ObjectivityIncarnate

Their “philanthropy” would be entirely unneeded, if they simply paid their fair share back to society

The entirety of the net worth of all billionaires in the US (~$5 trillion), assuming a magic wand could magically convert the figure 1:1 into cash (big assumption being made in favor of your argument), would foot the bill of total US government’s welfare spending ($1.03 trillion: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf ) for five measly years.

So even if your definition of “fair share” for them is literally 100% of what they have, the quoted statement is extremely obviously untrue.

Not to mention that’s also assuming that that $1 trillion the government spends is enough to make philanthropy redundant, which it demonstrably isn’t.

One person earning $3600/hr, 24/7, without spending any of it, would take 31 years to become a billionaire.

Why are you using analogies that pretend compound interest doesn’t exist?

Even the best teacher on Earth can only teach so many students a year. You can’t become a billionaire without being able to ‘scale up’.

But, for example, someone who invents something that makes a common manufacturing process just a few % more efficient, can affect millions if not billions of products that millions if not billions of people around the world buy. Even a small increase in profit margin can aggregate to a huge amount of increased wealth.

If you create that level of aggregate value, then you absolutely have earned that aggregate sum.

Also, it is literally not possible to become a billionaire by simply underpaying employees. That’d be the same kind of linear increase used in all of the dumb ‘if you made $X every day for thousands of years (and interest didn’t exist for some reason)’ analogies, so I know the people who argue this do understand that linear growth doesn’t get you there in a lifetime.

P.S. if employees were such an automatic profit source, why does downsizing exist? If labor is a profit source, firing people is throwing money away.

It’s both.

Holy shit lol, I know it’s both! I never said it’s not both. I’m just pointing out the common misconception, that people tend to assume the wrong one of the two is statistically a bigger factor. And not just bigger, but much bigger.

“woman sexually assaults minor boy, gets herself pregnant from the assault, no punishment for her and boy owes woman child support for being her victim.”

In case anyone thinks this person is being hyperbolic here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

you said that sentencing isn’t harsher for women of color

Literally never said that. I just pointed out that being the ‘wrong’ sex hurts you more than being the ‘wrong’ race.

White men get sentenced much more harshly than black women for the same crime, for example. That’s a fact.

None of that contradicts the simple point I made, which is that being a woman instead of a man is a vastly larger advantage in the US with respect to judicial leniency, than being white instead of another race, and yet certain biased people always seem to want to imply/argue that the latter is the primary factor, when it isn’t.

As an analogy, it’s kind of like how when people are talking about rape, discourse is typically more likely to center on ‘jumped in a dark alley’ type scenarios, even though the fact is that that is literally the least common way rape happens, and that statistically, it’s very rare for the assailant to be a stranger to the victim.

It’s not really for being a white girl, it’s primarily for being a girl.

Women get 63% lighter sentences for the same crimes as men ( https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/17/1/127/212179 ), while there is no racial gap between white and another race, whether among men, or women, that’s even half that wide ( https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2023-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing ).

Played it with my SO, reached a certain scene that completely warped the tone of the game (I’m guessing you know which one I mean), and neither of us really have had the urge to play since.

Also, both parents are kinda unlikable as characters imo, lol.

Fact: On all of the video there is of him preceding Rosenbaum’s attack, no one is reacting in a way that indicates that they feel provoked by his armed presence.
Fact: You’re imbuing this magical inherent provocation based on literally nothing. It’s what you want to be true, so that you can rationalize your baseless narrative.

I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.

If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.

Debunk the bullshit with facts? Yeah, that is what people with integrity try to do.

Though, a correction: I’m a defender of the truth, not of Rittenhouse. I have no attachment to the kid, but I hate deception, and I just happened to be curious enough to make myself very familiar with the facts of this case when it became a big controversy, and once I realized how many basic things were complete fabrications, it just made me more curious to get at the actual facts, instead of believing dipshits’ narratives in the media, especially those who had already taken a side based on their pre-existing political biases.

The fact that most of the bullshit still floating around about this case is still REALLY easily-debunked surface-level garbage that only a gullible, or a ‘true believer’ in one of those narratives (though I repeat myself) just makes it easier. Half of this shit is so blatantly wrong even the prosecution in the trial didn’t even TRY to argue it, lol.

I like correcting falsehoods, and making liars mad is fun, so here I am.

Shooting competitively is completely irrelevant to whether it’s mundane to see someone in a public place armed with a rifle, in public.

The fact that you still can’t get around, is that nobody in that area on that day in Kenosha was intimidated by Rittenhouse being there armed, neither on arrival, nor as he walked around with the gun on him the whole time. The fact that your REFUSE to even address this fact and instead try to evade it over and over proves that you know it’s a brick wall your assumption runs smack into.

Stop being such an intellectual coward, and admit your argument holds no water.

you’re clearly as blinded by ideology

Bullshit, I’m the one stating facts and you’re the one insisting your baseless assumptions are true, even when there is evidence directly contradicting it.

You’re just desperately trying to rationalize your unwillingness to confront reality honestly, by constantly repeating the same nonsense.

His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts

And then he…hunted down nobody. Aggressed on nobody. Fled as his first reaction every time unprovoked aggression came his way, instead of ever escalating. Only used his weapon when the alternative was literally to forfeit his own life.

“No contradiction”, huh? Are you that foolish to really think that, or that scummy to claim it, fully knowing how bullshit it is?

Check out the master manipulator, bringing up a topic and then getting a reply on that topic.

lol

Can’t help but notice you’ve not shown any of what I said to be inaccurate.

We are talking about his intent here, right?

Yes, which is ultimately defined by his actions. If his actions contradict his words, you can’t pretend the words hold more weight than what he actually did.

Nothing he did that day in Kenosha supports the assumption that his intention was to go there and shoot anyone. Nothing. Period.

And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.”

Uh, no, nobody claimed that. Did you even watch the trial?

1. Washington isn’t Wisconsin.
2. You still can’t get around the fact that no matter how much anyone claims it was a big deal, the people there did not think it was a big deal. So the claim that it was inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory has zero merit. Again, even when he was aggressed upon, the aggression was COMPLETELY UNRELATED to his weapon.

Face facts.

Nice work ignoring everything else and hyper-focusing on ‘he really meant black people when he said ‘shoplifters’, trust me’.

Meanwhile, none of his attackers were black either, lol.

Keep grasping at those straws.

I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant.

It’s much more likely that you just don’t live in an open carry state, so you’re projecting how you’d feel about it if it happened where you do live, unable to empathize with the fact that it’s much more mundane to someone who does live in a state with legal open carry.

How do you contend with the fact that nobody reacted negatively to his arrival, nor his presence over several hours? That’s the fact that your contention cannot escape. You can claim it’s inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory to be armed there that day, but how do you explain that no one actually there gave a shit about it? No one ran screaming from him when he showed up. He was walking around giving first aid, handing out water bottles, extinguishing fires, all while obviously armed with a long rifle, and literally no one cared.

Even when someone DID react negatively to him, that reaction had literally NOTHING to do with his gun! Rosenbaum was pissed that the dumpster fire he set got put out!

Your claim that his being armed, in and of itself, escalated the situation, simply does not hold any water.

Funny we have him on text saying that’s what he was doing and on video doing exactly that.

Lie. I defy you to link to that video, with timestamp, of him “doing exactly that”.

the totally original claim that the protestors weren’t from the area

It’s not a ‘claim’. It’s a fact.