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.
You’re trying to stretch remedial logic to absurdist ends.
I'm not talking about redemption at all -- I'm talking about sympathy. You can think a child has done something irredeemable and still think it's a shame that someone worked to indoctrinate that child into a violent ideology. Kids have some agency, but they have less agency than adults. There are about a million scenarios where we recognize that kids aren't 100% responsible for everything they do, even if what they do is identical to something we'd say an adult is responsible for without qualification.
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.
You have as much detail about those hypotheticals as you do about this real-life person. If you've arrived at "no sympathy" with only what we know now, but want to play 20 questions with those other scenarios, you're rushing to judgment here.
I’m not talking about redemption at all – I’m talking about sympathy. You can think a child has done something irredeemable and still think it’s a shame that someone worked to indoctrinate that child into a violent ideology. Kids have some agency, but they have less agency than adults. There are about a million scenarios where we recognize that kids aren’t 100% responsible for everything they do, even if what they do is identical to something we’d say an adult is responsible for without qualification.
Everyone is shaped by the systems they grow up in. People don't magically become independent of that once they are adults. I interpret your comment as "every person deserves my sympathy, no matter what they do." The difference between a 17 year old and a 25 year old committing an act of terror is barely different. There's no difference for their victims
From your perspective, I find it weird you do not have sympathy for every far-right terrorist. Once they become an adult, you disregard the systems which were the reason for your sympathy? That's absurd.
You have as much detail about those hypotheticals as you do about this real-life person.
I have the answer to every single one of those questions in Kyle's case. I know the context of America, the war they are fighting in, the ongoing genocide of black people, the side they're on, etc. The only ambiguity is whether he was forced to carry out this massacre - which is extremely unlikely.
Please reflect on the energy you are willing to invest in challenging the statement: "I have no sympathy for a 17-year old who left his hometown to massacre anti-racist protesters."
You are very motivated to convince me I owe my oppressors sympathy. It's disgusting. I'm done responding to this. This is clearly unreal to you, just an intellectual exercise.
Once they become an adult, you disregard the systems which were the reason for your sympathy?
Do you believe kids are 100% as responsible for their actions as adults? Yes or no.
Please reflect on the energy you are willing to invest
Please reflect on the fact that you consider typing out a few posts "investing energy." Please reflect on the fact that you're talking about blowing away children without batting an eye. Please reflect on the fact that people who do not feel any hesitation as they kill a child are bad people who have a video game view of the value of human life.
What do you think "no sympathy" means in practice when you're talking about a murderer? What do you think it means when you repeatedly say "hey you know this actually means you don't give a damn about that person's life" and they don't deny that?
Think about how this mentality translates to real-world actions.
Do you think most people, seeing as they do not feel sympathy for murderers, would go ahead and kill them instead because of a lack of sympathy for their actions?
The death penalty still has majority support, and extremely long (effectively life-ending) sentences are popular as an alternative. So yes, whatever your "rhetorical question" horseshit is meant to imply, there's a clear link between lacking sympathy for a murderer and wanting to see that murderer dead.
[People] kill because they... lack empathy, and/or hey dehumanize
he is, however, opposed to showing sympathy due to what he did. That doesn’t mean he wants to kill him
Twisting "I have no sympathy for a Nazi murderer" into "I want to personally murder children" is the funniest shit I've seen someone post online. Most fascists won't even go that far to defend him.
This tops "abortions are child murder" for best right-wing manipulation of remedial logic. You need to pitch this shit to Breitbart ASAP.
Thanks for keeping this up after I went to bed, made for some good reading.
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.
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.
I'm not talking about redemption at all -- I'm talking about sympathy. You can think a child has done something irredeemable and still think it's a shame that someone worked to indoctrinate that child into a violent ideology. Kids have some agency, but they have less agency than adults. There are about a million scenarios where we recognize that kids aren't 100% responsible for everything they do, even if what they do is identical to something we'd say an adult is responsible for without qualification.
You have as much detail about those hypotheticals as you do about this real-life person. If you've arrived at "no sympathy" with only what we know now, but want to play 20 questions with those other scenarios, you're rushing to judgment here.
Everyone is shaped by the systems they grow up in. People don't magically become independent of that once they are adults. I interpret your comment as "every person deserves my sympathy, no matter what they do." The difference between a 17 year old and a 25 year old committing an act of terror is barely different. There's no difference for their victims
From your perspective, I find it weird you do not have sympathy for every far-right terrorist. Once they become an adult, you disregard the systems which were the reason for your sympathy? That's absurd.
I have the answer to every single one of those questions in Kyle's case. I know the context of America, the war they are fighting in, the ongoing genocide of black people, the side they're on, etc. The only ambiguity is whether he was forced to carry out this massacre - which is extremely unlikely.
Please reflect on the energy you are willing to invest in challenging the statement: "I have no sympathy for a 17-year old who left his hometown to massacre anti-racist protesters."
You are very motivated to convince me I owe my oppressors sympathy. It's disgusting. I'm done responding to this. This is clearly unreal to you, just an intellectual exercise.
Do you believe kids are 100% as responsible for their actions as adults? Yes or no.
Please reflect on the fact that you consider typing out a few posts "investing energy." Please reflect on the fact that you're talking about blowing away children without batting an eye. Please reflect on the fact that people who do not feel any hesitation as they kill a child are bad people who have a video game view of the value of human life.
deleted by creator
What do you think "no sympathy" means in practice when you're talking about a murderer? What do you think it means when you repeatedly say "hey you know this actually means you don't give a damn about that person's life" and they don't deny that?
Think about how this mentality translates to real-world actions.
deleted by creator
The death penalty still has majority support, and extremely long (effectively life-ending) sentences are popular as an alternative. So yes, whatever your "rhetorical question" horseshit is meant to imply, there's a clear link between lacking sympathy for a murderer and wanting to see that murderer dead.
Are you serious right now?
deleted by creator
Literally all I've been saying from the very beginning.
deleted by creator
Twisting "I have no sympathy for a Nazi murderer" into "I want to personally murder children" is the funniest shit I've seen someone post online. Most fascists won't even go that far to defend him.
This tops "abortions are child murder" for best right-wing manipulation of remedial logic. You need to pitch this shit to Breitbart ASAP.
Thanks for keeping this up after I went to bed, made for some good reading.
Classic "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about" line
Sure. Let me correct myself. Fascists will just say he is cool & "based."
The dichotomy of "you must either sympathize with Kyle Rittenhouse or you want to murder children" is something entirely special to you.
My apologies. You are much more inventive in your defense.
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.