Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

[...stuff that has nothing to do with my post]

And no someone making that shape as they speak and use their hands as part of their speaking technique such as the photos you posted a couple of pages back or as Trump does isn't the same thing at all. Regan was 30+ years ago, they hadn't adopted it yet so why post that? It was just a symbol for OK. It isn't anymore.

Also included Biden, AOC etc.. Regan happened to be in the same image, there isn't anything deeper to it other than illustrating that it is a ubiquitous symbol.

I'll refer you back to my post on that last point:

It’s kind of backwards though, they’re obvious white supremacists flashing the OK sign. They’re not people we now know are white supremacists because they used the OK sign. A sign which is so ubiquitous that, as already demonstrated, you can find photos of famous people and politicians using it.

It's not even like the swastica and it also being a Hindu symbol - in that case, it was widely associated with the Nazis across Europe. In this case, white supremacists are a tiny minority of people, if they choose to use something as a result of a prank it doesn't, therefore, follow that others using it are white supremacists...

Again, if you want to address what I've actually posted/argued then go ahead...

 

[dowie]

Don't empower them, is the answer.

The "OK" symbol is just that - the "OK" symbol.

Exactly this is why it's kind of a nonsense argument, people are asserting he's a white supremacist without any grounds for making the claim that he's a white supremacist then adding this in as supposed "evidence".

So he's done the OK symbol in a photo... All there is some naive argument that because some white supremacists have used that symbol (as the result of some 4chan prank) they can conclude that others using it must be white supremacists too which is rather flawed given the ubiquitous nature of the symbol and common use of it in photos vs the relative scarcity of actual white supremacists.

Oh and to throw another use into the mix, making the symbol is also part of some game called the circle game in the US - which I'd suggest is perhaps a way more common usage than actual white supremacists using it:

Goes back decades but was popularised again in the US, in part, thanks to Malcolm in the middle and then became a feature in college photos etc..

 

[dowie]

Sometimes hate organisations adopt things, they have recently adopted the ok sign as a wink and nudge to each other. Trying to pretend they haven’t and hoping it goes away doesn’t seem like a sensible solution.

14 and 88 are harmless numbers on their own, but we know their meaning when used by white nationalists, pretending we don’t is just stupid.

That's a bit more specific though, I had to google that but those numbers don't have any other significance or existing widespread use AFAIK? Seems like a rather different scenario - that would be rather more specific that had Kyle appeared with a t-shirt with those numbers on it would be rather an obvious dog whistle for anyone in the know.

Using an OK gesture on the other hand clearly does have an existing use, it's already widespread, of all the people using it, that some white supremacists have started using it is still likely a tiny portion of all uses ergo it's just such a flawed argument for people to make to work backwards from someone using the symbol -> white supremacist.

I'm not sure there needs to be a "solution" to it, if some idiots use it to mean one thing then meh... it doesn't need affect anyone else.

 

[dowie]

Update on the crazy leftist woman/former local democrat social media manager for someplace... she's deleted loads of tweets and seems to have been unfollowed after making some rather disturbing comments about the recent WI vehicle attack being kama for the Rittenhouse verdict, now she's feeling sorry for herself because of something about her mum and lack of attention to her music:



Her "music"

No surprises there, she's utterly delusional, which I guess perhaps explains her inability to process the verdict and the lashing out we saw re: WI residents in general following the attack on the parade.

The thing is, she's not alone, there are plenty of people out there who aren't too bright, have only seen snippets of the (very distorted) media coverage of this case and are angry about it.

 

[dowie]

dowie you're boring me now. I've explained twice why those hand gestures aren't the same and you accuse me of not reading posts

Just because you don't want to acknowledge the far right and alt right have highjacked this hand sign doesn't mean I'm getting dragged into a dowie hole with you.

What are you talking about?

In this case, white supremacists are a tiny minority of people, if they choose to use something as a result of a prank it doesn't, therefore, follow that others using it are white supremacists...

Using an OK gesture on the other hand clearly does have an existing use, it's already widespread, of all the people using it, that some white supremacists have started using it is still likely a tiny portion of all uses ergo it's just such a flawed argument for people to make to work backwards from someone using the symbol -> white supremacist.

Again, read the posts.

To be clear - no, I haven't denied that white supremacists have used it (quite the opposite), that is not my argument. I'm not even sure what you mean by "I've explained twice why those hand gestures aren't the same". how do you differentiate between a normal OK symbol used by a regular person and an OK symbol which can be used to confirm someone is a white supremacist?

You're probably getting frustrated because it is such a weak argument, that might explain why you've pivoted to arguing some point that wasn't made.

 

[dowie]

Regardless of how it started, if it gets adopted by enough actual white supremacists then at some point it ceases to be an innocuous meme.

As someone stated previously, context is key.

It could get adopted by all of them tbh... every KKK, Stormfront or whatever member, it would still be <1% of the actual uses of the symbol as it is so ubiquitous already. That it is so commonly used already is part of the prank's success for very online people.

For everyone else, it's more of a "nothing burger" which is perhaps why the media stories often reported it in vague language "a white supremacist symbol" instead of reporting that he'd made the OK sign in a photograph which would then require some explanation lest it leave plenty of people asking "so what?".

Not a good look and difficult to put in to context, but definitely enough to warrant some digging.. The fact some proud boy people may have come up to him in a bar and wanted a photo is understandable, they'd probably idolise him, however, making the OK sign in that context is definitely suspect.. Possibly naive, but either way I'd say people are justified in bringing it up.

It's quite plausible he had no idea, he's just had some guys come up to him in the bar and ask for a photo and he's made an OK sign because they have. They don't seem to have anything on to indicate they are members of that group so I'm not sure he necessarily knew who they were beyond that they were supporters of his who had come up for a photo and to shake his hand etc..

 

[dowie]

Yeah, it's not like the meaning of the sign is going to change in any significant way for the vast majority of people, just like the example of the number 88 given previously. But those who know, know. I don't see how that changes anything I've stated so far.

I don't think it is like the example of 14 and 88 given previously, the OK symbol is widespread, the use of those two numbers together doesn't seem to have any special meaning AFAIK? I had to google the 14 88 thing in the first place as I wasn't familiar with it - it's obscure and seems quite specific so there would seem to be more grounds for questions in that case.

OK symbol on the other hand would need much stronger context probably to the point where the context itself provides all the evidence you need anyway - the symbol itself being rather useless as an indication of anything.

 

[dowie]

14 and 88 each have significance to White Supremacists in their own right. Many of them will use 1488 or a variation of it, but you don't necessarily need 14 and 88 together to unlock the special Nazi meaning.

Yup, but the point is if you do have them then that's rather more specific, the post that introduced it to this thread mentioned both and it does seem (from a quick google) that using both is common.

Like a bingo fan with an 88 shirt or something is obvs a different meaning... but "14 words" or 14/88 etc.. nope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

That is way more specific than an OK symbol, in most situations, someone making an OK symbol isn't sufficient to draw any conclusions about white supremacy beliefs. In fact by default, it's a complete nothing burger...

Put it into a context like say a UKIP politician posing for a photo or say a group of bikers and it's still not necessarily implying anything.

On the other hand if you, being aware of the relevance, saw some bikers with tattoos saying 14/88, 14 words etc. or even just "14" or a UKIP politician started making references to "14 words" that's waaay more specific than a mere OK gesture.

Even just a random person not in any specific context - you spot someone while on holiday at Disney land in the US with a tattoo with 14/88 on it or 14 words etc.. that is clearly more "sus" than seeing that same person sans tatto making an OK sign in a photo. Even just a tattoo with "14" in it is arguably more suspicious, though does have some more ambiguity to it (vs "14 words" or 14/88).

 

[dowie]

Sure, if they have 1488 or 14/88 or 14:88 tattooed somewhere prominent, then that's more specific than the OK gesture, not least because it's a permanent fixture on their body.

Not just a tattoo though, saying "14 words" etc.. is more specific than a generic symbol used all around the world.

But by your own admission, until today you didn't appreciate the relevance of it. You would have walked past the guy at Disneyland without a second thought. Similarly, if he had 14 on one arm and 88 on the other, and you only saw one arm, you couldn't be sure of the meaning — unless he also had a swastika on his face or something.

But that's just adding to my point - it's so specific and doesn't have many other uses to the point where it doesn't really have any relevance in other contexts aside from this one (which you'd need to know about), whereas the OK symbol is ubiquitous.

IF you're aware of this other possible use of an OK symbol you still can't necessarily draw an inference from its use as easily whereas if you're aware of this 14/88 thing then it is far easier to do so - it's way more specific, doesn't have some alternative widespread use.

 

[dowie]

Sure, 1488 or saying "14 words" would fit what you're saying.

But as I stated earlier, the numbers 14 and 88 don't have to be used next to each other by WS/Neo Nazis to still hold significance to them.

Sure and that wasn't the original point I was making which was about 14 88 together etc.. they're still rather more specific alone though. Even alone I'd argue it requires rather less context for them to be dodgy too.

 

[dowie]

I know, I've acknowledged and agreed with this point at least twice already. The point I was making (from the very start) was about them being used separately. I'd also note that @hurfdurf's original comment didn't specify them being used together — that's something you've added and then fixated on.

"Rather more specific/rather less context" is subjective and I'm not prepared to get into the minutiae of it. I've already explained why I think they're similar and we've gone off on rather a winding tangent from the original topic, so I'm going to leave it there.

I'd say that you introduced the argument and fixated on the more generic simple use of those numbers individually, but yeah I guess agree to disagree then, I think this is clearly an example of something much more niche/specific than an OK gesture.

 

[dowie]

Yes, a guy fell awkwardly on him whilst holding a skateboard with one hand and sort of pressed it into him as he fell.

He just fell and sort of pressed into him is the biggest cope yet, OMG. I know you were buying into the prosecution's (at times rather flimsy) arguments all through this trial but that's just...

I'm simply talking about the facts of the incident and disputing the notion he got hit repeatedly hit over the head with a blunt weapon. That just simply did not happen.

It basically did happen though, he was attacked more than once by the skateborader, he was first hit by him, from behind, while he was running away, moments later he fell, skateboarder picked up his skateboard and then came in to repeat that attack and hit him again with the skateboard.

A skateboard is a blunt object, the person who possessed the skateboard hit him from behind then repeated his attack and hit him with it while on the floor... then, more importantly, he tried to grab his rifle too.

 

[dowie]

Kyle was not struck on the head repeatedly with a blunt weapon. That is a fact. That is the post i was taking objection to.

Nah, he kinda was, I know that's what you were objecting to, your objection is silly.

I'm not arguing any other point right now, as its been done to death. However, that comment was just factually not true.

Nah, if you want to nit-pick over how many times counts for "repeatedly" to be used then he was struck on the head with a blunt weapon (a skateboard) more than once.

Beyond that, it's just a silly argument to make.

 

[dowie]

I'm sorry but its like watching you try and tell me the earth is flat right now.Its just getting weird.

Kyle was not struck repeatedly in the head with a blunt weapon.

I think your objection is weird tbh...

Do you deny he was struck more than once with a blunt weapon? Are you just trying to make some pointless semantic argument about the fact he was struck several times within a short period of time (inc at least twice with a skateboard) but it's not sufficient to deemd "repeatedly"?

In which case just say so and acknowledge that he was struck more than once, which I believe was the general meaning intended by the person who posted that.

 

[dowie]

Is there any need to keep this open anymore?

Is there any need to lock it? Most threads just drop off when there is no more interest in them, if you don't want to read it then don't read it.

I suspect there will be more to come from Kyle when the civil lawsuits start hitting media organisations - though perhaps only a small chance of court cases as I guess there is a strong chance most will simply reach a lucrative settlement with him.

 

[dowie]

Probably because it's the same arguments being repeated for dozens of pages?

Why read it then?

 

[dowie]

I think some of this criticism is based on something seeming more unusual than it actually is, just as we saw with the judge in the trial, people were making criticisms of this seemingly crazy judge on the basis of... well apparently no experience with crazy judges - just an expectation of how judges should behave from TV/films etc.. whereas actual US lawyers on social media were quick to shoot down lots of the criticism.

Similarly, with this politician (not sure why it's being discussed in this thread but meh, I guess no relevant updates to discuss at the moment), people (whether Europeans or urban Americans living on either coast) might not be as aware that it is quite standard behaviour by some Republicans/gun owners in the US to pose with guns like that. The family Christmas card with guns thing has been done before, including by politicians - some gun clubs over there have been reported to have had events where you can pose with guns with Santa etc..

This isn't the first time a politician has done it either - obviously, they expect it to be polarising, generate outrage from some etc.. and that is part of the point but as far as the timing is concerned, it is December, I doubt much thought was paid to any school shooting etc..

Here is another example from a few years ago:

 

[dowie]

The friend who supplied the rifle used has reached a plea deal - no jail time, just a $2000 fine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-dominick-black-gun.html

Dominick Black, a friend of Kyle Rittenhouse who faced two felony charges for buying a rifle used by Mr. Rittenhouse, has agreed to plead no contest to lesser charges in a deal announced in a Wisconsin courtroom on Monday.

To be fair taking a fine he can probably crowdsource vs risking two felony convictions seems like a total no-brainer.

I guess we just have the Joshua Ziminski trial now (the guy who fired the first shot that night).

 

[dowie]

"I blame the parents" is probably one of the most common responses to children/teens causing trouble.

Probably because it's often true.

 

[dowie]

Just watched that Kyle has a "team" under him and they have come up with an organisation whereby people can send in funds. The funds will then go towards holding media outlets accountable for the "Lies" they spread. He did an interview on Tucker Carlson (of course) and visibly didn't seem like he himself knew what the whole thing is about - I imagine he's the puppet in this sadly.

IF he's got pending legal cases then I doubt he's going to comment too much on them.

It's the same kind of grift trump ran after losing the election where people send in millions of dollars to stop the steal and help fight make America great again (again)..

It doesn't seem to be, the media objectively did tell lies about Kyle, lots of the reporting was utterly flawed and probably did do a lot of damage to him. IT's the US and he probably does stand to get some large payouts from various organisations if he pursues this. Just look at some of the posts in this thread - various people getting fundamental details wrong or repeating meaningless tropes about how he'd "crossed state lines" etc...

How much money has Kyle raised?