08 Jan 2021, 10:25 pm
cyberdad wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Y'know, since names tend to be either male or female as a convention, though unisex names exist, any meme or social reference is likely based on a male or female name. Does that mean calling someone a Benedict Arnold is a sexist term, since it's a MAN'S name? Or how about saying someone got Borked, is that sexist since it's named after a fella named Bork? Arnold and Bork were both white, so does that make them racist terms, too? What about the term "ugly betty"? Or "Negative Nancy"? Or all the other memes about Good Guy Gus, or Bad Luck Brett or w/e names they were given? "Bye Felicia".
Seems like people tend to pick and choose what to be offended at. I know people actually named karen that aren't offended by the karen meme.
So what if everyone overreacts at minor things at some point? Even *if* true, that doesn't make it acceptable. Guess that means everyone is a karen at some point in their life. Oh well.
Just cos "some people" might subvert a term to their ends doesn't mean one has to help perpetuate it, rather than simply know and understand and accept it's original meaning as intended. Just cos the flag moves doesn't mean one has to move with it. "Karen" means overreacting person. Any gender, any race, any age, any class, can be one.
Anyone can act entitled - but some people have raised it to an art form. Don't wanna be made famous for acting a fool? Don't act a fool. Don't want people to think you're the type of lunatic that would attack a kid? Don't attack a kid. But - in soho karen's case - you don't get to claim you're not the type to do a thing that we literally watched a video of you actually doing. "That's not who I am!" But you did it, so... You don't get to claim "I wasn't me!" any time you do something nasty, in order to get a mulligan on the consequences.
Seems like people tend to pick and choose what to be offended at. I know people actually named karen that aren't offended by the karen meme.
So what if everyone overreacts at minor things at some point? Even *if* true, that doesn't make it acceptable. Guess that means everyone is a karen at some point in their life. Oh well.
Just cos "some people" might subvert a term to their ends doesn't mean one has to help perpetuate it, rather than simply know and understand and accept it's original meaning as intended. Just cos the flag moves doesn't mean one has to move with it. "Karen" means overreacting person. Any gender, any race, any age, any class, can be one.
Anyone can act entitled - but some people have raised it to an art form. Don't wanna be made famous for acting a fool? Don't act a fool. Don't want people to think you're the type of lunatic that would attack a kid? Don't attack a kid. But - in soho karen's case - you don't get to claim you're not the type to do a thing that we literally watched a video of you actually doing. "That's not who I am!" But you did it, so... You don't get to claim "I wasn't me!" any time you do something nasty, in order to get a mulligan on the consequences.
No comparison. Benedict Arnold was one specific historical figure, it is used a slur for a specific action being a traitor, Karen is a generic female name describing a personalty type.
I love how you cherry-picked ONE example, but utterly ignored all the others, like (ughly)Betty, (bye)Felicia, (goodguy)Gus, (badluck)Brad - and ANY of the other names that ARE just rando male / female names, that AREN'T related to a specific historical individual. If you're gonna compare, compare ALL of them, not just the easy one
Brictoria wrote:
It is concerning, the number of racists who seem to go out of their way to look for\suggest\infer a racial cause for any incident involving people of different races, when there is nothing other than the races of those involved on which they base their assumptions (ie: no racist language\terms used, no indication that the actions could\would have been different were the races of those involved different, etc.).
It would be interesting to know if this is because they see certain races as "inferior" to others and so in need of "protection" from those of races which they feel are "superior", or whether it is because they instead feel superior to those of all other races and so feel the need to "compensate" for this (or to demonstrate it), by "helping" those they see as beneath them (potentially as a form of contrition\penance for the "guilt" they feel regarding their personal "superiority", or maybe as a form of "charity" to the "unfortunates" of these other races).
On a related note, I found the video by Nate Broady which I linked earlier related to this situation to be quite a good one, as he ignores the races of those involved in the interaction regarding the phone, and simply looks at the events (and words used) as they occurred...Treating those involved as individual people and looking at what they actually said\did, not adding in fantasies about what some people want to have happened\been the cause for the actions taken.
Cool story. Sure used an awful lot of words just to say "no, YOU'RE the racist one, maybe, in this imaginary hypothetical I've invented here!"
On a related note, even if you remove race, soho karen is still in the wrong.
On a side note, sure feels like people are moving on from "nazis aren't real" to "racism isn't real (unless I can accuse YOU of it)" - I guess the Thought Police are stepping it up a notch, and the Ministry of Facts is holding more meetings of what is or isn't real - like nazis fascists and racism, which are fake, except when The Left! does it, and then it's totally real
The really funny part is australians and americans both trying to hold the moral high ground, when both of them have race problems, and both of them try to act like there's totally no racism here! except reverse racism, of course...
Lets not forget, in 1960, in america, you could still legally discriminate against black people - and in australia, if you were a native First People, you couldn't even become a Citizen, and even when they finally could, they had to officially renounce their native culture, and if they were caught practicing they could have their citizenship revoked.
High horse, low bar.
Glad to see somebody else is exercising critical thought to nuetralise a brazen attempt at distorting what happened.
I did nothing of the kind.
I am all for anarchy. [joke!]
08 Jan 2021, 10:27 pm
League_Girl wrote:
I have once called a man out on being creepy with me when he was wanting to have sex with me in bed when he knew I already had a boyfriend. He said I was the one being creepy. What? This made zero sense. As this is, the reverse thing they do when they get called out on it. It's not supposed to make sense. Call someone out on being rude, don't be surprised when they tell you "No, you are the one being rude here." I call this gas lighting. This is what reverse racism is.
It makes you question yourself and if you are being too sensitive here and just wanting to see racism when there isn't any, gaslighting.
It makes you question yourself and if you are being too sensitive here and just wanting to see racism when there isn't any, gaslighting.
Confusing someone, deliberately, is one way to induce a hypnotic trance state.
Just sayin'.
08 Jan 2021, 10:27 pm
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
In keeping with the policy to out racists who are trying to hide their identity here's the little daring
Her name is Miya Ponsetto. She got caught being a racist.
Her name is Miya Ponsetto. She got caught being a racist.
She is too pretty to be a racist. JOKE!! ! ! ! ! ! !
She is actually a POC as Funeralempire mentioned so I retract her labelling her white. Her mother is Vietnamese and father is Peurto-rican/hispanic. However there's still a case for her racial profiling as i) she is non-black and ii) both of her parent's immigrant communities have a history of being anti-black.
What the court has to decide is what the civil rights lawyer defending the Harolds is making is that Ponsetto singled out the Harold's because they were black. I also find it strange the hotel manager isn't dragged into this since he initially took Ponsetto's side ignoring the other white guests in the lobby and focusing his suspicions on the Harolds. I also find it suspicious that Harold Sr had to be the one to seek information from the Uber driver who found Ponsetto's phone and there was no attempt by either Ponsetto or the hotel to contact the Harolds and apologise to them for the assault,
In my view the hotel manager is equally guilty as both he and Ponsetto knew they racially profiled. The old adage applies, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers, a bill and webbed feet then chances are it's a duck.
08 Jan 2021, 10:30 pm
08 Jan 2021, 10:33 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
In keeping with the policy to out racists who are trying to hide their identity here's the little daring
Her name is Miya Ponsetto. She got caught being a racist.
Her name is Miya Ponsetto. She got caught being a racist.
She is too pretty to be a racist. JOKE!! ! ! ! ! ! !
She is actually a POC as Funeralempire mentioned so I retract her labelling her white. Her mother is Vietnamese and father is Peurto-rican/hispanic. However there's still a case for her racial profiling as i) she is non-black and ii) both of her parent's immigrant communities have a history of being anti-black.
What the court has to decide is what the civil rights lawyer defending the Harolds is making is that Ponsetto singled out the Harold's because they were black. I also find it strange the hotel manager isn't dragged into this since he initially took Ponsetto's side ignoring the other white guests in the lobby and focusing his suspicions on the Harolds. I also find it suspicious that Harold Sr had to be the one to seek information from the Uber driver who found Ponsetto's phone and there was no attempt by either Ponsetto or the hotel to contact the Harolds and apologise to them for the assault,
In my view the hotel manager is equally guilty as both he and Ponsetto knew they racially profiled. The old adage applies, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers, a bill and webbed feet then chances are it's a duck.
I will wait for the verdict of the court, and then let our resident solicitor, Brictoria, give us an analysis.
Until then, I see it more a case of speculation, since I don't think anyone here has all the facts, yet.
08 Jan 2021, 10:34 pm
08 Jan 2021, 10:47 pm
09 Jan 2021, 7:13 am
10 Jan 2021, 1:18 am
11 Jan 2021, 8:44 pm
11 Jan 2021, 9:22 pm
11 Jan 2021, 9:50 pm
11 Jan 2021, 10:13 pm
11 Jan 2021, 10:16 pm
11 Jan 2021, 10:30 pm
11 Jan 2021, 11:15 pm
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The second was interesting, and was one which I hadn't considered previously as being a possibility.
It would seem self-evident to me.
https://www.pix11.com/news/local-news/s ... -teen-nypd
Well, being so "self-evident" to you, would you be able to point out where I missed you suggesting she should specifically be charged with this (The mention of a person's age in relation to potential assault charges is merely "aggravating factors" for the charge of assault, after all)...
Perhaps you should get your eyes checked Bric but the video is pretty clear that a 22 yr old Ponsetto physically tackled a 14 yr old boy to the ground without provocation. That's assault by an adult against a child (minor) in most countries. Not sure how you are finding ways to spin this one but it doesn't surprise me.
Here's an interesting video of Gale King slamming the teen for lying, especially about not racial profiling
You will notice she avoided answering the questions posed by Gale King by lying and twisting the facts presented in the video. Ponsetto in her frustration tells Gale to shutup
