The progressive reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal is hard to understand at face value. The facts of the case were well-documented and uncontroversial from the beginning — he wasn’t a counter-protestor, he didn’t do anything provocative, he retreated until retreat was no longer possible, and he never harmed anyone who wasn’t directly, explicitly, and immediately threatening his life. There’s no way of impeaching his conduct that doesn’t collapse in on itself when you apply the same standard to the people who attacked him.
> You can understand why an ordinary low-info voter would be furious about this verdict as filtered through the fascist school-shooter narrative — but the people who built that narrative don’t believe it, and they seem madder than anybody. Something he actually did — not what they said he did — makes them want this kid raped, tortured and executed.
I would somewhat quibble here: when talking about the narrative-builders, the question of what they "really believe" becomes complicated. The mechanics of narrative formation mean that the most rabid believers are socially advantaged, and so none of these people will ever admit that they don't believe what they're pushing. Rather, the psychological posture of such a person is to carefully cultivate and defend a "real belief" in the lie, and then avoid -- and tar as heretical -- any source of information that challenges it. (Thus the immediate, unanimous rightthink consensus that Judge Schroeder was biased/racist/etc.; this is the necessary conclusion for any rightthinker to come to when they see the judge upholding Kyle's rights as a defendant in the courtroom, because the narrative they construct in their head demands that the proceeding just be a rubber-stamp conviction.)
I think you're right about the analysis of the underlying issue, but it should be expected that almost no one who's pushing the rightthink narrative is explicitly duplicitous, or actually conceives of the situation in those terms.
I will be curious, as the details of Rittenhouse's inevitable billion-dollar suite of lawsuits emerge, to hear how the details of those cases integrate with what you have here. Will this be a further unveiling of the wicked dichotomy you're describing?
> You can understand why an ordinary low-info voter would be furious about this verdict as filtered through the fascist school-shooter narrative — but the people who built that narrative don’t believe it, and they seem madder than anybody. Something he actually did — not what they said he did — makes them want this kid raped, tortured and executed.
I would somewhat quibble here: when talking about the narrative-builders, the question of what they "really believe" becomes complicated. The mechanics of narrative formation mean that the most rabid believers are socially advantaged, and so none of these people will ever admit that they don't believe what they're pushing. Rather, the psychological posture of such a person is to carefully cultivate and defend a "real belief" in the lie, and then avoid -- and tar as heretical -- any source of information that challenges it. (Thus the immediate, unanimous rightthink consensus that Judge Schroeder was biased/racist/etc.; this is the necessary conclusion for any rightthinker to come to when they see the judge upholding Kyle's rights as a defendant in the courtroom, because the narrative they construct in their head demands that the proceeding just be a rubber-stamp conviction.)
I think you're right about the analysis of the underlying issue, but it should be expected that almost no one who's pushing the rightthink narrative is explicitly duplicitous, or actually conceives of the situation in those terms.
One of my favorite Frog articles from the last 3 years. Beautifully written, well done. This is a classic.
I will be curious, as the details of Rittenhouse's inevitable billion-dollar suite of lawsuits emerge, to hear how the details of those cases integrate with what you have here. Will this be a further unveiling of the wicked dichotomy you're describing?