06 Jan 2021, 9:05 pm
06 Jan 2021, 9:08 pm
06 Jan 2021, 9:11 pm
06 Jan 2021, 9:21 pm
uncommondenominator wrote:
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.
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
Had there been any claim by myself that she wasn't at fault?
Brictoria wrote:
This appears to be an interesting case...Based on what I have seen of the footage, it appears fairly likely that she assaulted the youth, and will possibly be charged for this (also, potentially "unlawful arrest\imprisonment" related to the "he's not leaving. show me the proof" remark she made and attempts to stop him leaving).
(There was also a later mention in the post regarding her possibly also being liable to be charged for "attempted robbery", based on Nate Broady's video which I had linked in the post and which I hadn't consired when first viewing the footage).
The point I was making (and which was either ignored or not understood) is that there was nothing in the footage to indicate that the actions had anything to do with the race of those involved, yet there is a certain type of person who, instead of looking at events as they occurred, simply focus on the race of those involved, and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs.
At this point in time there is nothing in the footage (words or actions) to indicate that the race of the child involved had any bearing on the events that occurred (In fact, another poster here mentioned that the assailant had asked everybody to empty their pockets before approaching the child as she did). The only race related "evidence" for the event having a "racist" cause is coming from those who imagine that every person of a given race will automatically react to\treat others of a different race in a set way:
Quote:
racism rā′sĭz″əm►
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/racism (The first result returned on DDG)
Based on this definition, there does not appear to be any evidence in the footage of the event to show that the assailant had a racial motive behind their actions. However, those who state there was, using no evidence other than their personal opinions of thsoe involved based on those people's races ARE demonstrating a prejudice regarding those invoved based on their race and that certain race(s) are inferior to other (and by extension, others are "superior" to them) through their personal assumptions regarding people's motives, meeting the definition of racism.
I would even suggest that the racist who claims something happened (with no supporting evidence) because of the race of those involved is even more insidious that the racist who makes their racial intentions clear because their actions undermine the efforts of others to bring about MLK's dream that people be "judged by the content of their character, not on the colour of their skin" by putting forward a narrative (based on their internal prejudices rather than available evidence) that the only way an event can be considered is through "race", and that those of given race(s) will always act in a set way towards those of a different given race.
Not every person of race "x" will act in a negative way towards a person of race "y" - only a minority will do this (the overt racist) - however the covert racist will (based on their opinion of\prejudiecs regarding various races) continually assert that anything negative happening to a peron of race "y" by someone of race "x" (or simply a person not of race "y") is automatically racist, relying on nothing more than their internal prejudice to support their assertions.
As an example, in this case we have a person of race "x" who has misplaced her mobile telephone. According to another poster here, she asked everyone present to opne their pockets so that she could confirm they did not have it. Following this, looking at the footage objectively, she saw a child with a phone and requested he show her it, so she could determine whether it was (or was not) hers. The child and his parent declined to do so, which led to the altercation and potential charges she may face such as assault, "false improsonment", and robbery. At no point was there any indication (through words or action) that the race of the child was a factor, with it appearing to have been caused by a lost phone, seeing someone with a phone, and that person refusing to show it to her so she could verify whether it was hers or not...There is nothing in the interaction to suggest she would have acted differently had the child been of the same race as she was, so the only evdence of "racism" present is that which an observer desires to project onto those involved.
06 Jan 2021, 9:29 pm
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
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.
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
Had there been any claim by myself that she wasn't at fault?
Brictoria wrote:
This appears to be an interesting case...Based on what I have seen of the footage, it appears fairly likely that she assaulted the youth, and will possibly be charged for this (also, potentially "unlawful arrest\imprisonment" related to the "he's not leaving. show me the proof" remark she made and attempts to stop him leaving).
(There was also a later mention in the post regarding her possibly also being liable to be charged for "attempted robbery", based on Nate Broady's video which I had linked in the post and which I hadn't consired when first viewing the footage).
The point I was making (and which was either ignored or not understood) is that there was nothing in the footage to indicate that the actions had anything to do with the race of those involved, yet there is a certain type of person who, instead of looking at events as they occurred, simply focus on the race of those involved, and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs.
At this point in time there is nothing in the footage (words or actions) to indicate that the race of the child involved had any bearing on the events that occurred (In fact, another poster here mentioned that the assailant had asked everybody to empty their pockets before approaching the child as she did). The only race related "evidence" for the event having a "racist" cause is coming from those who imagine that every person of a given race will automatically react to\treat others of a different race in a set way:
Quote:
racism rā′sĭz″əm►
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/racism (The first result returned on DDG)
Based on this definition, there does not appear to be any evidence in the footage of the event to show that the assailant had a racial motive behind their actions. However, those who state there was, using no evidence other than their personal opinions of thsoe involved based on those people's races ARE demonstrating a prejudice regarding those invoved based on their race and that certain race(s) are inferior to other (and by extension, others are "superior" to them) through their personal assumptions regarding people's motives, meeting the definition of racism.
I would even suggest that the racist who claims something happened (with no supporting evidence) because of the race of those involved is even more insidious that the racist who makes their racial intentions clear because their actions undermine the efforts of others to bring about MLK's dream that people be "judged by the content of their character, not on the colour of their skin" by putting forward a narrative (based on their internal prejudices rather than available evidence) that the only way an event can be considered is through "race", and that those of given race(s) will always act in a set way towards those of a different given race.
Not every person of race "x" will act in a negative way towards a person of race "y" - only a minority will do this (the overt racist) - however the covert racist will (based on their opinion of\prejudiecs regarding various races) continually assert that anything negative happening to a peron of race "y" by someone of race "x" (or simply a person not of race "y") is automatically racist, relying on nothing more than their internal prejudice to support their assertions.
As an example, in this case we have a person of race "x" who has misplaced her mobile telephone. According to another poster here, she asked everyone present to opne their pockets so that she could confirm they did not have it. Following this, looking at the footage objectively, she saw a child with a phone and requested he show her it, so she could determine whether it was (or was not) hers. The child and his parent declined to do so, which led to the altercation and potential charges she may face such as assault, "false improsonment", and robbery. At no point was there any indication (through words or action) that the race of the child was a factor, with it appearing to have been caused by a lost phone, seeing someone with a phone, and that person refusing to show it to her so she could verify whether it was hers or not...There is nothing in the interaction to suggest she would have acted differently had the child been of the same race as she was, so the only evdence of "racism" present is that which an observer desires to project onto those involved.
What would be evidence that it was racist? Why did she single out that person? Do you think she would have had the same reaction if it was a white woman carrying an iPhone?
06 Jan 2021, 9:47 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
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.
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
Had there been any claim by myself that she wasn't at fault?
Brictoria wrote:
This appears to be an interesting case...Based on what I have seen of the footage, it appears fairly likely that she assaulted the youth, and will possibly be charged for this (also, potentially "unlawful arrest\imprisonment" related to the "he's not leaving. show me the proof" remark she made and attempts to stop him leaving).
(There was also a later mention in the post regarding her possibly also being liable to be charged for "attempted robbery", based on Nate Broady's video which I had linked in the post and which I hadn't consired when first viewing the footage).
The point I was making (and which was either ignored or not understood) is that there was nothing in the footage to indicate that the actions had anything to do with the race of those involved, yet there is a certain type of person who, instead of looking at events as they occurred, simply focus on the race of those involved, and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs.
At this point in time there is nothing in the footage (words or actions) to indicate that the race of the child involved had any bearing on the events that occurred (In fact, another poster here mentioned that the assailant had asked everybody to empty their pockets before approaching the child as she did). The only race related "evidence" for the event having a "racist" cause is coming from those who imagine that every person of a given race will automatically react to\treat others of a different race in a set way:
Quote:
racism rā′sĭz″əm►
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/racism (The first result returned on DDG)
Based on this definition, there does not appear to be any evidence in the footage of the event to show that the assailant had a racial motive behind their actions. However, those who state there was, using no evidence other than their personal opinions of thsoe involved based on those people's races ARE demonstrating a prejudice regarding those invoved based on their race and that certain race(s) are inferior to other (and by extension, others are "superior" to them) through their personal assumptions regarding people's motives, meeting the definition of racism.
I would even suggest that the racist who claims something happened (with no supporting evidence) because of the race of those involved is even more insidious that the racist who makes their racial intentions clear because their actions undermine the efforts of others to bring about MLK's dream that people be "judged by the content of their character, not on the colour of their skin" by putting forward a narrative (based on their internal prejudices rather than available evidence) that the only way an event can be considered is through "race", and that those of given race(s) will always act in a set way towards those of a different given race.
Not every person of race "x" will act in a negative way towards a person of race "y" - only a minority will do this (the overt racist) - however the covert racist will (based on their opinion of\prejudiecs regarding various races) continually assert that anything negative happening to a peron of race "y" by someone of race "x" (or simply a person not of race "y") is automatically racist, relying on nothing more than their internal prejudice to support their assertions.
As an example, in this case we have a person of race "x" who has misplaced her mobile telephone. According to another poster here, she asked everyone present to opne their pockets so that she could confirm they did not have it. Following this, looking at the footage objectively, she saw a child with a phone and requested he show her it, so she could determine whether it was (or was not) hers. The child and his parent declined to do so, which led to the altercation and potential charges she may face such as assault, "false improsonment", and robbery. At no point was there any indication (through words or action) that the race of the child was a factor, with it appearing to have been caused by a lost phone, seeing someone with a phone, and that person refusing to show it to her so she could verify whether it was hers or not...There is nothing in the interaction to suggest she would have acted differently had the child been of the same race as she was, so the only evdence of "racism" present is that which an observer desires to project onto those involved.
What would be evidence that it was racist? Why did she single out that person? Do you think she would have had the same reaction if it was a white woman carrying an iPhone?
A starting point would be whether she immediately focussed on a person which would indicate there was something specific to that person (over all others present), or instead asked everyone present, later focussing on a given person either because they were the only person who had not responded, or because there was a visible reason to focus on them (such as holding a device which appeared to be that which was being looked for). Similarly, the language used - was the focus related to a person's race\other characteristic, or simply to the object being searched for - gives an indication on the focus of the person involved.
The sad part of the entire incident is that it could have easily been resolved had the "manager" present (as an impartial third party) been permitted to see the device, and so confirm the ownership of the device (either through the act of the child being able to unlock the screen, or through seeing the "wallpaper"\background image and showing it did not match the description she provided of what she had on hers - Her apparent attachment to the device\dependency on it would suggest she has likely "personalised" hers with a favourite picture).
06 Jan 2021, 9:50 pm
06 Jan 2021, 9:57 pm
06 Jan 2021, 10:05 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
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.
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
Had there been any claim by myself that she wasn't at fault?
Brictoria wrote:
This appears to be an interesting case...Based on what I have seen of the footage, it appears fairly likely that she assaulted the youth, and will possibly be charged for this (also, potentially "unlawful arrest\imprisonment" related to the "he's not leaving. show me the proof" remark she made and attempts to stop him leaving).
(There was also a later mention in the post regarding her possibly also being liable to be charged for "attempted robbery", based on Nate Broady's video which I had linked in the post and which I hadn't consired when first viewing the footage).
The point I was making (and which was either ignored or not understood) is that there was nothing in the footage to indicate that the actions had anything to do with the race of those involved, yet there is a certain type of person who, instead of looking at events as they occurred, simply focus on the race of those involved, and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs.
At this point in time there is nothing in the footage (words or actions) to indicate that the race of the child involved had any bearing on the events that occurred (In fact, another poster here mentioned that the assailant had asked everybody to empty their pockets before approaching the child as she did). The only race related "evidence" for the event having a "racist" cause is coming from those who imagine that every person of a given race will automatically react to\treat others of a different race in a set way:
Quote:
racism rā′sĭz″əm►
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/racism (The first result returned on DDG)
Based on this definition, there does not appear to be any evidence in the footage of the event to show that the assailant had a racial motive behind their actions. However, those who state there was, using no evidence other than their personal opinions of thsoe involved based on those people's races ARE demonstrating a prejudice regarding those invoved based on their race and that certain race(s) are inferior to other (and by extension, others are "superior" to them) through their personal assumptions regarding people's motives, meeting the definition of racism.
I would even suggest that the racist who claims something happened (with no supporting evidence) because of the race of those involved is even more insidious that the racist who makes their racial intentions clear because their actions undermine the efforts of others to bring about MLK's dream that people be "judged by the content of their character, not on the colour of their skin" by putting forward a narrative (based on their internal prejudices rather than available evidence) that the only way an event can be considered is through "race", and that those of given race(s) will always act in a set way towards those of a different given race.
Not every person of race "x" will act in a negative way towards a person of race "y" - only a minority will do this (the overt racist) - however the covert racist will (based on their opinion of\prejudiecs regarding various races) continually assert that anything negative happening to a peron of race "y" by someone of race "x" (or simply a person not of race "y") is automatically racist, relying on nothing more than their internal prejudice to support their assertions.
As an example, in this case we have a person of race "x" who has misplaced her mobile telephone. According to another poster here, she asked everyone present to opne their pockets so that she could confirm they did not have it. Following this, looking at the footage objectively, she saw a child with a phone and requested he show her it, so she could determine whether it was (or was not) hers. The child and his parent declined to do so, which led to the altercation and potential charges she may face such as assault, "false improsonment", and robbery. At no point was there any indication (through words or action) that the race of the child was a factor, with it appearing to have been caused by a lost phone, seeing someone with a phone, and that person refusing to show it to her so she could verify whether it was hers or not...There is nothing in the interaction to suggest she would have acted differently had the child been of the same race as she was, so the only evdence of "racism" present is that which an observer desires to project onto those involved.
What would be evidence that it was racist? Why did she single out that person? Do you think she would have had the same reaction if it was a white woman carrying an iPhone?
A starting point would be whether she immediately focussed on a person which would indicate there was something specific to that person (over all others present), or instead asked everyone present, later focussing on a given person either because they were the only person who had not responded, or because there was a visible reason to focus on them (such as holding a device which appeared to be that which was being looked for). Similarly, the language used - was the focus related to a person's race\other characteristic, or simply to the object being searched for - gives an indication on the focus of the person involved.
The sad part of the entire incident is that it could have easily been resolved had the "manager" present (as an impartial third party) been permitted to see the device, and so confirm the ownership of the device (either through the act of the child being able to unlock the screen, or through seeing the "wallpaper"\background image and showing it did not match the description she provided of what she had on hers - Her apparent attachment to the device\dependency on it would suggest she has likely "personalised" hers with a favourite picture).
Perhaps the people evaluating the incident have more information than in the video. You are assuming that the video is the only evidence. It is just the news story. Racism does not need to be explicit to be racist.
06 Jan 2021, 10:13 pm
06 Jan 2021, 11:01 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
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.
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
Had there been any claim by myself that she wasn't at fault?
Brictoria wrote:
This appears to be an interesting case...Based on what I have seen of the footage, it appears fairly likely that she assaulted the youth, and will possibly be charged for this (also, potentially "unlawful arrest\imprisonment" related to the "he's not leaving. show me the proof" remark she made and attempts to stop him leaving).
(There was also a later mention in the post regarding her possibly also being liable to be charged for "attempted robbery", based on Nate Broady's video which I had linked in the post and which I hadn't consired when first viewing the footage).
The point I was making (and which was either ignored or not understood) is that there was nothing in the footage to indicate that the actions had anything to do with the race of those involved, yet there is a certain type of person who, instead of looking at events as they occurred, simply focus on the race of those involved, and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs.
At this point in time there is nothing in the footage (words or actions) to indicate that the race of the child involved had any bearing on the events that occurred (In fact, another poster here mentioned that the assailant had asked everybody to empty their pockets before approaching the child as she did). The only race related "evidence" for the event having a "racist" cause is coming from those who imagine that every person of a given race will automatically react to\treat others of a different race in a set way:
Quote:
racism rā′sĭz″əm►
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/racism (The first result returned on DDG)
Based on this definition, there does not appear to be any evidence in the footage of the event to show that the assailant had a racial motive behind their actions. However, those who state there was, using no evidence other than their personal opinions of thsoe involved based on those people's races ARE demonstrating a prejudice regarding those invoved based on their race and that certain race(s) are inferior to other (and by extension, others are "superior" to them) through their personal assumptions regarding people's motives, meeting the definition of racism.
I would even suggest that the racist who claims something happened (with no supporting evidence) because of the race of those involved is even more insidious that the racist who makes their racial intentions clear because their actions undermine the efforts of others to bring about MLK's dream that people be "judged by the content of their character, not on the colour of their skin" by putting forward a narrative (based on their internal prejudices rather than available evidence) that the only way an event can be considered is through "race", and that those of given race(s) will always act in a set way towards those of a different given race.
Not every person of race "x" will act in a negative way towards a person of race "y" - only a minority will do this (the overt racist) - however the covert racist will (based on their opinion of\prejudiecs regarding various races) continually assert that anything negative happening to a peron of race "y" by someone of race "x" (or simply a person not of race "y") is automatically racist, relying on nothing more than their internal prejudice to support their assertions.
As an example, in this case we have a person of race "x" who has misplaced her mobile telephone. According to another poster here, she asked everyone present to opne their pockets so that she could confirm they did not have it. Following this, looking at the footage objectively, she saw a child with a phone and requested he show her it, so she could determine whether it was (or was not) hers. The child and his parent declined to do so, which led to the altercation and potential charges she may face such as assault, "false improsonment", and robbery. At no point was there any indication (through words or action) that the race of the child was a factor, with it appearing to have been caused by a lost phone, seeing someone with a phone, and that person refusing to show it to her so she could verify whether it was hers or not...There is nothing in the interaction to suggest she would have acted differently had the child been of the same race as she was, so the only evdence of "racism" present is that which an observer desires to project onto those involved.
What would be evidence that it was racist? Why did she single out that person? Do you think she would have had the same reaction if it was a white woman carrying an iPhone?
A starting point would be whether she immediately focussed on a person which would indicate there was something specific to that person (over all others present), or instead asked everyone present, later focussing on a given person either because they were the only person who had not responded, or because there was a visible reason to focus on them (such as holding a device which appeared to be that which was being looked for). Similarly, the language used - was the focus related to a person's race\other characteristic, or simply to the object being searched for - gives an indication on the focus of the person involved.
The sad part of the entire incident is that it could have easily been resolved had the "manager" present (as an impartial third party) been permitted to see the device, and so confirm the ownership of the device (either through the act of the child being able to unlock the screen, or through seeing the "wallpaper"\background image and showing it did not match the description she provided of what she had on hers - Her apparent attachment to the device\dependency on it would suggest she has likely "personalised" hers with a favourite picture).
Perhaps the people evaluating the incident have more information than in the video. You are assuming that the video is the only evidence. It is just the news story. Racism does not need to be explicit to be racist.
I agree with this (the lack of any supporting evidence for claims of it being a "racist" event has been the point I have mentioned several times)...It is possible that there was racism involved, but as yet, and specifically at the time the claims were made, no evidence has been produced to support this assertion.
The point I am trying to make (however imperfectly) is that both targetting a person because of their race (which is what is being insinuated as the cause of this altercation) and making claims about a persons actions simply due to their race (or that of another person involved) with no evidence to support the claims are examples of racism: In both, the racist is demonstrating a prejudice (either for or against) one person because of their race, over others of a different race. It doesn't matter if the person shares a similar race to those who they accuse of racism, the act of ascribing an intent, with no supporting evidence at the time of the claim, simply because of the race of a person (or persons) involved, is a racist act. In both cases, the racist is demonstrating their belief that race accounts for differences in human character, and as such that a person's actions are a result of their race (or that of others) rather than any conscious choice\decision on that person's part.
06 Jan 2021, 11:25 pm
06 Jan 2021, 11:29 pm
07 Jan 2021, 1:22 am
07 Jan 2021, 1:26 am
07 Jan 2021, 1:28 am
| 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 |
