We can argue whether it is or not. I can point to things like Kamala Harris backing a fund to bail out rioters. I can point to politicians or even posters on this forum rationalizing the riots (no, I'm not actually going to waste my time digging for old posts). Bowles may have been using hyperbolic language, but there's no denying that left leaning politicians and media downplayed the rioting and its impact. Here's an example: https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-protest-vandalism/ The problem with this line of thinking is that in many cases, and in the case of Kenosha, specifically, which Bowles wrote about in her article, there is often a person who has poured their life into that business. So while the windows don't bleed or die, the assumption that they can just be "replaced by identical sheets of glass" is not a fair one. And that's what Bowles wrote about in her article. She wrote about how the riots were negatively impacting businesses owned by people of color in less wealthy areas. To claim it's a "false narrative" that left leaning politicians and media downplayed the negative impact of rioting and looting is just false. If you're just focused on the "insurance" part of it, then maybe you can get to false narrative (though I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find people saying it). But the underlying issue is the downplaying of the negative impact as a whole. So why didn't they publish the story until after the election?
Disagree with a firing. Fundraising websites are run by people with first amendment rights who can do whatever they want, including disagreeing with Rittenhouse's activities regardless of the trial's outcome. You can't compel them to host fundraisers any more than you can compel me to think what Rittenhouse did was acceptable. Media does spread a lot of misinformation, but it isn't particular to this story. Not sure what you are getting at with your fiancee, seems like a personal situation. She also didn't think there was an uptick in racism against people of Asian ancestry because she didn't personally experience anything, so I have a funny feeling those friends are angry about some shit that IS true, you all just don't agree with.
I don't know, Indy. Why does Friday come after Thursday? You make it sound this would have some direct link or effect to the election, without support. Nobody ran on a pro-property destruction platform. People saying something doesn't demonstrate that something is mainstream. There is no secret cabal organizing things. The article you linked does not support your assertions, it counters it by bringing up small businesses, minority-owned businesses, etc while discussing a context to the destruction. Is it the lack of black and white, good vs evil that you have a problem with? Reality must be very troubling for you.
You don't see it as discriminatory for a site to allow some people to raise money for their defense but not others? Or is that just discrimination that you are okay with? No one is compelling anyone to host anything. There were people attempting to host fundraisers and they were prevented from doing so. You're blatantly and intentionally mischaracterizing my fiancee's claims, asshole. Go back and read it. She took issue with the podcast host's comment that "Every Asian American I’ve talked to has just been feeling under such attack the past few months." That's not the same thing as saying she didn't think there was an uptick in violence against people of Asian ancestry. The friends specifically outlined things that are 100% not true. Carrying a gun across state lines. Killing black people. (Again, why respond to my posts if you are not going to read them?). So listen to your funny feelings all you want, but they're not correct. The point of the fiance piece is that she has friends who are so angry over lies about the Rittenhouse case that she's afraid disagreeing with them or pointing out the lies could negatively impact their friendship. You don't see that as a problem? You don't see the fact that she is in this situation with multiple different people as suggestive of this being a mainstream issue?
Crazy to think that an article in the NYT showing rioting/looting is negatively impacting people of color in poorer areas could negatively impact the election chances of the person who's VP is connected to funds bailing out rioters. Say "I'm okay with the rioting and looting" without saying you're okay with the rioting and looting. No one is saying Trump wins the election if that article runs. But the question about why it was held until after the election is a valid one and worth asking.
You can't get mad about a business not wanting to host a fundraiser and call it discrimination, and ignore that a girl who was being held captive and sexually abused is in prison for killing her abuser and did not get off on self-defense. Just stop. You don't give a shit about discrimination at all or else you would have stopped in your tracks when I shared that story out of Kenosha. You're talking about a business not wanting to touch a controversial situation, and ignoring the blatant legal double standard?! The [uck fay]? I can only characterize what you say. I think a reasonable person can characterize your remarks and inclusion of her as saying it wasn't really a thing. Otherwise, why bring it up at all? I am guessing there are other things as well. In case that wasn't clear when I said exactly that. I see it as a personal problem. Is she really their friend if she is pretending to be someone she is not? Seems like perhaps she is taking advantage of them by posing as someone who doesn't think a 17 year old patrolling alone with an AR-15 given to him that night and later shooting 3 people is acceptable. She should be herself. If they are all truly friends, they will have a conversation and come to some reasonable disagreement. She shouldn't be dishonest. Not everything legal is right, after all.
Being arrested while protesting doesn't make you a rioter. Lighting fires or stealing would result in felony charges, whereas who were getting bailed out by those funds were charged with misdemeanors, mostly violating curfew/emergency orders. You have internalized a false narrative and are now doing exactly what you are throwing a shit-fit over. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/george-floyd-protesters-arrests/
I'm not ignoring it. You sent me a link from the NYT (a blatantly political site), which I don't have a subscription for. I couldn't read the article you posted, and I didn't have time to look into it any further at the time. And then the conversation went on and I forgot about it. At first glance, and acknowledging that there are likely a TON of details I would need to read about to fully understand what happened, I don't really see how this is a "blatant legal double standard." It sounds like she state is arguing she drove to his house to kill him, which is different, and there also isn't video evidence to the same degree as the Rittenhouse trial. If you recall, her issue was with the word "every." She found it incredibly difficult to believe that "every" Asian American person the host had spoken to was feeling under such attack when she didn't know any Asian Americans who felt under such attack. That isn't denying that "there was an uptick in racism against people of Asian ancestry." It's calling out language she felt was a bit hyperbolic. Lol, you serious Clark? Not making her opinions about the verdict of a trial in another state for a dude she doesn't know personally is "pretending to be someone she is not?" Like, what the actual? Taking advantage of them? What on earth are you talking about? No one said she actively agreed with them or confirmed what they were saying. She's not lying. She's just not pushing back or making her stance known. That you think they will have a conversation and come to some reasonable disagreement is cute. That's not how the world works anymore. And that's the problem.
Probably but you know how the sports media world feels about Tennessee fans. Fran Fraschilla called us all idiots on live TV Sunday. I love that they hate us so much.
