Fogbow

Interesting what you deem as "evidence" (when it helps your POV) and "not evidence" when it causes cognitive dissonance.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:06 pm But: the power of these projections based on stereotyping seems to be almost unsurmountable. It seems like the liberal mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that Rittenhouse could possibly be the victim, not the aggressor. (And I say this as a liberal myself, though a contrarian one on this case.) That's going to be a problem for him. I know I have zero success trying to convince other liberals of my view

I think you are being a bit strawmanny there. Esp after the above new yorker piece that told a broader story, perspectives will change. I know as more came out mine did. Plus, the idea that someone must either be the aggressor or victim, that kind of binary thinking is more of a conservative trait.

They always just come back with: well he shouldn't have been there with his illegal gun. So therefore he's responsible for everything that could possibly happen?

Ah, now that is another issue. One can be neither the aggressor nor victim and still be responsible due to actions they took that resulted in a dangerous situation. People coming back with that argument are not countering the idea that he must be the aggressor or could not be the victim, but instead his actions, while the dice rolled badly, created the situation where people were killed by him. And it is true this isn't fully a legal argument. Even if research shows that having a gun increases the aggressiveness of people around it, I doubt the court will take that into account. It should, but it goes against a major myth in american culture so that would be an uphill battle.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:06 pm The thing is: these are not "facts". A fact is that he went there with a gun it was illegal for him to possess. Everything else one builds out of this is an interpretation.

I also don't think there is any evidence for the idea that he considered the protestors his enemies.

I also know of no evidence Rittenhouse was a racist, a vigilante, a white supremacist, right-wing militant, or adherent to any other extremist ideology.

This guy? We're talking about this guy with the FREE AS FUCK shirt posing with a Proud Boy throwing the "white power sign"? Just making sure.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:40 pm
This guy? We're talking about this guy with the FREE AS FUCK shirt posing with a Proud Boy throwing the "white power sign"? Just making sure.

It verges on malpractice for his lawyers to have allowed this to happen, but I think he has a completely plausible explanation of this post-shooting incident. Essentially these Proud Boys celebrated HIM, while he didn't know who they were. The New Yorker piece lays out how it arose.

On this "white power gesture": remember that most Americans have absolutely no idea the OK sign has this use within certain alt-right groups. Most uses of the sign are innocent. There was a Jeopardy champ who was falsely accused of making a white power sign on the air, when he was only signallng 3 as he signaling 2 and 1 on his previous appearances. People have been a little bit duped into thinking it's always a white power sign. Even your link says that when it is used an inside joke, it is most often used as a trolling gesture rather than an actual white power sign.

Again, if he were a subscriber to some online-nurtured alt-right ideology so he would know that, they would have found some evidence. But they haven't. That is why they are trying to milk this so hard (not that I blame them). Because otherwise they've got nothing. That fact really should be much more telling I think.

Actually even if he were driven into the embrace of the Proud Boys after the shooting, that could just mean that he found a group that supported him, like a cult, when mainstream society shuns him as a monster. That still would not necessarily show his mindset before the shooting.

On further reflection, I don't think this evidence will be allowed. (1) its prejudicial value is very high but (2) its probative value about his adhering to their ideology is quite low. It is very low because it is entirely consistent with the claim that they adopted and celebrated him while he didn't know who they were. It's basically guilt by association when they really don't have anything showing that he personally subscribed to an extremist ideology.

Just as a minor note, the prosecutor's motion says "Obviously he shares their ideology" which made me laugh. I was taught that whenever someone uses "obviously" or "clearly" in argumentative writing, it's to cover the fact that they have no argument.

Prosecutor also cites lack of remorse. But he thinks he's innocent! Innocent people don't have remorse. Regret, perhaps, but not remorse. Lack of remorse can be relevant to sentencing, but not before the case has been adjudicated.

Just as a minor note, the prosecutor's motion says "Obviously he shares their ideology" which made me laugh. I was taught that whenever someone uses "obviously" or "clearly" in argumentative writing, it's to cover the fact that they have no argument.

Let me file that away for future reference.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:58 pm

Just as a minor note, the prosecutor's motion says "Obviously he shares their ideology" which made me laugh. I was taught that whenever someone uses "obviously" or "clearly" in argumentative writing, it's to cover the fact that they have no argument.

Let me file that away for future reference.

I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:58 pm

Just as a minor note, the prosecutor's motion says "Obviously he shares their ideology" which made me laugh. I was taught that whenever someone uses "obviously" or "clearly" in argumentative writing, it's to cover the fact that they have no argument.

Let me file that away for future reference.

I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I overstated for rhetorical effect. Meanwhile, it can be used that way (as cover), it pays to zero in on adverbs like this and ask "if this is so obvious, why does the writer have to remind me?", and in this particular case it really jumped out at me, because what was claimed was not the least bit obvious to me.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:58 pm

Let me file that away for future reference.

I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I overstated for rhetorical effect. Meanwhile, it can be used that way (as cover), it pays to zero in on adverbs like this and ask "if this is so obvious, why does the writer have to remind me?", and in this particular case it really jumped out at me, because what was claimed was not the least bit obvious to me.

You like to hear yourself argue, don't you?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

Out of curiosity, for things that are clear and obvious, do you encounter that word usage?

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm
I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I overstated for rhetorical effect. Meanwhile, it can be used that way (as cover), it pays to zero in on adverbs like this and ask "if this is so obvious, why does the writer have to remind me?", and in this particular case it really jumped out at me, because what was claimed was not the least bit obvious to me.

Engaging in the very sort of rhetoric that you find “laughable” when the prosecution does it doesn’t help you convince me of the rightness of your position.

But you don’t have to convince me — or anyone here — of anything. All of these things that you’re talking about — that is, what inferences are to be drawn from the facts — are all questions for the jury to resolve. None of our opinions about any of this stuff mean a rat’s ass.

I do, however, find the Rittenhouse apologist trope a little wearying. But that’s just me.

You are not alone.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I was a litigator (with a lot of appellate experience) for 42 years, until I retired. Very early on, a mentor told me not to use "clearly" in a brief, but rather to lay out the facts that would make the reader see that my argument was, in fact, clear.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:58 pm

Just as a minor note, the prosecutor's motion says "Obviously he shares their ideology" which made me laugh. I was taught that whenever someone uses "obviously" or "clearly" in argumentative writing, it's to cover the fact that they have no argument.

Let me file that away for future reference.

I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

Intuitively obvious to a box of rocks is a nice alternative.

Dr. Caligari wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:06 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I was a litigator (with a lot of appellate experience) for 42 years, until I retired. Very early on, a mentor told me not to use "clearly" in a brief, but rather to lay out the facts that would make the reader see that my argument was, in fact, clear.

Sometimes, though, it helps when you’re trying to compare thing that are clear with things that are less clear. It all depends on what I’m trying to convey. But that’s the problem with rules that say never or always.

Having said that, I don’t think I’ve ever won or lost an appellate argument because of my writing style.

A fact is that he went there with a gun it was illegal for him to possess.

I thought that in law, pretty much everything that follows from that fact is his responsibility and assumed to be part of a crime.

Gregg wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:06 pm

A fact is that he went there with a gun it was illegal for him to possess.

I thought that in law, pretty much everything that follows from that fact is his responsibility and assumed to be part of a crime.

I don’t think that’s right. Such a view would impose a strict liability even in cases where the government would be required to prove specific intent.

ETA: It would relieve the government of its burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was at work defending poor people when anders made his remark about Rittenhouse being a "victim" as opposed to an "aggressor." Having gotten home and opened the Fogbow to find that laughable bit of sophistry, I'm just going to say right now that I'm pretty sure the person who deliberately went out to a demonstration for a cause that was not theirs in a town that was not even in the same state as them and felt it necessary to arm themselves for journey is pretty obviously not a victim of anything.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:28 pm I was at work defending poor people when anders made his remark about Rittenhouse being a "victim" as opposed to an "aggressor." Having gotten home and opened the Fogbow to find that laughable bit of sophistry, I'm just going to say right now that I'm pretty sure the person who deliberately went out to a demonstration for a cause that was not theirs in a town that was not even in the same state as them and felt it necessary to arm themselves for journey is pretty obviously not a victim of anything.

We’ll, except for the fact that you said obviously, necessarily means it was anything but.

Clearly.

De minimis rhetorical overstatement.

This was new to me... the Proud Boys got their name from a song from Broadway's (it was cut from the film) Aladdin, "Proud of Your Boy". Here's Gavin with the name and other homophobic and crazy stuff.

On Jan. 5, Rittenhouse, 18, while out on bail, was photographed in a bar in Racine County (10 miles from Kenosha, and about 24 miles from his hometown of Antioch, Illinois) with known Proud Boys, wearing a t-shirt saying “Free as Fuck” and flashing the white power ‘OK’ sign. The Proud Boys also serenaded him with “Proud of Your Boy,” a song from the broadway adaptation of “Aladdin.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbqg9/ ... -boys-hero

Here's the original demo, sung by Alan Menken. It was a tough time because Howard Ashman passed away before they made the cuts (the Mom and the song were cut from the film). To use that song as their anthem is about as far from what Howard and Alan would have wanted as possible.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:57 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:24 pm
I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

I overstated for rhetorical effect. Meanwhile, it can be used that way (as cover), it pays to zero in on adverbs like this and ask "if this is so obvious, why does the writer have to remind me?", and in this particular case it really jumped out at me, because what was claimed was not the least bit obvious to me.

Engaging in the very sort of rhetoric that you find “laughable” when the prosecution does it doesn’t help you convince me of the rightness of your position.

Touché. Though I am a little surprised that a regrettable lapse into a bit of snark seems to have attracted more attention than anything else.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:37 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:57 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm

I overstated for rhetorical effect. Meanwhile, it can be used that way (as cover), it pays to zero in on adverbs like this and ask "if this is so obvious, why does the writer have to remind me?", and in this particular case it really jumped out at me, because what was claimed was not the least bit obvious to me.

Engaging in the very sort of rhetoric that you find “laughable” when the prosecution does it doesn’t help you convince me of the rightness of your position.

Touché. Though I am a little surprised that a regrettable lapse into a bit of snark seems to have attracted more attention than anything else.

I'm beginning to suspect you enjoy the attention .

Patagoniagirl wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:09 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:37 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:57 pm

Engaging in the very sort of rhetoric that you find “laughable” when the prosecution does it doesn’t help you convince me of the rightness of your position.

Touché. Though I am a little surprised that a regrettable lapse into a bit of snark seems to have attracted more attention than anything else.

I'm beginning to suspect you enjoy the attention .

Beginning?

Couldn't find the sarcasm emoji.