• Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Nonetheless, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there at all, and was there to get himself into trouble or seek the thrill of it.
Absolutely.
But you're allowed to carry a gun for self defence
Irrespective of the US legal definition, whatever that is, I can't see hunting for trouble with a rifle qualifies for any common sense definition of self defence.
 
Last edited:

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
He was in a public area where anyone is allowed to be. He was not the one assaulting anyone.
The reckless behaviour must be those who attack and follow a boy on a public street, or attacked him while lying down knowing full well he had a gun. It's not only illegal, it's dumb.
If you're saying he should have stayed away because there were violent people on the street you're implying criminals should be allowed to intimidate the public to stay in their homes.

The flashy weapon was apparently legal. The one man who attacked him also had a gun.
 
He was in a public area where anyone is allowed to be. He was not the one assaulting anyone.
The reckless behaviour must be those who attack and follow a boy on a public street, or attacked him while lying down knowing full well he had a gun. It's not only illegal, it's dumb.
If you're saying he should have stayed away because there were violent people on the street you're implying criminals should be allowed to intimidate the public to stay in their homes.

The flashy weapon was apparently legal. The one man who attacked him also had a gun.

100% agree

I feel like much of the American media and everyone invested into the culture wars is trying to turn this into George Floyd II: Electric Boogaloo (pun intended). Even more baffling is the idea that this somehow has something to do with racism at all. Based on a few empty signifiers (fat zoomer who looks like an average internet nazi shoots two protestors who happened to be pedophiles), repubic****s and demonkkkrats have instantly decided to take sides and turn this into an international incident.

Whether he was there to "defend property" or "seek thrills" is such a minute line to draw and probably impossible to answer concretely.
I don't like America's gun culture at all, I think aside from the violence alone, it creates a paranoid and insular society, but a case like this is so ambiguous that everyone just has to make stuff up or teleologically assume intent in order to then attach it to arguments for or against gun control.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
That's just contrarian refusal to acknowledge context, which actually has (or should have had in this case) legal ramifications.
It doesn't matter if you don't think the case is important, it's enough that Kyle copycats with guns think so and otherwise peaceful future demonstrators understand they'll need to be armed too. People will die because of this and the culture wars will only get nastier.
 
He was in a public area where anyone is allowed to be. He was not the one assaulting anyone.
The reckless behaviour must be those who attack and follow a boy on a public street, or attacked him while lying down knowing full well he had a gun. It's not only illegal, it's dumb.
If you're saying he should have stayed away because there were violent people on the street you're implying criminals should be allowed to intimidate the public to stay in their homes.

The flashy weapon was apparently legal. The one man who attacked him also had a gun.
i get that he is being chased and one of the other guys had a gun but he also shot quite a lot of people. I find it hard to believe that anything after the first shot was necessary for self-defence. Of course him being panicked would be extenuating I'm surprised that he didn't get any punishment at all.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
I'm surprised that he didn't get any punishment at all.
fa0f5af4ca6b5bb5e3da9a70cd7989e4_360x.jpg

This is sold unironically by a pro-gun site.
For those innocent enough not to know, "dindu nuffin" is a racist phrase for blacks insinuating criminality. It means "I didn't do anything", something a guilty simpleton would say.
Which is very ironic for a white killer getting off free.
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
He was in a public area where anyone is allowed to be. He was not the one assaulting anyone.
The reckless behaviour must be those who attack and follow a boy on a public street, or attacked him while lying down knowing full well he had a gun. It's not only illegal, it's dumb.
If you're saying he should have stayed away because there were violent people on the street you're implying criminals should be allowed to intimidate the public to stay in their homes.

The flashy weapon was apparently legal. The one man who attacked him also had a gun.

Criminals should not be allowed to intimidate the public to stay in their homes. Which is exactly why I think that he should have suffered some consequence for his actions. Otherwise that means that it is perfectly fine for people to stroll around with AR-15s in their hands and point them at others. At protests, peaceful or not (and how long will they stay peaceful if this kind of thing happens?), or perhaps at the lines for the next election. Not trying to intimidate voters or anything, just making sure they are safe from those damn commies.

@Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James had he and everyone else involved been black he would have gone to jail, I can about guarantee it. Clearly this is not on the same level as what happened to Floyd but I find your interpretation naive and not entirely rooted in the reality of American culture and history.

And let's be clear here: he was not supposed to be there with that weapon. One of the charges was for the sheer fact that he was there with a weapon as a minor, and it was dismissed because of a technicality over a provision in the law which is frankly just horribly written, since it basically voids the law preventing minors from carrying a gun. I really hope that there's nobody here that thinks that it's a good idea to have hot headed teenagers running around with AR-15s in their hands, in the US or elsewhere. Let's also not forget that the American legal system is based on precedent and relies heavily on interpretation of the law by judges. The judge in this case could have decided to let the charge concerning the weapon stand and it would have had exactly the same validity as the decision that was made.
 
Last edited:
That's just contrarian refusal to acknowledge context, which actually has (or should have had in this case) legal ramifications.
It doesn't matter if you don't think the case is important, it's enough that Kyle copycats with guns think so and otherwise peaceful future demonstrators understand they'll need to be armed too. People will die because of this and the culture wars will only get nastier.

Gun carrying militia larpers have been at every protest in the last 10 or so years in America. They are there to show off and feel like they're protecting people, but otherwise it's just as much make-believe for them as it is for the blm protestors (who are now almost exclusively white btw). If these people were always a hair trigger away from shooting people (like the police often are), this would not be an exceptional, national case.

Don't get me wrong I think militia people are a pathetic bizzare symptom of American civilizational lunacy. But it's ridiculous and paranoid to only see this through the eyes of this hypothetical psychotic murderer and think that this will be the widespread result of him being acquitted.

@Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James had he and everyone else involved been black he would have gone to jail, I can about guarantee it.

Yeah, and? What's your point? You could say that about practically every white person to pass through the american justice system since 1492, that if they were black they would have been treated worse. Why does this case need to be treated specifically like a black civil rights case when it isn't at all?
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
I'm not hearing anything that would change my mind. Yeah of course the AI is literally not trying to guess, it's a dumb ****ing robot, it has no personality or will. It can't try or guess. It can only execute the order somebody gave them and the orders they gave them - to create new pixels and how to determine their color - are there in order to establish what something otherwise blurry or tiny is. Everything else is just talking around it.

Are you not anti-racism? Pro-racism then? Come on 😅. I also didn't say that the jury should be all non white, nor am I saying anything that you are writing there. Can we not do this please? I am just saying that the judge has shown a very obvious bias to favor the defendant, and that I would be interested in knowing the jury composition. I did not even say what I think the jury should look like.
1) I was referring to the lunatics who claim it's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti-racist, otherwise you're racist. 2) By the same token - why would anyone have a problem with posters saying It's OK To Be White? It literally is, is it not? Such an innocuous statement, only a paranoid mind would read anything into that. 3) You brought race into this case, for no discernible reason.
The zoom is not a computer interpretation of anything. The zoom literally just makes the image larger, and the only reason why you don't see the individual pixels is because you can't zoom in that much in a smartphone or tablet (I assume that we all know that digital images are made of pixels that form a mosaic). That attorney is either an absolute moron, or, which I find more likely, is acting in bad faith. You don't need a PhD level of knowledge to know this stuff, and it was ridiculous and unreasonable for the judge to ask for an expert testimony to be presented on the spot. Let's not pretend that this is something reasonable.
Some zooms do only make things larger, some do more.
You'll have to excuse Rightwing Big Brain, she gets at least some of her news straight from right wing propaganda that has no problem perpetuating misleading claims and outright lies among the right-wing faithful.
For example, here' s a failed fact check about the prosecutor pointing a gun at the jury.
Incroyable. I really won't lift a single finger when they start coming for journalists, fact checkers especially. Binger did point the gun in the courtroom during the closing speech while addressing the jury, reenacting and recapping the events. Which you can watch for yourself here. Ok yeah he points diagonally half at the jury, half at the crowd. I guess you got me there! It changes everything! The jokes about him pointing the gun at them to make the convict are such obvious jokes, that it's depressing it even has to be pointed out.
It's actually based on the interpretation of the law by twelve random local laymen, who were convinced how to interpret it by two professional lawyers who are way beyond the jurors in understanding of the law and manipulation of people (specifically jurors). And this public manipulation spectacle is presided by an elected law professional, not the best one available.
Compared to real law systems where law professionals decide the verdict, jury trials are frontier justice.
Then maybe you and the vast majority of people, should not comment the case, since you're not law professionals. You don't know what you're talking about. Only lawyers who have passed Wisconsin bar are experts and you don't want to be one of those unsavory little people who think and talk about things beyond their station in life.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Yeah, and? What's your point? You could say that about practically every white person to pass through the american justice system since 1492, that if they were black they would have been treated worse. Why does this case need to be treated specifically like a black civil rights case when it isn't at all?

My point is that this legitimizes someone randomly bringing that kind of weapon to racial protests and using it on people. Using this as precedent those same militias that you are talking about will be able to get away with shooting at people in this kind of event with no consequences. The reason why this hasn't happened more often is because there was an assumption that there would be some consequence for such actions.

Some zooms do only make things larger, some do more.

I pretty much answered the rest above, but this is just false. There is some AI enhanced technology, but it's still in development by Google and it definitely is not available on tablets.


The defense lawyer made a bad faith argument (which honestly is kind of his job as the defender, you gotta try what works) and the judge went with it out of ignorance or malice (I am inclined to believe it's at least partially the second, since otherwise he would have given the prosecutor enough time to find an expert witness). Once more: there is no AI in the zoom function of your tablet, what is available is at the research state and from what I am reading on their papers it doesn't even work real time yet. It's a process where you feed an image to it and it enhances it after a certain amount of time (like in the fake technology from NCIS and the like).
 

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
- are there in order to establish what something otherwise blurry or tiny is.
no. it's there to make the pixels bigger. that is the "purpose" of the not-actually-an-ai-or-robot that is actually not receiving any discrete orders from anyone and is actually just doing some basic maths.
it's not "doing more", as you claim. there's no special sauce apple ai processing involved in pinch to zoom on an ipad playing a video file. that's just simply not how it works. the claim is just wrong.
it is simply fabricated via conflating two completely distinct things by people who either don't understand the technology involved or who choose to misrepresent it. or both, for that matter.
I'm not hearing anything that would change my mind.
that is neither surprising nor meaningful.

edit: eddie with the informative ninja.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
What's this stuff I've read in this thread about the people who were shot being paedophiles, is that just a bit of humour or are they implicated in that sort of thing? Seems an interesting and bizarre twist to the case if it has some basis in reality. For the record by the way, based on what little I know of this case, I'm in the camp that thinks he probably didn't behave unreasonably once he was chased, but that he had no business going there at all, let alone with a gun.

By the same token - why would anyone have a problem with posters saying It's OK To Be White? It literally is, is it not? Such an innocuous statement, only a paranoid mind would read anything into that.
:lol: I don't get it, are you being serious?
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
I'm looking forward to the semantics essays on why this is not new pixels. And if they are, it's not a big deal, and if it's a big deal, then it's a good thing.

I never claimed that people send discreet orders to this or that particular tablet. It's hard to see the consistent bad faith interpretation as not intentional.

Regarding "black people wouldn't get away with it" - enjoy

:lol: I don't get it, are you being serious?
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I'm looking forward to the semantics essays on why this is not new pixels. And if they are, it's not a big deal, and if it's a big deal, then it's a good thing.

I never claimed that people send discreet orders to this or that particular tablet. It's hard to see the consistent bad faith interpretation as not intentional.
That is not what tablets do, and it's not real time zoom. That is interpolation and you can do that on GIMP. Seriously, download it and give it a try. It takes a few seconds to do on a small image, while using a computer. If you tried to do use that on a tablet to zoom in on an image you would get unbearable lag. That is also not AI by the way, nor is it machine learning. I am sorry but you are talking about things that you don't really understand here.

Your Twitter thread also brings up cherrypicked examples that have nothing in common with the Rittenhouse trial, but sure. I don't think there's any way to bring you to reality when it comes to racial issues in the US so I don't know that that's even a conversation worth having with you.

Edit: also, to be clear, the issue is not that the judge wanted someone to confirm that the video wasn't altered (as ridiculous as that is to me, the judge doesn't know anything about iPads or image processing). The issue was that he did not give the prosecutor a chance to actually do that. I don't see how you can not see the bad faith in that. Twenty minutes to find an expert consultant on the fly? Really?
 
Last edited:

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
what he said.

it just simply does not work that way. i get that we vehemently disagree on a lot of things and you're generally disinclined to believe me about certain stuff, but come on.

yes the way the pinch to zoom works here can distort the image still in some ways, because noise and so forth. I've already acknowledged that. and that it's a problem and that it could and probably should have been brought up. because bla bla digital photography inperfect reality etc.

but the specific claims of the defence and judge and the way you have understood and spoken about them are simply flat out wrong.
 
My point is that this legitimizes someone randomly bringing that kind of weapon to racial protests and using it on people. Using this as precedent those same militias that you are talking about will be able to get away with shooting at people in this kind of event with no consequences. The reason why this hasn't happened more often is because there was an assumption that there would be some consequence for such actions.

I don't buy the idea that these people actively want to go out and shoot people, or that only legal precedent is preventing them from doing that. Even someone as deranged as Zimmerman had to first convince himself that he was defending his community from drug dealers, and acts in that moment like the law doesn't exist. This self-image and self-justification is the real limit of their violence in my eyes, not the law. If anything, I think the idea that they're acting outside the law or riding the line is part of the larp.

The thing is I get stopped by these kind of vigilante freaks all the time, at least if I walk into the middle class white enclaves north of me. Just last month an off-duty cop came out of his house after spying on me for 10 minutes, and accused me of drug dealing because I was standing underneath a tree in the rain for a few seconds (in broad daylight with a high vis jacket). He tried to take me to a police station. He seemed convinced that he was some kind of public hero and spent about 10 minutes trying to convince me as well, despite me being the one he was trying to arrest. This is in a country where the judiciary does not pander to these people at all, and where there are no vigilante/militia organisations at all, yet they still feel justified to harass, follow and stalk people they think are intruding.

I do think this will empower some of the militia people, but empowering them isn't the same as inciting them to violence. Films like Dirty Harry and Robocop, or superhero characters like the Punisher also empower them, but in a larpy self-important way rather than a violent way (like some films that glorify mass murder).

I'm looking forward to the semantics essays on why this is not new pixels. And if they are, it's not a big deal, and if it's a big deal, then it's a good thing.

New pixels != new information. Almost all images you see on a daily basis are interpolated this way, even if they aren't scaled up or down. Did you even watch the video?

Glasnost was a mistake.
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
@kurczak here's a quick and dirty way to test it for yourself:

kzmjf.png


ltZY6.png

This is a mostly white image with a 10 by 10 pixel chessboard (black and white). Download it on your phone and try to zoom in, see what happens (I uploaded it both with and without the white background). It's going to look exactly the same as it did before zooming in, with the individual pixels just being magnified. No magic AI adding things here. You can download GIMP and try similar things yourself to see what happens.

@Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James , I get what you are saying but imagine if the lovely people who stopped you were carrying AR-15s across their shoulders, and had it in their head from recent events that all they had to do to get cleared after shooting you was claiming self defense. Imagine that they were 15 to 17 year old kids. I think that things are already messy enough without getting into that crap. I am not saying that they should have locked him in jail for the rest of his life, but clearing it of all charges is just wrong. He is going to walk out of there thinking that he is the hero, and so will all the militia types (as @MadVader was pointing out a few posts ago they've already been rallying around him). There is nothing good that can come out of this.
 
Top Bottom