Socialist Students Want Arizona State University To Expel 'Racist Murderer' Kyle Rittenhouse
So much for education being a universal human right.

Many socialists believe that education is a universal human right. But evidently, not Arizona State University's (ASU) Students for Socialism. On Wednesday, they staged a protest to pressure campus administrators to expel Kyle Rittenhouse, the recently acquitted Kenosha shooter.
"Join us and rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus," said the student group on Twitter.
If video footage of the event on social media is any indication, it seemed sparsely attended. In fact, pro-Rittenhouse counterdemonstrators appeared to outnumber the socialists. When a leader of the protest—who was equipped with a megaphone—denounced Rittenhouse as a white supremacist killer, spectators pointed out that all three of the people he shot were white; this did not deter the protester, who responded that Rittenhouse was a descendant of white colonists who had murdered black and brown people.
In any event, there is little chance of Rittenhouse setting foot at ASU: He is not currently enrolled as a student. (He was, at one point, signed up to take online classes while awaiting admission.) But if he did, the public university would have no reason to evict him, and it should consider his hypothetical application as if he were any other student. He is a free man who was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers—a jury that agreed he acted in self-defense when he shot three men after each had allegedly attacked him. He is neither a murderer nor does he appear to be a racist; he has publicly declared that he supports Black Lives Matter and lamented that prosecutors can use their power to mistreat defendants of color.
Leftist students have free speech rights, and they can exercise those to protest Rittenhouse if they wish. But a great many university administrations—whose formal stances on public policy matters unrelated to education would be better left unsaid—have also taken sides against Rittenhouse.
The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf noted in a recent article that the Universities of California at Santa Cruz and Irvine, as well as The New School in New York, all released statements protesting the outcome of the trial and suggesting that Rittenhouse's not-guilty verdict was evidence of the power of white supremacy in U.S. society.
"We are disheartened and dismayed by this morning's not guilty verdict on all charges in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse," wrote U.C. Santa Cruz in a statement. "We join in solidarity with all who are outraged by this failure of accountability. Trials such as these that have race-related implications can cause our BIPOC communities distress and harm. This is harm that is endured everyday through acts of racism, the pervasiveness of white supremacy and a flawed justice system."
At U.C. Irvine, the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion and chief diversity officer said in his official capacity that "the conclusion of this trial does not end the reckoning about systemic racism in the United States. If anything, it has simply made it more legible."
It's difficult to understand why the chief diversity officer of a school thousands of miles away from Kenosha felt the need to weigh in on this matter on behalf of the school, and in a manner that suggests any student who disagrees might be an accomplice to racism. But weigh in he did.
The Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system said the verdict was a reminder "that systems of inequity were not built in a day or a moment—they have been manufactured, crafted, and honed through generations of practice and reinforcement." And Fitchburg State University's Center for Diversity and Inclusiveness set up racially segregated safe spaces—separate spaces for students of color and white students—to process their trauma regarding the outcome.
It would have been entirely proper for colleges and universities to foster vigorous debate on Rittenhouse's acquittal, and to make it possible for students and professors dismayed by the verdict to speak up and explain their perspectives. But when administrators treat the outcome as obviously and undeniably wrong—and in fact, racist—they are more likely to render such a discussion impossible.
ASU's administration, to its credit, did not join in. A spokesperson confirmed to the media that Rittenhouse wasn't actually enrolled, but said nothing about keeping him off campus—to the disappointment of the socialists, undoubtedly.
Some conservative and libertarian students, on the other hand, said that they would welcome Rittenhouse. The student organization Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) released a statement chiding the left for hypocrisy.
"How ironic that the same socialists who call higher education a 'human right' also want to deny Rittenhouse that fundamental human right," said Sean Themea, YAL's chief of staff.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So much for education being a universal human right.
Why? This is exactly what socialists think of universal human rights.
This is why totalitarian socialism ends up with mass graves. When everything is universal, the only way to exclude others is to evict them from the universe.
Careful, sarcsamic, Mike and cytotoxic might pop a simultaneous chub
Wow, six losers got together to create a bitching echo chamber, just look at the photo. There is no crowd standing before them. Those gender confused asswipes are just like our resident asswipes, they are a tiny minority wailing in the wilderness. When media outlets decide to publish stories like this, it is equivalent to handing those socialist proglodytes a big ass megaphone. They should be treated just as Sarc, Tony, and Mike are, Ridiculed and ignored.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.HNk Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here...........Earn-Opportunities
I think if we had video of nicole and ron being killed we might have had a different verdict..
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me... They offer jobs for which spi people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500... Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet...Read all about it here... Visit Here
Defund the police? How about defund the public universities?
So whacked out on their own Social privilege are these socialist students that their open mind to discussion is gone. They have no clue how the killing fields came to exist. Defund the bastards, now.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online.AWq I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by
just visit.............BizProfit
I'm surprised they even wanted to go to ASU. It admits students based solely on GPA and test scores, with no Harvard-style discrimination or weighting of the scores.
https://admission.asu.edu/first-year/apply
To be admitted to ASU, you will need one of the following:
top 25% in high school graduating class
3.00 GPA in competency courses (4.00 = "A")
ACT: 22 (24 nonresidents)
SAT: 1120 (1180 nonresidents)
ONE of the following! :/
What's wrong with that?
If you're home schooled or from a very high performing private school top 25% is harder than a huge public school. Nobody needs ACT and SAT, one or the other. Etc.
The idea is that it is a public school. Huge, to service any Arizonan who wants to pursue an education and who is qualified academically. Any one of these things show academic competency.
Exactly.
The kid who graduated 26 of 100 in his elite private school is almost certainly more qualified for a spot in college than the kid who graduated 216th in his 865 person class.
In fact, it’s likely kids 26-100 are better suited for college than almost all of that 865 person government school class.
Some are more equal than others is a theme that runs throughout socialism.
Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use.GYi All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..
GOOD LUCK......VISIT HERE
Paging Rittenhouse’s lawyers. ASU condoned this and therefore is subject to slander litigation. The woke socialists have no money so no point in going after them.
They're at a party school for SoCal socialites that can't hack the academic rigor of womyn's studies at Berkeley. There's some milk in those trust funds.
ASU has no ability to suppress the speech of its students, no matter how insipid.
No liability here.
"ASU has no ability to suppress the speech of its students, no matter how insipid.
No liability here."
I agree with that. But a white student at UC Irvine now has grounds for a hostile learning environment lawsuit.
"At U.C. Irvine, the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion and chief diversity officer said in his official capacity that "the conclusion of this trial does not end the reckoning about systemic racism in the United States. If anything, it has simply made it more legible.""
They might. It happened when I was in school. The university shutdown an email account when a student was making child abuse accusations about a person in the community while using the account.
They would kick someone out of their theatre and ban them if they started yelling fire when there wasn’t one.
Leftist students have free speech rights, and they can exercise those to protest Rittenhouse if they wish.
Last time I checked, libel (outright lies) is not protected as free speech. They have no protected right to claim that an acquitted defendant is a murderer.
They have as much right to say he's a murderer as they have the right to say OJ Simpson is a murderer. It would be defamatory to say that he's a *convicted* murderer, but you're allowed to say that you think a jury got it wrong.
OJ was convicted in the civil suit. Though I’m not sure the charge was actual murder (wrongful death?).
Great, so I guess we can sue the shit out of every forced birther when they call abortion murder? Is that your position?
Is that what you think I wrote?
Strazele, you can always be counted on to escalate the stupid.
Nobody gets convicted in civil suits. He was found liable for wrongful death and the plaintiffs were awarded monetary damages. The burden of proof is lower in civil suits than in criminal cases.
So OJ is a wrongful deatherer. But not a murderer. And also not a Jew.
I think if we had video of nicole and ron being killed we might have had a different verdict..
You think we’d see OJ wearing a yarmulke?
No we would see OJ killing his ex wife and friend..
That was an unfortunate response.
OJ could sue for defamation. He probably knows that he would not succeed. Rittenhouse would have a much better case.
The "white supremacist" accusation is more actionable, as Rittenhouse did kill two people (which the jury found his claim of self-defense credible). There is no evidence that I am aware of that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.
It is known that every Reason writer voted for Biden and every Reason writer is a progressive liberal. It's the only thing that can explain them being mean to the previous administration.
So articles like this that criticize the left don't make any sense. Reason loves the left. They were critical of the previous administration, and that makes them leftists. Why are they critical of leftist students? Doesn't make any sense. I'm so confused.
Reason can't claim to be libertarian because, as Ken has pointed out, true libertarians side with conservatives on everything. Any deviation from the conservative line equals total support for everything leftist. Since Reason doesn't support conservatives on everything, they support progressives on everything.
That means this article doesn't exist.
Keep crying like a little bitch.
You’re a drunken buffoon.
Probably what has happened is that some conservative writers hacked into the Reason website and posted this story. I’m sure it will be taken down once Reason IT finds out about it.
Watch this article get 20 comments max. Nobody is going to say "You guys are right!" to Reason. They can't. So they'll act like they never saw this article and keep on trashing Reason writers as leftists.
I’m sure you’ll make at least double that many comments bitching like this.
All to impress Laursen.
I really wish those two would just get a room.
Cawnal escapades.
Maybe they could have a threesome with Tony.
Nigga, this thread has more than 20 posts just from you making the herculean effort to contort your spine sufficiently to suck your own microchode.
I was wrong.
Shocking.
Why did you and mike decide to deflect from the wrongness of liberals with a dozen posts in the first 20?
Yes, this! Conservative writers allied themselves with the Amphibian People (as usual) and mind-controlled the Reason writers!
If ye are a GOOD conservative, you will ALWAYS align yourself with the Amphibian People (NEVER the Lizard People!)
As a good example of an Amphibian Person, I give you you a VERY prominent Amphibian Person with the CORRECT thoughts and attitudes! I give you Pepe the Amphibian Person, stolen-IP-4Chan-Frog! Racist frog, NAZI frog, yaya-yada!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST SARCASMIC YOU ARE SO FUCKING FUNNY! MY SIDES ARE IN ORBIT!
TDS-addled spastic asshole gets flagged.
Apparently, the same hackers posted a fake comment by me, where I broke this news in the commentariat, and denounced the ASU students:
https://reason.com/2021/11/29/the-u-s-imposes-travel-restrictions-in-response-to-new-covid-19-variant-again/?comments=true#comment-9233372
Not possible, I know, because everyone knows I’m a progressive. After all, I have said mean things about Donald Trump.
The Russians are after Mike!
because everyone knows I’m a progressive.
You either agree with the conservatives on everything, or you disagree with them on everything. There is no in between. You're on one team or the other. In your case you're not on the conservative team which means you're in total lockstep with all things progressive.
Prove you're not. You can't. That means you are.
Stop molesting those strawmen or I’m calling the cops!
Dude is still whacking it to 17 year old Linsday Lohan in Mean Girls and lost custody of his kids because he was sexually abusing his daughter. Strawmen are the least of his problems.
If what you say is true then this should be trivial. Just link to a post where you said "fuck Joe Biden", that'll suffice.
Yes, correct.
Yes, correct. If you don't want to be called a progressive (you're actually a Marxist psychopath filled with the impotent, seething rage typical of a pathetic beta male, which is why you beat your wife and raped your child, because you're a powerless, worthless piece of shit and that's the only way you can LARP your pathetic revenge fantasies), you could try not acting like one and not defending every progressive cause without exception.
It's kinda like how everyone you meet besides Shreek, Tony and White Mike is a Trumpista.
You've got some really sick fantasies, dude. Sick.
How so? It was your modus operandi he was describing.
If you're disgusted by hearing the accounts of things you've confessed during your many drunken bitchtit sessions at this site, consider not posting drunken bitchtit sessions at this site. I will be here to bring up every single one of your pathetic personal failings at every possible opportunity, and fully secure in the knowledge that you have no choice but to read every single one of them compulsively and seethe with impotent rage about it until you blow your top, make threats you're too much of a faggot pussy bitch to ever follow up on, and then claim you were hacked. I love watching degenerate pieces of shit squirm. I love watching them die even better. It's why I have multiple copies from multiple angles of your spiritual brother Jo Jo Rosenbaum gurgling to death on his own blood while his eyes roll back in his head. If I ever got to see you in a video like that I might just get a half chub tbh. Of course that'll never happen because you're a pathetic LARPing pussy faggot who has to order DoorDash 7 days a week while wearing 3 masks by yourself inside your section 8 apartment. But I dream...
I don’t believe he has a wife, or a child. I’m certain he lives alone in his dilapidated refrigerator box.
Talk about strawmanning to protect the left. Sheesh.
Mike is a liar. He loves nothing more than to pretend to be reasonable while shilling for the Left. That is why he will forever bring up this specific link of him ACTING like he is reasonable.
Well. Here is another link, demonstrating the type of bad faith liar that he is:
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091773
That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.
This is more of the same gas-lighting from Mike. It would be one thing if he just copped to his previous behavior and agreed to start arguing in good faith. But he doesn't do that. No, he has started this campaign to suggest that he has *always* been even handed and fair. It is more of the concern-troll nonsense he has always engaged in.
Yeah, it’s shameless and pathetic.
This type of "gotcha" only impresses insult trolls like JesseAz and Mother's Lament. If you're tying to impress them then as far as I'm concerned you peaked in high school.
Coming from somebody who has made it his mission in life to earn the approval of a pedophile who posted child pornography on this site and is obsessed with a Lindsay Lohan jailbait movie from 18 years ago and thinks Betty White on SNL is a hip and with it cultural reference, this really couldn't be fucking funnier. Thank Christ you have no self awareness. It's the only thing that makes you retardation tolerable.
Hi Tulpa!
Hi Sqrsly!
Were you able to get it hard for your 683rd screening of Mean Girls this morning before the 2nd bottle of rotgut, or does your daughter have a black eye because you couldn't?
He's right though.
You troll others for attaboys from some of the most despicable creeps ever.
I thought I was Tulpa.
"This type of "gotcha" only impresses insult trolls like JesseAz and Mother's Lament"
I am not trying to impress anyone, Sarc. I am pointing out to anyone lurking on the thread that Mike consistently pulls this shit. Because that is what he does every day: he comes to the comments, pretending that the previous day didn't happen...Because in the previous day, he did silly things like pass around the Rolling Stone ivermectin article.
And while that is just an easy example to link to, my realization that he is a concern troll solidified during the masking/lockdown/vaccine debates. During those debates he would make an argument like, "being unmasked/unvaccinated is aggression" then back off the argument, and move to responsibilities or politeness when it was logically refuted. A week later, he'd be back to making the same "aggression" argument to some different user.
That is his modus operandi. To throw up bullshit claims over and over again to pollute the comments; To parachute in and "reasonably" ask for cites that he will then say are not good enough; to show up a week later insisting that Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
On the other hand, your modus operandi is to show up on the comments with a "Wah wah, commenters are mean to Reason" thread like this one. The only reason I don't call you out on it is that your threads are what they are. People can take or leave them like they can take or leave JesseAZ or Mothers Lament. I call out Mike because he is manifestly dishonest and lying, so readers cannot just take his arguments at face value.
If you say so. I haven't seen that particular behavior from Mike. Then again I wasn't looking for it either.
On the other hand, your modus operandi is to show up on the comments with a "Wah wah, commenters are mean to Reason" thread like this one.
More like "People who claim Reason to be a leftist rag are a bunch of partisan tools" but you can interpret my words however you want.
"I haven't seen that particular behavior from Mike. Then again I wasn't looking for it either."
Then why did you complain about the Link I posted? Because it shows EXACTLY that behavior. It is literally an example of his gas lighting. He literally shows up 3 days after spreading the ivermectin story to assure us this that he has always been mistrustful of Rolling Stone, and expects everyone to just go along with the gas lighting.
"More like "People who claim Reason to be a leftist rag are a bunch of partisan tools" but you can interpret my words however you want."
Potato, Potahto. Either way, your posts are what they are. People can take or leave them. As I noted, Mike's dissembling is not what they seem to be. His dissembling should come with a disclaimer, so when the opportunity arises, I provide it.
I just don't think it's the huge deal you make it out to be. He posts something from Rolling Stone, probably after a google search, then claims he doesn't read it on a regular basis. Doesn't make him a liar. The liars are those like JesseAz and Mother's Lament who post things someone like me never said nor did, then get angry when they're told the truth. They're the assholes. They don't attack what someone says, they attack them as a person. Mike doesn't do that. He's not mean. Why do you go after him while giving a pass to liars who attack people personally?
"He posts something from Rolling Stone, probably after a google search, then claims he doesn't read it on a regular basis."
No- he said nothing about "doesn't read it". He says, "I would never look to Rolling Stone for anything other than articles about boomer-era musicians." And he didn't just say that when Rolling Stone came up randomly. That thread was specifically discussing the ivermectin story he had trafficked earlier.
If you want to give him a pass, fine. But he is a liar. Luckily he shares your political leanings, so you will never find yourself locked into one of his disingenuous and frustrating pseudo-discussions. I will keep warning others to avoid falling into the same trap I did.
And as for the spats with JesseAZ, et al, I tend to avoid getting involved in shitpost threads. Thus, I tend to not respond to those guys. Or you, lately, tbh. This thread is a perfect example. It starts out the same way it has started for the past 6 months with your same formulaic strawman, and the same formulaic responses. There is no value in that. The only reason I replied in this thread, is that Mike showed up to do his gas lighting because you, he, and SPB have added these little "+1 to you good sir" discussions to your formula. Again, that's fine if you want to do it. But while you +1 mike's gas lighting, I call him out on it.
Luckily he shares your political leanings...
Which are what, exactly? I'll bet a paycheck you're wrong on every single assumption you have about my political leanings. Because my political leanings are not defined by what I say, but by what others say about me.
Is this where I post sarcasmic saying every racist wears a red hat? Him blaming Bush for the current state of education? Him saying australian forced quarantine camps are fine? Him saying self defense just sucks?
You've made your politics very clear.
"Which are what, exactly? I'll bet a paycheck you're wrong on every single assumption you have about my political leanings."
Oh come on Sarc. I have no doubt you are a libertarian, but you lean left. It is why you'll spend hours posting condemnations of Abbot for his mandate-bans, but offer a half hearted "I don't support mandates" when Biden puts them out there. It's why when I criticize a democrat position, you are there to insist that Republicans do the same thing.
https://reason.com/2021/11/30/passing-the-spending-bill-could-doom-bidens-presidency/?comments=true#comment-9234298
Whether it is that you reflexively hate conservatives, or reflexively dislike criticism of liberals, I don't know. But it is clear which side of issues you will come down on.
And seriously, man, that's ok. It's ok to lean one way or the other. If you are honest about it, you can still have a discussion. I don't hide that I tend to give the right the benefit of the doubt based on my background. You and I can still have a conversation, can't we?
Sarc, just stop. You’re going to get slapped down every time you pull your bullshit. Just give up. Like you have on life. Go crawl into your bottle and leave the adults alone.
You owe me a paycheck.
You and I can still have a conversation, can't we?
Yes. Definitely. You're not al troll.
Just don't turn into a JesseAz. Another person's failure to do or say what you want implies absolutely nothing about them. This whole "You didn't xyz and that tells me all I need to know about you" followed by elaborate arguments against straw men is stupid. I ask that you don't engage in it. People who do earn my ignorance.
Here’s a thread with sarc just talking about ideas and and totally not exposing himself as a lefty hypocrite.
https://reason.com/2021/12/01/facebook-fact-checkers-are-stifling-open-debate/?comments=true#comment-9236300
"Mother's Lament who post things someone like me never said nor did"
Name one instance sarcasmic. The mute button proves that those quotes were from you and not Tulpa spoofing.
Just because you regret drunkposting, doesn't mean you can pretend you never posted that stuff.
Sarc... i literally post your old comments and contradictions back to you. it isn't hard to prove you are a hypocrite just like it isn't hard to prove Mike one. You guys are so intellectually inconsistent outside of everything except attacking conservatives. You have no principles.
You practice the same behavior sarc. Look at your first half dozen posts here. You're probably even more dishonest than Mike.
I am pointing out to anyone lurking on the thread that Mike consistently pulls this shit.
Why? Other than the insult trolls, who really cares? Lurkers can figure things out for themselves.
"Why? Other than the insult trolls, who really cares?"
Why do you always show up to post the same tired canard "The conservatives are unfair to reason" every single day? Who really cares? Seriously, why is *anyone* here?
I am on this site because once upon a time, there was decent conversation to be had. There were plenty of Tulpas and Marys and SPBs and other shitposters that I could ignore as I saw fit. But there were also plenty of people who would engage in deep- if sometimes irreverent and colorful- discussion.
When people wear their motives on their sleeves, it is easy to choose who you will engage with. But Mike breaks that social norm by being a concern troll. If he takes a position and I "reasonably" argue him off of it, tomorrow he will be here to make the same argument to someone else, denying that he ever heard the rebuttals to his arguments. Discussion cannot happen when trolls hide.
And by the way, it is fair to note that everyone shitposts periodically- I don't hold that against anyone. But shitposts are recognizable and you know what a reply will get you. All I expected of Mike was to be honest about his intentions, and that ivermectin/rolling stone example proves that he is intentionally dishonest.
Why do you always show up to post the same tired canard "The conservatives are unfair to reason" every single day?
Again it's more "conservatives say Reason is leftist and ignore articles critical of leftists" but whatever.
Seems like the conservatives are settling into accepting that Reason is indeed critical of Democrats and the current administration, and the "You voted for Biden! You wanted this! You hate Trump! Waaahhh!" refrain seems to have gone away.
Now that conservatives aren't pretending these articles don't exist, I'll stop pointing it out since it's no longer true.
So in other words sarcasmic is sick of people reminding him that the Democrats played him for a fool.
"Now that conservatives aren't pretending these articles don't exist, I'll stop pointing it out since it's no longer true."
But who cares? Why is it important to point out that the conservatives are unfairly characterizing Reason, but it isn't important to point out that Mike is a mendacious liar?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough that my questions above were rhetorical. Obviously you criticize the conservatives because you don't like their behavior and you wanted it to stop. Now that it is stopping, you will stop. Well, the same is true for Mike. I liked it when I could identify a person interested in good faith discussion and have that discussion. And so I will point out his mendacity until he stops. That he has muted me for some reason probably means it is going to continue for a long time.
Why is it important to point out that the conservatives are unfairly characterizing Reason, but it isn't important to point out that Mike is a mendacious liar?
Because Reason hosts the forum while Mike is just some guy who could disappear and nothing would change. Want to call out mendacious liars? Call out the people who claim Reason is a progressive publication. Call out the people who call me a pedophile. Call out the people who attack anyone who criticizes conservatives as being card-carrying commies.
I think you're just pissed because he struck a nerve. I think you don't give a flying fuck about mendacious liars (which is redundant by the way) and only care when someone insults your tribe. I think you're just fine with malicious liars as long as they're on your team.
I think you're just pissed because he struck a nerve. I think you don't give a flying fuck about mendacious liars (which is redundant by the way) and only care when someone insults your tribe. I think you're just fine with malicious liars as long as they're on your team.
Oh please. Overt was one of the ones refuting the stolen election claims by deep-diving into the articles and data. He only started calling out White Mike for the exact reason he posted here--because Mike is a whiny, bitchy concern troll and moral scold who can't handle even the mildest of criticisms.
He's muted people like Square = Circle, for god's sake, who's hardly a didactic or insulting poster, because S=C wouldn't roll over and accept Mike's posts as the gospel truth. He did that to Overt for the same reason. He freaked out on Alan Vanneman because he thought Vanneman was making an argument in favor of conservatives. He's wagged his finger at Fist for daring to comment in a serious manner on left-wing malfeseance. The saddest part of Mike's act is that for all his big act about not caring what his critics think, he'll unmute them to quote their exact words and then pretend that he doesn't read their posts anymore, just as he whines about his critics being "Mean Girls"--because the little bitch is still emotionally stuck in middle school.
Mike earns every bit of the scorn and bile he gets here.
Sarc thinking that reason doesn't lean left is hilarious. You can have 90% of the last 3 years promoting biden as moderate, attacking 40 articles about elections even given court cases and known fraud, etc while ignoring bad incidents from the left... and you show a bias.
Everyone has bias sarc. People pointing out their bias is not wrong.
Saying one bad thing while hiding 10 good things doesn't make someone neutral.
You are not the golden mean no matter what you tell yourself.
You spend more time attacking the right when they have almost no power at the federal level. Your first instinct in every article critical of Biden or the left is to deflect and attack conservatives.
"Want to call out mendacious liars? Call out the people who claim Reason is a progressive publication."
Bro...I regularly do this. Hell, I did it in the Podcast article posted today.
"I think you're just pissed because he struck a nerve. "
Oh yes, he absolutely did strike a nerve. Just not the one you think.
For the last two years, I have been trying to cultivate a discussion with a worthy adversary. And I mean that in the most honest way possible. There is a murky line dividing left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians, and I am interested in having adversarial, but still good faith discussions with those on the other side of that line, because that is how we philosophically fuse this ideology. Mike pretended to be that person, and had me fooled for several months before I picked up on his game. And yes, that pissed me off.
If I were to call out every person who mischaracterizes others' viewpoints, I'd never be done. You all do it to each other all the time. Feel free to go back into ~2018 or so and you'll see that I briefly tried to stop it and realized it wasn't worthwhile. Instead I focused on finding people like Mike pretends to be. Until I do find that worthy adversary, I'll drop my copy-pasta whenever I see Mike up to his old games.
For the last two years, I have been trying to cultivate a discussion with a worthy adversary.
That immediately implies an opponent.
I don't have anything against you Overt. You're a good guy. But why do you seek an opponent? Who not focus on similarities instead of differences?
Thank you RR for paying more attention than me.
only impresses insult trolls like JesseAz and Mother's Lament.
Meanwhile...
sarcasmic
August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm
I only show up to watch the clowns duke it out while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is a circus.
sarcasmic
September.10.2021 at 12:14 pm
I like to stir shit up. So what.
Mike Laursen
September.18.2021 at 11:38 am
SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually try to post a comment or two pointing out flaws, contradictions and partisanship in Ken’s essays, which he regards as examples of flawless logical thinking
– post a comment or two pointing out that Ashli Babbitt was not a saint and the January 6th MAGA rioters were violent
– post one “Fuck Tulpa!” comment
Everyone else is trolling. Not sarc and his best girl Mike.
Chumby, I'm still first!
Or despite having many commentaries on things from mainstream news sources (especially what Tucker says) and having been alive in the last year, has never heard of Chris Cuomo.
You didn't denounce shit. You said:
Were you seriously hoping nobody would follow your link, or are you actually that fucked up in the head?
Also, since you've accused people of spoofing your handle and "hacking" your account literally hundreds of times, including when you got caught out on your humiliating "HO2" own-goal, this has descended to the level of meta-parody. Congrats on not only achieving that feat, but also doing so completely unawares.
Here he is getting H20 wrong again under what is unquestionably his own handle.
https://reason.com/2021/11/02/joe-biden-presses-ahead-with-vaccine-mandates-inviting-legal-challenges/?comments=true#comment-9189606
If they're successful, he should sue the fuck out of them for calling him a murderer.
Is there any question about malicious intent?
Can they reasonably claim not to know that he was acquitted of murder?
The Second Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to violate other people's rights with a gun, and the First Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to violate other people's rights with your speech.
And the legitimate purpose of civil court is to protect our rights.
In a few years, OBL might be including Rittenhouse in his list of billionaires.
Hulk Hogan was awarded $140 million from Gawker. It bankrupted the company. He had to settle for $31 million after they put themselves up for sale.
Made that same Hulkster correlation to a friend. Rittenhouse taking aim at Biden first for the lies would make a lot of the peanut gallery garbage go away. Maybe his team is slow playing to allow more idiots to sabotage themselves.
"And the legitimate purpose of civil court is to protect our rights."
Perhaps true, but practically speaking they do so by compensating for damages.
And while it is certainly false and defamatory to call him a murderer unfortunately it will also be rather difficult for him to prove harm from their statements.
He has a much harder climb than the Covington kids.
It will also be rather difficult for him to prove harm from their statements.
Not if they're successful in having him expelled.
It's not clear he was ever admitted.
Don't contradict Ken with facts unless you want him to mute you.
You’re so shrill and desperate.
From the guy who has an "enemies list" and publicly declare every time he mutes somebody, only to get piss ass drunk by 8 AM, forget who he was supposed to have muted, and compulsively reply to their posts for hours at a time before claiming he was hacked.
Hi Tulpa!
No actual response, huh trollboy.
In fairness, imagine the monstrous hangover sarc must have.
He should apply, if he hasn't already, quick!
He was admitted and taking online classes, but dropped them in October to deal with his trial. ASU claims he has not re-enrolled. You should try checking out news from sources that are not Salon or DailyKos, you can really learn some interesting shit!
Why aren't you ripping on Ken who said "Not if they're successful in having him expelled"?
Shouldn't you be calling Ken names and insulting his family for thinking someone who isn't enrolled can be expelled?
Uh, Ken's not the one saying he should be expelled, and the fuzziness leaves the core of the issue in bas-relief. They aren't trying to get an unenrolled student expelled, they're trying to defame him. Whatever they consider success to be, Kyle should sue based on that success.
I was asking Tulpa's newly muted sock to be intellectually honest. Yeah, yeah, I know...
No, you were trolling.
Crawl back in your bottle Sarc.
Volokh had a post the other day describing why, legally, some rando calling Rittenhouse a 'murderer' can't meet the burden of defamation, libel or slander (in the USA).
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/is-it-defamatory-to-call-kyle-rittenhouse-or-anyone-acquitted-of-murder-a-murderer/
It's difficult to understand why the chief diversity officer of a school thousands of miles away from Kenosha felt the need to weigh in on this matter on behalf of the school...
You try finding new ways to justify your diversity office post.
It's kinda funny how the people who tend to wail about "democracy" the most seem to have no use whatsoever for actual functioning democratic processes, like say right to trial by jury.
Democracy means trying over and over until you get the "correct" result, and then declaring that the process is settled. That means having as many trials and elections as it takes.
Glad to see that you are coming around to the "democracy as scam" POV.
You're on your way to being rehabilitated.
If you read what I write instead of what the trolls write about me, you'd know that I am no supporter of
democracymob rule.Except for the 2020 election, in which no fraud of any kind took place because it was the most securest election in the entire history of the universe and anybody who says anything less is an insurrections who should be shot in the face for failure to obey orders that a pussy bitch faggot cop hiding behind a book case never actually issued. That about right there, you rugged little ancap you?
How many email addresses have you created for Reason accounts? I mute you and you reappear with a new name and the same personal attacks. If this whack-a-mole is tiresome for me, it must be a labor of love for you.
But sarcasmic whines like a little girl when he's the one being muted:
sarcasmic
November.2.2021 at 10:19 am
Chumby does. Pretty sure he's a Mainer. But he's got me on mute. You know, virtue signaling to Ken. Can't listen to someone who takes people's words to their logical conclusion. Only a progressive would do that, right?
Being the highly-paid star web engineering that you are, you should probably know how this works. Maybe when you start your PhD studies and learn how to underline text in HTML they'll cover that.
I like James Lindsey's translation from the wokish for things like this. To them "Democracy" is will of the people in a marxist utopia so anything working toward that is pro democracy and anything in the way is anti-democratic.
this did not deter the protester, who responded that Rittenhouse was a descendant of white colonists who had murdered black and brown people
, and who noted that he himself has only perfect people for ancestors.
Look at what blacks are still doing to each other in Africa and Chicago.
But that’s white people’s fault also.
Where can I get me one of those victim gold cards to get away with blatant racism and terrorism?
A lot of democrats hate Jews as much as you do. Start there.
Do you really want to talk about those 167 time repeating shitstain holocaust faking Jews? The wastes of skin who fake cancer to extort people on a go fund me page.
You can find better people to emulate.
No, steaming pile of Nazi shit, we want to talk about how fucking stupid you are.
Fuck off and die.
It takes very little to expose your Nazi sympathies.
Yet nobody ever has.
When’s holocaust 168?
We don’t need to, you out yourself.
SPRINGTIME FOR MISEK
I too, did a double-take at that line. Aside from the apparently clairvoyant insight into every aspect of Rittenhouse's family tree and every misdeed any and all of them had ever done, I don't know how exactly you don't extend that logic to every person. Is the idea to just expel all the white people? That sounds a little closer to national socialism than I prefer.
"He is a free man who was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers—a jury that agreed he acted in self-defense when he shot three men after each had allegedly attacked him. "
Allegedly? The video says otherwise and it was confirmed at trial.
The video says otherwise and it was confirmed at trial.
From one of their own mouths. The more compelling case for dropping the use of the word 'allegedly' is unimaginable.
I mean seriously. It's in "Hitler allegedly killed some Jews." and "9/11 was allegedly perpetrated by terrorists." territory.
And I say this as someone who, out loud, states that Grosskreuz' apparent immunity to prosecution and the presence of FBI drone footage smells fishy.
I had a similar thought. When do you stop saying "allegedly"? Do they need to be criminally convicted first?
I suppose since they haven't been convicted of assault or attempted murder it's still not beyond a reasonable doubt (in the legal sense) that they attacked him unreasonably.
When do you stop saying "allegedly"?
After the trial, I thought.
Are you alleging that your post exists?
I'm asserting that it exists.
Maybe it was another of your drunken hallucinations.
Welcome to Reason, where the NAP only applies after the collective consciousness weighs in decisively and we aren't contravening their narrative too much.
No. Self-defense means defense against an attack. That is the end of it.
I could potentially understand it if Grosskreuz were on trial (even then, it's not at all irreconcilable to say that Kyle was still attacked), but he's not.
The only reason to go on with allegedly is because you don't want to offend people who have a different narrative about what happened going on in their head.
Except the outcome of the trial was "not guilty of murder, etc.". Which means only that there was reasonable doubt on those charges. Not that reasonable doubt could not remain as to the actions of the people he shot.
I'm sure I'm getting too far into the weeds here. He clearly acted in self defense and those three people clearly attacked him. Reason doesn't want to get sued over some bullshit again is probably the answer.
Except the outcome of the trial was "not guilty of murder, etc.".
Again, with 'Kyle was allegedly attacked' we're covering our asses over an unnamed attacker who may or may not be on video attacking him and who Kyle may or may not have been clearly depicted as defending himself against, but when we say *he* was not guilty, we're blase about whether he was not guilty by reason of insanity or reason of self-defense?
My sense is that this is just legal ass covering. In this case the "attack" was an assault and saying that in fact they were assaulting RIttenhouse is a good way to get a nuisance suit against you. (They could, for example, try to claim that they too were trying to defend themselves or whatever).
I am not saying these people weren't assaulting Rittenhouse. They were. I am just saying I understand why Reason would put the "Allegedly" there- especially in a court case that has received so much lawfare already.
How very brave of them to so boldly stand up to the chilling of free speech on the internet.
There is no 'reason' to use allegedly. KR stipulated to shooting 3 people. If they were not assaulting him, then he could not claim self-defense. Grosskuntz admitted to pointing a gun directly at KR immediately before being shot. KR's acquittal demonstrates that all the folks in question were determined to have been assaulting KR in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Any argument for a lawsuit over a claim that KR was assaulted would by be summarily dismissed.
KR's acquittal demonstrates that all the folks in question were determined to have been assaulting KR in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Is that right? Seems to me that the only question in the trial was whether he acted reasonably on the reasonable belief that they were attacking him. As several people pointed out, it is quite possible for both parties to an incident like that to be reasonably acting in self defense. Of course, this is all academic and it's obvious what happened.
the only question in the trial was whether he acted reasonably on the reasonable belief that they were attacking him
It isn't my understanding that self defense is allowed based on reasonable belief or even a direct verbal threat. Rosenbaum was chasing and throwing things at KR while KR was retreating, and then lunged for the weapon, multiple actions that constitute assault. The attack with the skateboard and the brandishing of the pistol are undeniably assaults.
If the shot fired in the air happens and KR shoots Rosenbaum without the assault, out of the fear he is being attacked, I think he is guilty.
Especially considering that the 'true' statement would be "Kyle was attacked." not "Grosskreuz or Rosenbaum attacked Kyle."
The idea that Reason is covering it's ass is pure B.S. Especially given Reason's reluctance to acknowledge reality or profess narrative otherwise.
The claims against Brett Kavanaugh were superficially credible but Kyle was only allegedly attacked.
In each case, someone initiated the assault. Kyle's successful self defense acquittal removes him from the list of attackers in all cases which apparently is too much for the leftists in media to acknowledge.
Oh man, I was hoping someone else caught that. It's where I stopped reading.
But fuck what the video says -- the jury themselves agreed he acted in self-defense, and you can't act in self-defense without being attacked -- so Robbie grudgingly admits the jury says he acted in self-defense, then throws in that gratuitous "allegedly".
Fuck that noise.
Robby doesn't want his crystal-white-pearl Subaru keyed the next time he's at Trader Joes.
"Join us and rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus,"
There's a racist murderer also named Kyle Rittenhouse? Yeah, ASU shouldn't allow that guy on campus.
""separate spaces for students of color and white students—to process their trauma regarding the outcome.""
Separate but equal?
If the spaces are equal they're not doing it right. How can equal spaces make up for 500 years of bondage?
But weigh in he did.
The religion of woke regularly demands it's tribute to face Mecca each day.
FREE MUMIA! KILL KYLE!
I'm sure classes will be canceled at many universities on the day that Moomoo Screwball Jamal dies.
Maybe Kyle could kill Mumia.
"...it seemed sparsely attended."
All 6 of them. "But a great many university administrations—whose formal stances on public policy matters unrelated to education would be better left unsaid—"
Totally agree with their agents provocateur and issue statements about white supremacy this and oppression that. Also noteworthy that Yale University now has more "administrators" [apparently cannot teach or do] than it does undergraduates. I'm pretty sure all the other schools will catch up on their +1-1 ratio soon.
So UC Irvine and Connecticut State would rather have a justice system where defendants are presumed guilty instead of presumed innocent until proven otherwise? Because that sounds a lot more dangerous for the prospects of eliminating systemic racism.
They're just talking about their feelings.
They think their feelings are important--more important than anything like justice, logic, reason, etc.
Every time someone says he "got off" because the system is racist and that a black person wouldn't have...
What do they want? For an innocent black man who defended himself to be acquitted? Or for everyone, regardless of race, to be unfairly convicted? Because that's what it comes down to.
Seeing a white kid go free hurts your feels because a black kid wouldn't? The solution isn't compounding the problem. And it sure is illogical to be so short sighted as to not see that revenge is not the same as justice.
I am still trying to figure out why they think a Democrat DA would have even bothered to prosecute a black kid who shot a white pedophile who used the N word at a BLM rally in a high profile trial. Once the video came out that proved the kid was being chased, I would bet cheers would have run out in the DA's office that they wouldn't have to prosecute the death of the world's least sympathetic "victim".
Incidentally, if schools started explicitly discriminating against prospective students on the basis of crimes they've committed in the past, the FBI stats suggest this would have the same kinds of outcomes the left decries as racist for relying on ACT and SAT scores.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
If they started discriminating against students uniformly--for being accused but not convicted--it would be a racist travesty.
God! Another example of racist hatred towards a brave patriot who brings an assault weapon to protect an empty warehouse. It’s maturity like that (plus his awesome parents) that got the greatest President since Attila the Hun elected and by the greatest margin ever, -2.9%. This country is the best and the best part of it is the awesome individuals who vote for the GOP because of abortion. I mean, vhat a country I live in! USA! USA!
Stuff your TDS up your ass, steaming pile of shit. Your head wants some company.
Free speech is for everyone, even snotty little lefturds at ASU. I would suggest a counter-demonstration at ASU, celebrating the demise of the pedos that Rittenhouse shot.
-jcr
what's a trial with "race-related implications"?
People vs. Scott Tucker
Sounds like a lot of people here need critical thinking skills, simple minds stopping at he only shot white people.
Haha, your criminal allies are dead and maimed. Cope, seethe, and dilate, tankie.
Hey, I thought you died, Hihn?
Beat the dead horse Robby! Here's a real story:
Conservative students want women locked in cages and executed for exercising a constitutional right! *if you take their rhetoric to its logical conclusion (baby killers are eligible for the death penalty).
Where's the outage Robby? Where's your article Robby? Oh, that's right, talking about forced birthers won't get you booked on Fox "News".
This is an especially ridiculous example of bothsideism--and a false one at that.
Are there conservative students demanding that women who have abortions expelled from college--much less sent to prison? Or are you just making that up?
I might buy that they want to throw doctors who perform abortions in prison, after abortions become illegal, but I don't remember seeing any student group argue for expelling women from college on that basis or prosecuting women for getting abortions.
""Join us and rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus," said the student group on Twitter."
They actually tweeted that. Here's the link:
https://twitter.com/SFSASU/status/1464324758086959105
Where's a link to the students wanting to expel women who've had abortions and prosecuted for murder?
Not only is LoS moving the goal posts, he’s also moving the field, sidelines, locker room, concessions, press box, stands and ticket office.
can we still use the same parking lot?
Yup. You’ll see sarc there. He’s tailgaiting. And it is the offseason!
Poor ken, moonlighting for racists as always. Remember his comments, he gets mad when racism is mentioned
Poor tankie, sad because his criminal allies are dead.
Sic semper Antifae.
He got so pissed that Ken curbstomped his retarded trolling that he pulled out this sock to samefag insults as a retort.
Lefties can't stop posting their L's.
Ohasshole shows up just in time to let me exercise my mute button. This lying pile of shit is every bit as honest as turd - never.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Crawl back in your bottle Sarc. Ken slapped you down again. Deal with it.
"This is an especially ridiculous example of bothsideism--and a false one at that."
He's taking the logical conclusion that conservatives think abortion is murder and therefore guilty women should be punished.
I think that's a fair assessment.
Where he steals a base is where he claims the high ground of "constitutional right." Conservatives would typically agree that it must first be established that there is no such right.
I think that most conservatives would go wishy washy on whether and how to punish the women. I suspect you could find similar examples on the left. I'm too lazy to google.
But here is a reasonably thoughtful opinion:
The law in France imposes penalties on those who perform illegal abortions, ranging from forfeiture of medical licenses for doctors to fines and, in some cases, incarceration (for providers, not for the woman obtaining the abortion) ranging from six months to 10 years. Those sanctions seem reasonable to me. Why not start there and see how it works?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-williamson-the-punishment-i-favor-for-abortion/2018/04/25/5001c6cc-48c5-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html
"He's taking the logical conclusion that conservatives think abortion is murder and therefore guilty women should be punished.
I think that's a fair assessment."
Looks like a slippery slope to me.
I don't remember seeing anyone call for women to be prosecuted for murder or having an abortion. They want to prohibit doctors from performing the procedure.
'
Personally, I think using the coercive power of the state, effectively, to compel women to carry a fetus to term against their will is wrong enough (regardless of whether elective abortion itself is unethical). However, if conservatives aren't pushing for a law to prosecute women for having abortions, but just a law that punishes doctors for providing them, why pretend the law is going further than it really is?
He's not just stealing a base. Looks like slippery slope.
Sorry to do this to you Ken, but I absolutely believe women who knowingly kill their prepartum offspring, should be subject to the same laws as a woman who does it postpartum.
Murder is murder. I'd be inconsistent and hypocritical if I advocated differently.
"Conservative students want women locked in cages and executed for exercising a constitutional right!"
You seem to be glossing over the disagreement over whether this is a constitutional right.
trying to be Joe Friday should not be a goal dude.
Does anyone remember when Ban the Box was a progressive issue? Under Obama, progressives pushed making it illegal to perform background checks or ask if someone had been convicted of a felony when applying for jobs or housing. In some locations, for housing at least, this has been enacted.
So progressives not only don't mind if an actual racist murder who had been convicted and served their time lives and works with them, they want to force you to do it too.
On the other hand, a person who was legally acquitted is being forced off campus by a mob because he's the wrong sort of person. The hypocrisy is palpable.
It's not hypocrisy if you understand that to progressives, everything now is tribal. Kyle bowed a little bit to this knowledge when he announced his support for BLM. If he would have announced his pronouns at the same time (and they weren't he/him), he would be almost out of the woods by now. Who's advising this kid, anyway?
Well, I think most people agree with the original purpose of BLM. After all, I cannot name a single person on the left or right who thinks cops should be MORE trigger-happy, and the vast majority cannot stand the thin blue line that makes cops unaccountable.
I can genuinely say that I agree with the premise and stated motivation. On the other hand, the use of violent riots, looting, and destruction, has turned BLM into a terrorist organization.
Rittenhouse seems to be a decent sort of person, and he is being accused of being racist. His main fault is thinking that anyone would listen to his words because his political opponents already think he is a klansman.
Ben, not sure what you mean by "original purpose," but absolutely everyone I know agrees that black lives matter. Most I know also agree that's because all lives matter, which has somehow become a racist phrase. Only lefties agree with Black Lives Matter, though.
a jury that agreed he acted in self-defense when he shot three men after each had allegedly attacked him.
I don't want to be that guy, but at the risk of being that guy, I think we can safely remove the "alleged" qualifier in this case.
they weren't convicted of attacking him.
He was acquitted of murdering them.
So I think the qualifier is technically correct?
He was acquitted of murdering them.
So I think the qualifier is technically correct?
Nope. His allegation of self-defense was affirmed and he was acquitted. He was attacked. There may be a case that, if Grosskreuz were being charged, the allegation he was attacking is speculative. But he's not.
The only reason to keep the 'alleged' is if you don't want to spoil someone's narrative that Kyle wasn't attacked.
...of murdering them in self-defense. Ergo, they were attacking him. It wouldn't be self-defense if there was no prior attack.
Are they under the impression that Rittenhouse would be the most racist person at ASU?
Universities are supposed to be places of learning, not hiding out because you're afraid of the real world. Instead of condemning the verdict, which was arrived at by following the democratic process, university administrations should have had teach-ins so students could have gotten the facts, rather than the BS on MSNBC and the other race-hustling programs. It's to the discredit and shame of those administrations who ignored the facts and the jurisprudence, and instead pushed a false scenario that sabotages the rule of law.
In a sane world you would be correct. In clown world/universities/MSNBC, you are a white supremacist (directly or sympathizer) for even making the point.
Instead of condemning the verdict, which was arrived at by following the democratic process, university administrations should have had teach-ins so students could have gotten the facts
Oh, christ, are you serious?
I went to ASU and know what their administration and professoriate are like. I guaran-fucking-tee that these students are parroting exactly what their campus elders are telling them.
They don't care whether they're wrong or right.
They don't care about the facts.
They don't care whether they're being rational or irrational.
Didn't even make it through the headline.
Not Socialist students...fascist students.
They're concerned about America...so that makes them nationalists, too.
Tomato, Tomato
Well fascism is a type of socialism, just like Juche is a type of communism.
"...who responded that Rittenhouse was a descendant of white colonists who had murdered black and brown people..."
As ridiculous as it is to blame the son for the sins of the father, the people making this claim have zero knowledge as to is veracity.
It's certainly possible he's descended from slaves himself.
...or from immigrants who never owned slaves.
These gender studies and race studies "students" need to be able to tell us who to hate. They know better that those of us who pay for their/them "education".
What are 'socialists' doing in the USA again??? Can't they easily MOVE to a socialist country??? Why are they here??
WHY is the U.C. Irvine vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion and chief diversity officer (first in that new position) ...... a scummy cis-gendered "he-him". Shouldn't that office be held by an "it", a "they-their" or at the least: a womxn? This is transophobia at it's most nazi-est.
I'm so triggered that I'm literally shaking.
Also; if you google that, you'll find two different men pictured. I guess the Pro-war pro-prison pro-bankster "left" thinks they all look alike.
"I know two big queers who like nothing better than getting their hands on your mushy ass!"
MAMA!