Both sides is a way to make yourself feel smart without critically examining on a deeper level what those biases are, how widely they’re consumed, and how seriously they’re taken.
Anyone making the claim that his side is the side of truth and justice and the other side is the one of delusions and falsehoods is not looking for healing or reconciliation. He is in search of either total domination of the other side, or divorce, or worse.
The question is: do you think your side will be able to totally dominate the other side? Is it possible to totally dominate 75 million Americans who view your domination as something evil to be opposed, possibly violently?
It seems you're betting it is, and your side will pull it off.
Though I wonder: what is this confidence based upon?
Your side controls the institutions and the cities. What happens when the people outside the cities simply stop listening to what the cities and the institutions say? What happens when the media and academies and federal government can say whatever they like, but everyone outside the metropolises simply starts to ignore them and make their own rules?
This is the real problem with Balkanization: once the dialogue breaks down, everything else starts to break down after it.
Easiest illustration is that Rittenhouse fellow, a brave-ish kid standing for himself in one reality and a cold-blooded murderer in another.
Here is a really good summary from someone with two degress in criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4
The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports. It's not a crime to carry a weapoon across state lines. He also lived right on the state line and worked in Kenosha. It's not like he drove miles to shoot protestors in some city he has no affiliation to and portraying it like this is dishonest.
He also probably acted within self-defense as is covered in this part of the video I shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=648&v=dfAz851P8p4
For the record, I think what he did was reckless and dangerous, but the catalyst to this was the riots and looting. Right or wrong you'll find some people will react like this when they feel their neighbourhoods are under attack. You can't expect one group to be violent without some kind of push back from another. The same problem exists with antifa and BLM (not that these groups are a direct comparison). My point is these groups don't exist in a vaccum, they appear when they believe law enforcement and those in power are not doing a good enough job. You have to go a level deeper and ask why BLM protestors are on the street, and why are people are feeling the need to form militas in the first place? If you ignore the causes these events will continue to occur and likely escalate.
No, its clear. He was not defending his home or his business, he traveled 90 minutes by car to play soldier. It was not his neighborhood that was "under attack" and this wasn't self defense. He was not going about his life when someone threatened him, he went on a mission. He entered a dangerous area with a gun with full knowledge of the range of outcomes.
On the other hand, we have people that don't.
Clearly we need to listen to the Nazis and debate them in the marketplace of ideas. Is that somewhere in Narnia?
Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find any daylight between the news sources in the "Right" column and Trumpism.
Now I'm sure these ratings aren't perfect, but I believe they're more accurate than most people's hunches.
They describe how they come to a bias rating at https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method....
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
The issue is people only ever consuming one side.