Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

Feeling threatened by "i will do something about that" is not a normal reaction and people trying to defend racism is gross.

Mental illnesses don't cause people to be racist but they sure can expose their racism. It just takes of their veils.

"I will do something about that" is not what was said, though...

"I will do what I want and you may not like it" was what was said, which has a very different connotation. Again, we also don't know the tone used, or the demeanour being exhibited by the person who said it either.

My guess: She doesn't plead guilty, challenges the charge, and gets out "not guilty", due to the perceived threat made against her. I'd also suggest it will be an issue in the case where the prosecutors will claim racist intent and this will be shown to not have been present.

Edit: I'd also suggest that claiming\implying a person is "racist" due to their race (as was the case here) indicates a "racist" mentatlity in those making the claim. I'm certain that, were the roles reversed, no-one would have cared about the "racism" in a PoC female reporting a "white" man in similar circumstances...

The allegation that "something she wouldn't like" was he would throw dog biscuits turns out to be false, it pertains to Christian Cooper filming Amy Cooper as the act he was referring to. That's why the police said he did nothing wrong.

Unless you know something that the police missed?

Last edited by cyberdad on 11 Jul 2020, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Where did I mention race in my post?? are you trying to invoke Godwin's law?

I was trying to interpret why the police charged Amy Cooper. If you read my post I suggest she has suffered enough and suspect no further action will be taken but ultimately that's left up to the court.

Last edited by cyberdad on 11 Jul 2020, 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

And yet its the police who charged Amy Cooper with making a false report not any SJWs. Please try and stick to facts rather than go out on a limb to defend the alleged perpetrator.

Still a bigger issue if that is percieved as a threat.



People always love to claim reverse racism to justify racism and pretend it doesn't exist.

It would be justified because black people have always been oppressed do how are they going to know you aren't just an a**hole who is randomly threatening them?

Is it bigotry if an autistic person assumes they got singled out because they are autistic?

Look at The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Wolf had been called way too many times for centuries on the minority so of course they are justified in thinking they are dealing with racism just like we are justified to assume we are dealing with ableism.

I would still need to see sources where a black person has called the cops on a white person for no reason.

The name "Jussie Smollet" came to mind, but turns out it wasn't a white person after all...

He hired two men to stage a hate crime so this is unrelated to what we are talking about.

I knew you were going to mention something unrelated. It always happens.

You DID ask for an example of a black person calling the cops on a white person for no reason, which was EXACTLY what he did...The fact that the "white person" didn't exist doesn't change the facts regarding what he did.

He said, "I am going to do something that you won't like".

I would of told him, "No one wants to see your weenie".

It's almost like white people aren't often stereotyped as criminals, threatening and prone to criminal behaviour. I know you believe you're 'thinking critically' but all you're really doing is ignoring context.

The lady should have said the “weenie” thing—instead of being all Karen about the whole thing.....

Why would applying a dictionary definition of a threat imply a bigger issue. Dictionary definition of a threat is "if you do X I will do Y". The statement "if you don't leash the dog I will do something you might not like" fits that definition perfectly. So why would one have to have a "bigger issue" in order to use that dictionary definition?


This argument goes both ways though:

Anti-black racism:

1a) Blacks are statistically more prone to crime

1b) Thats why blacks end up being stereotyped as criminals

1c) This is unfair because there are black "individuals" that are not criminals and its not their fault that a lot of other people of their race are.

Anti-white racism:

2a) Whites had a history of discrimination against blacks

2b) Thats why whites are stereotyped as being racist against blacks

2c) This is unfair because there are white "individuals" that are not racist against blacks and its not their fault that a lot of other people of their race are.

As a side note, its not true that whites are more racist than others. In fact, the opposite is far more likely to be the case. For example, in Mediteranian, Indian and Japanese cultures its very much the norm to stick to one's group. In western culture, on the other hand, assimilation is encouraged due to the modernization. I don't know how the western culture would compare to other cultures back in the 17-th century, but at least right now in the 21-st century the western culture is far more influenced by modernization than the others and, therefore, its one of the least racist ones.

I think the historical record of White racism is not due to actual racist *beliefs* but rather its due to the *power* to enforce them. If, for example, people in India decided to bring a bunch of European slaves, they wouldn't have power to do it since Europeans had better developed weapons. But when Americans decided to bring slaves from Africa, they easily could. That doesn't mean Americans are more racist than people in India. It just means they had more physical power (in a form of technology) to "enforce" their racism.

The guy admitted he carries dog biscuits around so he can do this to people.

So, he planned to do this before he even met her.

According to social psychology your premise is false so the remainder of your argument is therefore invalid.

Racism requires a position of social power. Even in countries where white people are subject to non-white political power such as South Africa, they hold economic power and by proxy social power.

So while anti-black racism is plausible, the opposite is not.

You avoided my point the police considered this was not a criminal act. I'll repeat what I said, please demonstrate something the criminal-justice system is unaware of? how would you persuade the police this is a criminal act? of course you know you can't.