ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,094
Location: Long Island, New York
05 Jan 2021, 7:23 pm
05 Jan 2021, 8:29 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
Yep. The types who say “who is your supervisor? Let me talk to (her/him)—over something extremely petty.
If I am being gang-stalked harassed, in-store, I will talk to the manager about you.
Just call me 'Karen'.
05 Jan 2021, 8:51 pm
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
She does not look unambiguously white. She is unambiguously an as*hole who probably has an assault conviction and another DUI conviction in her future.
My point is the alcohol mean't she acted without a filter on base instinct. Drunk racists are still racist.
I am not sure that is correct.
You may know that I have studied psychology, casually, for a long time.
It has become clear to me that we tend to have "Tribalism Instincts" imbedded in our genetic coding.
"Blame the evolutionary process."
Using Freud's paradigm:
Ego, super-ego, Id.
Alcohol encourages emotionalism and diminishes our rational thought processes.
The 'Super-ego' is our moral compass but tends to go on vacation when someone is inebriated.
Quote:
The superego is the moral compass of the personality, upholding a sense of right and wrong. These values are initially learned from one's parents. ... The ego ideal, or ideal self, includes the rules and standards of good behavior one should adhere to. If one is successful in doing so, it leads to feelings of pride.Feb 28, 2019
Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego Explained - ThoughtCo
Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego Explained - ThoughtCo
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... al+compass
Contrary to popular belief, god stuffed up big time. [irony, since I am a hardcore atheist]
Some people seem to think that we are inherently moral on a genetic level.
While this can be the case, to some degree, much of our morality comes from childhood conditioning and the fear of social retribution.
The book: "Lord of the Flies" has its primary theme about this.
"Scratch the surface of civilisation and you will find a savage, looking back out at you." [paraphrasing]
For most, it is a case of managing the beast within.
Sanctimonious people choose not to consider this.
I am not calling you sanctimonious, btw.
I think you, like many others, are simply ignorant about the dynamics involved.
05 Jan 2021, 9:02 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She asked all the pepple in hotel lobby to empty their pockets before settling on the only black person in the hotel which suggests she has a "Becky" Brain.
Are you saying she *first* ask non-blacks to empty their pockets?
Yes and then she proceeded to attack the only non-white person in the lobby
So she was suspicious of non-blacks first?
Wouldn't that suggest she is racist *against* whites?
Did they comply with her wishes?
Presumably, some did not.
So, you are saying she didn't attack the non-complying non-blacks but did attack the non-complying black child?
While you can't attack anyone, in a situation like this, wasn't the "problem" that the black child had a similar-looking phone?
What would have happened if a non-black individual had a similar phone and not allowed the Puerto Rican woman to inspect it?
An interesting, but confusing situation.
Perhaps I should make my life easier, here, and simply jump to conclusions.
05 Jan 2021, 9:06 pm
05 Jan 2021, 9:08 pm
05 Jan 2021, 10:24 pm
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She asked all the pepple in hotel lobby to empty their pockets before settling on the only black person in the hotel which suggests she has a "Becky" Brain.
Are you saying she *first* ask non-blacks to empty their pockets?
Yes and then she proceeded to attack the only non-white person in the lobby
So she was suspicious of non-blacks first?
Wouldn't that suggest she is racist *against* whites?
Did they comply with her wishes?
Presumably, some did not.
So, you are saying she didn't attack the non-complying non-blacks but did attack the non-complying black child?
While you can't attack anyone, in a situation like this, wasn't the "problem" that the black child had a similar-looking phone?
What would have happened if a non-black individual had a similar phone and not allowed the Puerto Rican woman to inspect it?
An interesting, but confusing situation.
Perhaps I should make my life easier, here, and simply jump to conclusions.
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.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,094
Location: Long Island, New York
05 Jan 2021, 10:49 pm
05 Jan 2021, 11:01 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She asked all the pepple in hotel lobby to empty their pockets before settling on the only black person in the hotel which suggests she has a "Becky" Brain.
Are you saying she *first* ask non-blacks to empty their pockets?
Yes and then she proceeded to attack the only non-white person in the lobby
So she was suspicious of non-blacks first?
Wouldn't that suggest she is racist *against* whites?
Did they comply with her wishes?
Presumably, some did not.
So, you are saying she didn't attack the non-complying non-blacks but did attack the non-complying black child?
While you can't attack anyone, in a situation like this, wasn't the "problem" that the black child had a similar-looking phone?
What would have happened if a non-black individual had a similar phone and not allowed the Puerto Rican woman to inspect it?
An interesting, but confusing situation.
Perhaps I should make my life easier, here, and simply jump to conclusions.
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).
I would have thought virtue-signalling good feelings, was the motivation.
Sanctimony, self-righteousness and virtue signalling affects the chemicals in the brain, as do feelings of 'love' which creates the 'love-drug' oxytocin.
I have read it is addictive, also.
It is akin to a junkie addiction, based on my assessment.
It also divorces people from rational thinking and embraces the warm and fuzzy emotional highs.
I.E. The usual.
Brictoria wrote:
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.
A rational investigative approach?
Preposterous!
We will have none of that, if you don't mind.
05 Jan 2021, 11:10 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Nearly 100K people sign petition to arrest ‘Soho Karen’
Quote:
More than 98,000 people have signed an online petition calling for the arrest of “Soho Karen” Miya Ponsetto after her viral rant falsely accusing a black teenager of stealing her iPhone.
The petition, posted by Ben Crump, a prominent civil rights lawyer representing the family of Keyon Harrold Jr., comes as calls grow for Manhattan prosecutors to charge Ponsetto in the Dec. 26 incident at a Soho hotel.
“Keyon Harrold Jr. will live with this trauma for life, the weight of racism on the shoulders of another generation,” Crump wrote online. “He deserves better than this treatment!”
The petition seeks 200,000 signatures.
Protesters this weekend also gathered outside a police station in Los Angeles, where Ponsetto is now laying low, calling for her arrest in New York over the incident.
The petition, posted by Ben Crump, a prominent civil rights lawyer representing the family of Keyon Harrold Jr., comes as calls grow for Manhattan prosecutors to charge Ponsetto in the Dec. 26 incident at a Soho hotel.
“Keyon Harrold Jr. will live with this trauma for life, the weight of racism on the shoulders of another generation,” Crump wrote online. “He deserves better than this treatment!”
The petition seeks 200,000 signatures.
Protesters this weekend also gathered outside a police station in Los Angeles, where Ponsetto is now laying low, calling for her arrest in New York over the incident.
And the virtue-signalling mob is hunting its prey!
Let loose the hounds of sanctimony! [woof!]
Who will be the next victim to satisfy the chemical needs of the afflicted?
BTW, I am not defending Soho Karen.
I am merely pointing out human nature at prey play.
Hear ye, hear ye.
Come one, come all.
Cabbages and tomatoes, at twice the usual price, will be found at the foyer entrance.
05 Jan 2021, 11:34 pm
06 Jan 2021, 1:12 pm
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.
06 Jan 2021, 6:27 pm
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.
06 Jan 2021, 6:47 pm
06 Jan 2021, 6:52 pm
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,094
Location: Long Island, New York
06 Jan 2021, 8:50 pm
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
I did not use them because all of them combined probably are not used as much as “Karen” at least recently. I have not heard somebody widely described as something like Soho Gus. Besides if you are going to bring up a random male name that is a slur “Dick” is the one to use
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| NYC Comptroller arrested during immigration incident |
17 Jun 2025, 3:06 pm |
| Trump admin eyes arrests for House Dems over ICE incident |
19 May 2025, 8:18 pm |
