who’s centering this?
"In addition to the lives this kid destroyed, his own should be added to the tally of lives ruined by the right. Poor kid, many of us here could have gone the way he did if not for luck and circumstance. Not that it’s any fucking excuse, but goddamnit what a waste"
Literally the top comment in this thread, that we both are responding to.
"Luck and circumstance" do not wipe away individual choices. This kid chose to slaughter anti-racist protesters last night. Millions of Rightist kids chose not to slaughter anti-racist protesters last night. He is not a "poor kid." He chose to drive into a city he's not from, and kill people.
White supremacists should not be indoctrinating children.
"But I have no sympathy for any child they indoctrinate."
In addition to the lives this kid destroyed, his own should be added to the tally of lives ruined by the right... Not that it’s any fucking excuse
I don't know what you think "centering" means, but this ain't it.
“Luck and circumstance” do not wipe away individual choices.
Exactly zero people in this thread are claiming it does. You can think a child should be held responsible for their actions but still think it's a waste that they were steered into doing something horrible.
I mean, give me you take on child soldiers. Kill 'em all, right? Give me your take on some kid who grows up poor and surrounded by violence and then commits a violent crime himself. Send him to the chair, right?
But I have no sympathy for any child they indoctrinate
I have sympathy for the indoctrinated children. There are acts that indoctrinated children can carry out that will make me lose sympathy for them. Carrying out an independent act of terror against anti-racist protesters on the cusp of adulthood is absolutely one.
I mean, give me you take on child soldiers. Kill 'em all, right? Give me your take on some kid who grows up poor and surrounded by violence and then commits a violent crime himself. Send him to the chair, right?
You really love jumping to conclusions. I do not have sympathy for Kyle Rittenhouse. If you want to explain, in detail, the scenarios you're trying to describe, I'll elaborate. The language you're using leads me to believe they're not analogous to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
If you want to explain, in detail, the scenarios you’re trying to describe, I’ll elaborate.
Sure. A child is indoctrinated into becoming a child soldier somewhere in the developing world. That child kills a few people. No sympathy, right? You'd blow that kid's brains out without a second thought, right? A child grows up poor and surrounded by violence. That child takes part in some violence himself and kills someone during a robbery. No sympathy, right? You'd send that kid directly to the chair without losing a wink of sleep, right?
That's not jumping to conclusions -- that's what "I have no sympathy for this kid" means when you apply it to reality.
That’s not jumping to conclusions – that’s what “I have no sympathy for this kid” means when you apply it to reality.
No, it does not. You're trying to stretch remedial logic to absurdist ends. I'm surprised you have not called me a pedophile because I said children have degrees of free will. That accusation would be equally grounded in reality.
Sure. A child is indoctrinated into becoming a child soldier somewhere in the developing world. That child kills a few people.
Let's start here.
Is this child on the cusp of adulthood?
Are they following the direct orders of a superior? Are they carrying out an independent act?
What is the sociopolitical context of this war? Is it the genocide of an exploited class? Is it an exploited class rising up against their oppressors?
Are they expressing an asymmetry of power, i.e. murdering while experiencing no threat to themself?
These are a few questions you'll need to clarify before we can even begin to consider this an imperfect analogy to Kyle's case.
Yes! Why do people pretend like kids have no free will whatsoever. It's so fucking weird.
Were the kids who joined the White Rose Society to fight against Nazi occupation still just kids? Are they not heroes, just the product of their environment?
People need to have some moral conviction, god fucking dammit.
You can think he should get the book thrown at him, you can think it would have been better if he had been gunned down on the spot, and you can simultaneously think it’s a tragedy that a literal child wasted his life because he grew up around chuds.
"I grew up poor and made it" is celebrating the fact you are a statistical anomaly, and likely exploited many on your way up.
What is wrong you? How is this similar to "I grew up conservative & didn't massacre anti-racist protesters"?
You literally do not have to sympathize with white supremacists as they massacre people. I promise.
It's the exact same argument in the form of: "I figured things out, so I feel no sympathy for anyone who didn't." Alternately, "I grew up in an environment I was able to escape, and fuck anyone who wasn't able to."
He's literally a child.
You can think he should get the book thrown at him, you can think it would have been better if he had been gunned down on the spot, and you can simultaneously think it's a tragedy that a literal child wasted his life because he grew up around chuds.
That's the whole fucking point of "which side are you on?" We live in a world of exploitation and terror. I do not have sympathy for people who go to war to protect it.
Should I have sympathy for scabs because they "grew up in an environment which made them hostile to working class solidarity"? Should I have sympathy for slave-owners because "they grew up in an environment where owning humans was normalized"?
What the fuck?
You do understand that we in a world plagued by tragedy? The tragedies you choose to center speaks volumes. Yes, it's horrible that Nazi families are training their child to slaughter anti-racist protesters. They are slaughtering anti-racist protesters. I do not give a shit about the Nazi terrorist doing the killings.
Again: he's literally a child. He's 17. By all accounts his brain is a few years from being fully developed. You can't be (rightly) upset about something like the military recruiting 17-year-olds and then turn around and have absolutely zero sympathy for a 17-year-old who gets talked into toting around a gun and shooting someone. That's incoherent.
Who's centering this?
How is that incoherent? I support prevention. White supremacists should not be indoctrinating children. I still do not have sympathy for white supremacist terrorists slaughtering anti-racist supporters.
It is disgusting that the military preys on children to carry out their imperial project, too. That does not change the fact a soldier raping and pillaging the Global South is undeserving of sympathy for their actions.
"In addition to the lives this kid destroyed, his own should be added to the tally of lives ruined by the right. Poor kid, many of us here could have gone the way he did if not for luck and circumstance. Not that it’s any fucking excuse, but goddamnit what a waste"
Literally the top comment in this thread, that we both are responding to.
"Luck and circumstance" do not wipe away individual choices. This kid chose to slaughter anti-racist protesters last night. Millions of Rightist kids chose not to slaughter anti-racist protesters last night. He is not a "poor kid." He chose to drive into a city he's not from, and kill people.
"But I have no sympathy for any child they indoctrinate."
I don't know what you think "centering" means, but this ain't it.
Exactly zero people in this thread are claiming it does. You can think a child should be held responsible for their actions but still think it's a waste that they were steered into doing something horrible.
I mean, give me you take on child soldiers. Kill 'em all, right? Give me your take on some kid who grows up poor and surrounded by violence and then commits a violent crime himself. Send him to the chair, right?
I have sympathy for the indoctrinated children. There are acts that indoctrinated children can carry out that will make me lose sympathy for them. Carrying out an independent act of terror against anti-racist protesters on the cusp of adulthood is absolutely one.
You really love jumping to conclusions. I do not have sympathy for Kyle Rittenhouse. If you want to explain, in detail, the scenarios you're trying to describe, I'll elaborate. The language you're using leads me to believe they're not analogous to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Sure. A child is indoctrinated into becoming a child soldier somewhere in the developing world. That child kills a few people. No sympathy, right? You'd blow that kid's brains out without a second thought, right? A child grows up poor and surrounded by violence. That child takes part in some violence himself and kills someone during a robbery. No sympathy, right? You'd send that kid directly to the chair without losing a wink of sleep, right?
That's not jumping to conclusions -- that's what "I have no sympathy for this kid" means when you apply it to reality.
No, it does not. You're trying to stretch remedial logic to absurdist ends. I'm surprised you have not called me a pedophile because I said children have degrees of free will. That accusation would be equally grounded in reality.
Let's start here.
Is this child on the cusp of adulthood?
Are they following the direct orders of a superior? Are they carrying out an independent act?
What is the sociopolitical context of this war? Is it the genocide of an exploited class? Is it an exploited class rising up against their oppressors?
Are they expressing an asymmetry of power, i.e. murdering while experiencing no threat to themself?
These are a few questions you'll need to clarify before we can even begin to consider this an imperfect analogy to Kyle's case.
deleted by creator
Yes! Why do people pretend like kids have no free will whatsoever. It's so fucking weird.
Were the kids who joined the White Rose Society to fight against Nazi occupation still just kids? Are they not heroes, just the product of their environment?
People need to have some moral conviction, god fucking dammit.
He's literally a Nazi murderer. Besides, it's not like his victims didn't have families. Maybe children.
I'd prefer he be hit by something a little heavier than a book
It's one sentence.
Bullets are much lighter than books, mate.