Even taken in good faith, what value is a university supposed to get out of a lecture from some loser kid who’s only accolades come from a controversial trial?
What could he possibly have to say of any significance or importance?
I collected all 151 pokemon legally on the original Pokemon red
If you’re American, then I’m calling bullshit, unless you were living in Japan at the time. Mew was not catchable in the original red and blue, and the only way to get it legitimately was to attend certain Japan-only Nintendo events, where a Nintendo official added it to your cartridge.
Here in the states, the only ways to get Mew at the time were GameSharks or trade, but unless you traded with someone who could get to Japan and was willing to give up their event exclusive Mew, it was probably just from somebody else he used a GameShark.
Wow, sounds like he shouldn’t have been there at all!
No, he should have. Until maniacs started trying to kill him, he was cleaning graffiti, handing out water bottles, giving first aid, and putting out fires.
He was doing a lot more good there than any of the rioters, especially the ones who tried to kill him (and started the fires he was putting out–reminder that Grosskreutz initially threatened Rittenhouse in response to having his dumpster fire extinguished).
I wonder who he was giving water bottles and first aid to…
Literally whoever asked. He spent a lot of time walking around yelling “medic” and “friendly”, so that people nearby knew they could flag him down if they needed help.
He wasn’t anti-protesting at any point. I believe during the trial it was confirmed that he administered first aid to a minimum of 8 people.
He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.
Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol
Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.
Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.
Someone on the right wing set it up, likely. They do this all the time, since the Universities act like they have to take all commers in the name of free speech. The right wing is hoping the controversial speaker will draw a hostile crowd and spark an incident. In my day, they even got caught using their own thugs posing as students to kick off violence.
Clubs need to get permission from the University to invite people onto campus grounds and speak at campus facilities. Someone who actually works for and represents the facility had to sign off on that little fascist coming to speak.
Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you’ve said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.
Even taken in good faith, what value is a university supposed to get out of a lecture from some loser kid who’s only accolades come from a controversial trial?
What could he possibly have to say of any significance or importance?
This is my take.
Why can’t I speak? I’m significantly more qualified than a dipshit kid who carried a rifle to a protest and killed people.
Accomplishments:
If you’re American, then I’m calling bullshit, unless you were living in Japan at the time. Mew was not catchable in the original red and blue, and the only way to get it legitimately was to attend certain Japan-only Nintendo events, where a Nintendo official added it to your cartridge.
Here in the states, the only ways to get Mew at the time were GameSharks or trade, but unless you traded with someone who could get to Japan and was willing to give up their event exclusive Mew, it was probably just from somebody else he used a GameShark.
Damn it you’re right. Now I remember how I got Mew. I abused the missingno hack.
I resign from my talk.
Another speaker cancelled, love to see it
I say recognising and acknowledging that you’re wrong qualifies you even more
Are you going to walk out now after that questioning?
I ran hours ago and now I’m tweeting on social media about how I’m a victim to this injustice
There’s no wrong way to play a game. Whether the devs intended for it or not, you played the game as it shipped. Feel proud.
Watch u/Potatos_are_not_friends runway instead of answering this
Your qualifications are quite impressive, can you tell me more about the potato’s and why I shouldn’t befriend them?
Okay, you win.
In a sane world he would tell a heartfelt cautionary tale.
I mean, in a sane world, he wouldn’t have killed anyone.
In a sane world he would have perhaps participated in the BLM protests because his education wasn’t full of right wing religious propaganda.
Removed by mod
Wow, sounds like he shouldn’t have been there at all! What monster forcibly brought this 17 year old kid into that situation?
No, he should have. Until maniacs started trying to kill him, he was cleaning graffiti, handing out water bottles, giving first aid, and putting out fires.
He was doing a lot more good there than any of the rioters, especially the ones who tried to kill him (and started the fires he was putting out–reminder that Grosskreutz initially threatened Rittenhouse in response to having his dumpster fire extinguished).
I wonder who he was giving water bottles and first aid to…
Was it other people who hurt themselves while cleaning up graffiti?
So weird that there were fires to put out and injuries to tend to at a graffiti clean-up, and then suddenly these maniacs showed up out of thin air!
Literally whoever asked. He spent a lot of time walking around yelling “medic” and “friendly”, so that people nearby knew they could flag him down if they needed help.
He wasn’t anti-protesting at any point. I believe during the trial it was confirmed that he administered first aid to a minimum of 8 people.
Why were so many people hurting themselves cleaning up graffiti? That’s wild
He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.
I have a legal right to go swimming in shark infested waters.
Probably not a great idea though, right?
Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol
Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.
Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.
Define guilt.
Someone on the right wing set it up, likely. They do this all the time, since the Universities act like they have to take all commers in the name of free speech. The right wing is hoping the controversial speaker will draw a hostile crowd and spark an incident. In my day, they even got caught using their own thugs posing as students to kick off violence.
Not the university, a student club. Students have first amendment rights here.
Clubs need to get permission from the University to invite people onto campus grounds and speak at campus facilities. Someone who actually works for and represents the facility had to sign off on that little fascist coming to speak.
Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
But it’s not even about him being controversial – just pointless. What educational value does a boring, loser kid have to offer?
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
So we’re just calling anything “education” these days.
You don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. I don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s a horrible human being and a terrible role model.
This falls under the “I will fight to the death for your right to speak” philosophy.
Again, not challenging his right to speak. Challenging the value of what he has to say.
No, you cannot block that. Public universities are a first amendment forum which means that all viewpoints are allowed.
I’m not asking whether or not he had a right to speak there.
Nobody said that he has a right to speak there. The students have a right to invite him to speak there.
Not sure how that’s relevant to the question I asked.
Gotcha, you want to simmer. /out
Whatever that means.
It means that you don’t want to converse, you just want to be angry. It was a mistake of me to attempt it with you.
Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you’ve said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.
Not sure how making irrelevant statements constitutes conversation, or how wondering how they’re relevant means I’m angry, but okay, bud. Run along.