Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[*Nately120*]

(11-23-2021, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please note I find the statement to be ill advised, the use of the word dangerous especially, but adding moral at the end absolutely changes the context of his statement.  

I think it makes it sound like a more cliched bit of neo-conservative crap, personally.  Then again, I'm looking at this in a cultural sense.  10 years ago moral killings were viewed as taking out towel-head terrorists who want to come here and hurt Americans.  Now we are champing at the bit to morally shoot other Americans...you aren't supposed to admit that you are excited and sort of want to have to do it, but damn...what a rush that will be to defend yourself morally.

I suppose it didn't happen overnight.  For years we see a headline about a mass shooting and everyone holds their collective breath and waits until we see "which side"  the person who did it was on before were start gloating or deflecting.  We let politicians convince us our greatest enemies are fellow Americans, but maybe they are right. I don't see too many liberals using George Wallace being shot as a reason to slag on the value of lone gunmen.

I'd wager we are at the point where when we need to hold off on judgement of any shooting/death/action until we hear the political affiliations of all parties involved.  This goes for covid, too.  Did you see so-and-so died?  No I didn't.  Was he/she vaccinated or not?  I need to know so I can put the right inflection on my "Oh, that's a shame" reply before I move on.

Life is cheap.