Was it on purpose?

[WellPreserved]

All of the white guys involved in the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, including Rittenhouse himself in your own opinion….


If a bunch of rowdy white guys looking for trouble get into a scuffle and end up attacking each other and making huge news… it’s weird to suggest that situation as having anything to do with the civil rights movement of Black Lives Matter.

I think the complaints from the Memphis Black community were not just about Rittenhouse speaking but the fact that this was an event by TPUSA. Charlie Kirk spent Black history month lambasting MLK as well as the Civil Rights movement as he believes that MLK is directly responsible for the evils of DEI. Last month he claimed that he wouldn't fly a plane that had Black pilots. I think the Memphis Black community has the right to be outraged.

As far as Rittenhouse, the complaint from BLM at the time was how the police and justice system treated Rittenhouse. You may disagree with that assessment but that is the complaint. I think billing the event as "Join us at The University of Memphis as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks about the importance of the Second Amendment and the lies of BLM" was baiting and I think the Memphis University community had the right to be outraged.

The University provided Rittenhouse the space and Rittenhouse was free to speak so I'm not sure who you believe are "overtaking a conversation". Perhaps you could clarify?

Just to add, TPUSA is not a White Supremacist organization. They bill themselves as a Christian Nationalist organization who just so happen to be courted by White Supremacist organizations. Kirk is not stupid. He knows his audience and this was a calculated effort to cause controversy and hype. Interestingly, Rittenhouse's same talk at Kent State in April is billed as "Join us as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks to Kent State University's Turning Point USA Chapter about the importance of the Second Amendment". Why no "the lies of BLM"?

When it comes to Charlie Kirk- I don’t know much, if anything about him other than a few 10 second videos of him talking as I scroll Facebook videos, to which I paid little attention… so I’m fully willing to learn more about TPUSA and what allegations of racism have been suggested. If he was lambasting MLK I would be disgusted by that…


As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, the shootout between him and the other White people shouldn’t have anything to do with remembering what Black Lives Matter was or what they were about…maybe he feels as though the altercation was presented in a false view by the BLM official organization and he wanted to address that…either way, I don’t think that aspect should be getting attention anymore. I get it, that’s his fault for putting it in the title…


But at some point, somehow- there should definitely be a conversation about the second amendment and the way our political power structure continues to keep that right away from a disproportionate amount of Black people.

I agree with the bolded just don't think Rittenhouse is the person to lead that conversation, lol. There are a lot of good scholarly articles written about racist gun laws and the Second Amendment which unfortunately come under fire because "CRT".

[Slimshandy]

I think the complaints from the Memphis Black community were not just about Rittenhouse speaking but the fact that this was an event by TPUSA. Charlie Kirk spent Black history month lambasting MLK as well as the Civil Rights movement as he believes that MLK is directly responsible for the evils of DEI. Last month he claimed that he wouldn't fly a plane that had Black pilots. I think the Memphis Black community has the right to be outraged.

As far as Rittenhouse, the complaint from BLM at the time was how the police and justice system treated Rittenhouse. You may disagree with that assessment but that is the complaint. I think billing the event as "Join us at The University of Memphis as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks about the importance of the Second Amendment and the lies of BLM" was baiting and I think the Memphis University community had the right to be outraged.

The University provided Rittenhouse the space and Rittenhouse was free to speak so I'm not sure who you believe are "overtaking a conversation". Perhaps you could clarify?

Just to add, TPUSA is not a White Supremacist organization. They bill themselves as a Christian Nationalist organization who just so happen to be courted by White Supremacist organizations. Kirk is not stupid. He knows his audience and this was a calculated effort to cause controversy and hype. Interestingly, Rittenhouse's same talk at Kent State in April is billed as "Join us as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks to Kent State University's Turning Point USA Chapter about the importance of the Second Amendment". Why no "the lies of BLM"?

When it comes to Charlie Kirk- I don’t know much, if anything about him other than a few 10 second videos of him talking as I scroll Facebook videos, to which I paid little attention… so I’m fully willing to learn more about TPUSA and what allegations of racism have been suggested. If he was lambasting MLK I would be disgusted by that…


As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, the shootout between him and the other White people shouldn’t have anything to do with remembering what Black Lives Matter was or what they were about…maybe he feels as though the altercation was presented in a false view by the BLM official organization and he wanted to address that…either way, I don’t think that aspect should be getting attention anymore. I get it, that’s his fault for putting it in the title…


But at some point, somehow- there should definitely be a conversation about the second amendment and the way our political power structure continues to keep that right away from a disproportionate amount of Black people.

You know next to nothing about Charlie Kirk and TPUSA? Incredible!

It should be studied how often what you say out of spite goes against your own goals …

[Slimshandy]

I think the complaints from the Memphis Black community were not just about Rittenhouse speaking but the fact that this was an event by TPUSA. Charlie Kirk spent Black history month lambasting MLK as well as the Civil Rights movement as he believes that MLK is directly responsible for the evils of DEI. Last month he claimed that he wouldn't fly a plane that had Black pilots. I think the Memphis Black community has the right to be outraged.

As far as Rittenhouse, the complaint from BLM at the time was how the police and justice system treated Rittenhouse. You may disagree with that assessment but that is the complaint. I think billing the event as "Join us at The University of Memphis as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks about the importance of the Second Amendment and the lies of BLM" was baiting and I think the Memphis University community had the right to be outraged.

The University provided Rittenhouse the space and Rittenhouse was free to speak so I'm not sure who you believe are "overtaking a conversation". Perhaps you could clarify?

Just to add, TPUSA is not a White Supremacist organization. They bill themselves as a Christian Nationalist organization who just so happen to be courted by White Supremacist organizations. Kirk is not stupid. He knows his audience and this was a calculated effort to cause controversy and hype. Interestingly, Rittenhouse's same talk at Kent State in April is billed as "Join us as Kyle Rittenhouse speaks to Kent State University's Turning Point USA Chapter about the importance of the Second Amendment". Why no "the lies of BLM"?

When it comes to Charlie Kirk- I don’t know much, if anything about him other than a few 10 second videos of him talking as I scroll Facebook videos, to which I paid little attention… so I’m fully willing to learn more about TPUSA and what allegations of racism have been suggested. If he was lambasting MLK I would be disgusted by that…


As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, the shootout between him and the other White people shouldn’t have anything to do with remembering what Black Lives Matter was or what they were about…maybe he feels as though the altercation was presented in a false view by the BLM official organization and he wanted to address that…either way, I don’t think that aspect should be getting attention anymore. I get it, that’s his fault for putting it in the title…


But at some point, somehow- there should definitely be a conversation about the second amendment and the way our political power structure continues to keep that right away from a disproportionate amount of Black people.

I agree with the bolded just don't think Rittenhouse is the person to lead that conversation, lol. There are a lot of good scholarly articles written about racist gun laws and the Second Amendment which unfortunately come under fire because "CRT".

He’s probably not the person I would choose either to have that talk, but that doesn’t mean he should be stopped from talking.


All in all I’ll just agree with Rep. Parkinson on Rittenhouse being there.

“Democratic representative Antonio Parkinson says this is a learning experience, arguing that first amendment rights must be upheld for everyone’s sake.

“Whether you like Kyle Rittenhouse or not, I abhor him. However, he is a part of our history now, believe it or not. And so, if you have an opportunity to hear while the person is here, take advantage of that opportunity,” said Parkinson. “I also don’t believe that we should be suppressing freedom of speech. I think that, just as we allow Rittenhouse here, other what would be deemed controversial speakers, those that may be African American or others, should be allowed as well.”

[WellPreserved]

When it comes to Charlie Kirk- I don’t know much, if anything about him other than a few 10 second videos of him talking as I scroll Facebook videos, to which I paid little attention… so I’m fully willing to learn more about TPUSA and what allegations of racism have been suggested. If he was lambasting MLK I would be disgusted by that…


As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, the shootout between him and the other White people shouldn’t have anything to do with remembering what Black Lives Matter was or what they were about…maybe he feels as though the altercation was presented in a false view by the BLM official organization and he wanted to address that…either way, I don’t think that aspect should be getting attention anymore. I get it, that’s his fault for putting it in the title…


But at some point, somehow- there should definitely be a conversation about the second amendment and the way our political power structure continues to keep that right away from a disproportionate amount of Black people.

I agree with the bolded just don't think Rittenhouse is the person to lead that conversation, lol. There are a lot of good scholarly articles written about racist gun laws and the Second Amendment which unfortunately come under fire because "CRT".

He’s probably not the person I would choose either to have that talk, but that doesn’t mean he should be stopped from talking.


All in all I’ll just agree with Rep. Parkinson on Rittenhouse being there.

“Democratic representative Antonio Parkinson says this is a learning experience, arguing that first amendment rights must be upheld for everyone’s sake.

“Whether you like Kyle Rittenhouse or not, I abhor him. However, he is a part of our history now, believe it or not. And so, if you have an opportunity to hear while the person is here, take advantage of that opportunity,” said Parkinson. “I also don’t believe that we should be suppressing freedom of speech. I think that, just as we allow Rittenhouse here, other what would be deemed controversial speakers, those that may be African American or others, should be allowed as well.”

I believe Parkinson spoke those words during the initial protest of Rittenhouse's speaking engagement and I agree with him. Rittenhouse was not "stopped from talking".

[Della]

I agree with the bolded just don't think Rittenhouse is the person to lead that conversation, lol. There are a lot of good scholarly articles written about racist gun laws and the Second Amendment which unfortunately come under fire because "CRT".

He’s probably not the person I would choose either to have that talk, but that doesn’t mean he should be stopped from talking.


All in all I’ll just agree with Rep. Parkinson on Rittenhouse being there.

“Democratic representative Antonio Parkinson says this is a learning experience, arguing that first amendment rights must be upheld for everyone’s sake.

“Whether you like Kyle Rittenhouse or not, I abhor him. However, he is a part of our history now, believe it or not. And so, if you have an opportunity to hear while the person is here, take advantage of that opportunity,” said Parkinson. “I also don’t believe that we should be suppressing freedom of speech. I think that, just as we allow Rittenhouse here, other what would be deemed controversial speakers, those that may be African American or others, should be allowed as well.”

I believe Parkinson spoke those words during the initial protest of Rittenhouse's speaking engagement and I agree with him. Rittenhouse was not "stopped from talking".

TPUSAs right to the first amendment on campus wasn't even the topic.

I might not like what they preach, but I damn sure won't try to stop them. FIRE wouldn't either. https://www.thefire.org/news/drake-stud ... -views-not

[SallyMae]

[WellPreserved]

I LOVE "Adam Ruins Everything" as his show simply explains complex issues by the people who are in the know!

In watching the video, I'm struck by how gun rights for Black Americans dovetails with BLM Movement rather than counter to it.

[Della]

Oh, Saint Ronnie. The beginning of what turned into MAGA.

[Della]

When it comes to Charlie Kirk- I don’t know much, if anything about him other than a few 10 second videos of him talking as I scroll Facebook videos, to which I paid little attention… so I’m fully willing to learn more about TPUSA and what allegations of racism have been suggested. If he was lambasting MLK I would be disgusted by that…


As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, the shootout between him and the other White people shouldn’t have anything to do with remembering what Black Lives Matter was or what they were about…maybe he feels as though the altercation was presented in a false view by the BLM official organization and he wanted to address that…either way, I don’t think that aspect should be getting attention anymore. I get it, that’s his fault for putting it in the title…


But at some point, somehow- there should definitely be a conversation about the second amendment and the way our political power structure continues to keep that right away from a disproportionate amount of Black people.

You know next to nothing about Charlie Kirk and TPUSA? Incredible!

It should be studied how often what you say out of spite goes against your own goals …

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[Slimshandy]

You know next to nothing about Charlie Kirk and TPUSA? Incredible!

It should be studied how often what you say out of spite goes against your own goals …

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

That wasn’t advice.