Yeah so I don’t think he went and killed some folks to get famous, I think he happened to kill some folks and got famous. And he’s malaligned, certainly a dumb kid like most of us were.
My criticism of Kyle is more around conservative folks who want to lean into that dumb kid fuck up like it’s something aspirational.
I think absolutely if you want to hold it up as a triumph of the justice system I’m with you. But as an example of a good human not so much.
Dude provocation is entirely dependent on how others feel. If I find you bringing a rifle to my kid’s birthday party is unsettling then you’ve by definition provoked me. I don’t care if you’re not pointing it at anyone lol
I think that most critics of Kyle Rittenhouse don’t disagree with the carriage of justice as much as the disgusting capitalization of his person after the fact. And the entire rationalization for bringing a weapon to a protest is frankly sick, whether he used justified force or not.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance, and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
I don’t think I’m using a straw man. The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical abstraction and I’m describing it within that context.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
Their “Spanish for English speakers” course goes all the way through CEFR B2 proficiency. There’s no way to attain that in a year of HS Spanish unless you were in a Spanish-speaking high school, fully immersed. Some versions of the Spanish course (for other native languages) may not go as far, that’s just the one I’m working on.
And those folks wouldn’t be commenting at all if he wasn’t paraded around like some “get away with murder” mascot. It was a massive and heinous childhood fuckup and he’s giving speeches at colleges now like he’s something one should aspire to be. Technicalities of the trial are not the real problem people have.