05 Jul 2021, 7:43 pm
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Earlier this year, Miya Ponsetto earned herself the nickname “Soho Karen,” after a video showed her attacking a Black teenager, throwing him to the ground, and falsely accusing him of stealing her phone. While I, too, was hoping to never hear from this woman — who has referred to herself as a “22-year-old girl” — ever again, I have a bit of satisfying news: Ponsetto has been charged with a hate crime for the alleged physical assault and false accusation.
https://www.thecut.com/2021/07/miya-pon ... crime.html
Well that's 3:0 for cyberdad after correctly guessing charges against 1. Central park karen 2. Derek Chauvin and now 3. Soho Karen.
https://www.thecut.com/2021/07/miya-pon ... crime.html
Well that's 3:0 for cyberdad after correctly guessing charges against 1. Central park karen 2. Derek Chauvin and now 3. Soho Karen.
Given the court cases, and their outcomes, we're more at 0:2, with this third one being as yet undecided (Claiming "credit" for predicting a charge that is not proven is not something to "celebrate"...):
1) The only charge laid was "false report to police" which was dropped by the prosecutors in a manner that leaves her legally as though the charge was never laid (and unable to be laid in future) along with no charges related to breaching a bylaw, nor any charges containing "race" related components:
cyberdad wrote:
but she's still the one in the wrong for breaching a bylaw and for falsely accusing the jogger of attacking her playing on his "black" background to get him arrested.
Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=387467&p=8529119#p8529119
2) The only posts predicting charges (or, in fact motivation behind the actions) for this that you appear to have made were all along the "racism" lines, yet race was not brought up at any point during the trial by the prosecution, nor did any of the charges have any component connected to this.
3) As noted, with charges not proven, it is rather early to claim "credit" for predicting anything...
But, given you feel so confident in your "racism detection" abilities, maybe you could clarify your views as to whether utilising a person's race (or assumed race if not known) in responce to something they say (or post) in a manner intended to diminish that message is a racist act, and how you reached a conclusion regarding this?
It is very telling to the mindset of a person.
05 Jul 2021, 7:45 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
She is a coloured person, right?
Technically no, she's Italian/Spanish but her family are from Puerto-Rico.
She looks mesitza (a woman of mixed European and Amerindian heritage). She may deny her Amerindian roots, but the face doesn't lie. Australians wouldn't really comprehend this.
She is indeed a Person-of-Color in the eyes of American society, regardless of how they spin it. White people aren't the only ones who can be racist.
And yet, some people are so ill-informed that they think only Caucasians can be racist. lol
There was a study done, a number of years ago, that identified the human global IQ has diminished over the last 100 years.
I think we are seeing the "fruits" of this manifest in society, generally.
Caucasians are genetically programmed to be racist?
*All* whites have collective racial guilt?
Bwahahahaha.
*All* humans are inclined to be *Tribalistic*.
Blame the evolutionary process.
"Useful Idiots" can be useful, though, on either side of the political divide.
With the exception of some overly loud and obnoxious individuals on Twitter, I don't think most people believe that.
Having twice (at least) on this site been attacked for supposedly being "white" ("British Victorian" being the favoured phrase to describe my assumed heritage) in order to diminsh what I had posted, it's not just on Twitter where that belief (and the related attitude that "white" people can be treated in a manner that would be deemed "racist" if those of other races were treated in the same way) appears to exist...
Ad Hominems are very common here, unfortunately.
05 Jul 2021, 7:48 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
She is a coloured person, right?
Technically no, she's Italian/Spanish but her family are from Puerto-Rico.
She looks mesitza (a woman of mixed European and Amerindian heritage). She may deny her Amerindian roots, but the face doesn't lie. Australians wouldn't really comprehend this.
She is indeed a Person-of-Color in the eyes of American society, regardless of how they spin it. White people aren't the only ones who can be racist.
And yet, some people are so ill-informed that they think only Caucasians can be racist. lol
There was a study done, a number of years ago, that identified the human global IQ has diminished over the last 100 years.
I think we are seeing the "fruits" of this manifest in society, generally.
Caucasians are genetically programmed to be racist?
*All* whites have collective racial guilt?
Bwahahahaha.
*All* humans are inclined to be *Tribalistic*.
Blame the evolutionary process.
"Useful Idiots" can be useful, though, on either side of the political divide.
With the exception of some overly loud and obnoxious individuals on Twitter, I don't think most people believe that.
As a white skunk, I will still "Bend My Knee", and accept collective guilt, just to be sure that I won't be gang-stalked.
05 Jul 2021, 10:52 pm
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
She is a coloured person, right?
Technically no, she's Italian/Spanish but her family are from Puerto-Rico.
She looks mesitza (a woman of mixed European and Amerindian heritage). She may deny her Amerindian roots, but the face doesn't lie. Australians wouldn't really comprehend this.
She is indeed a Person-of-Color in the eyes of American society, regardless of how they spin it. White people aren't the only ones who can be racist.
And yet, some people are so ill-informed that they think only Caucasians can be racist. lol
There was a study done, a number of years ago, that identified the human global IQ has diminished over the last 100 years.
I think we are seeing the "fruits" of this manifest in society, generally.
Caucasians are genetically programmed to be racist?
*All* whites have collective racial guilt?
Bwahahahaha.
*All* humans are inclined to be *Tribalistic*.
Blame the evolutionary process.
"Useful Idiots" can be useful, though, on either side of the political divide.
With the exception of some overly loud and obnoxious individuals on Twitter, I don't think most people believe that.
Having twice (at least) on this site been attacked for supposedly being "white" ("British Victorian" being the favoured phrase to describe my assumed heritage) in order to diminsh what I had posted, it's not just on Twitter where that belief (and the related attitude that "white" people can be treated in a manner that would be deemed "racist" if those of other races were treated in the same way) appears to exist...
Ad Hominems are very common here, unfortunately.
The "interesting" thing is that the person involved apparently sees nothing wrong with taking the objectively racist steps of weaponising a person's supposed race against them, yet proudly asserts that it would be a "personal attack" to identify them as having performed those actions (hence my carefully refraining from publicly supplying names (or even hinting at the person's identity) in this post) - To them, weaponising race, however, obviously isn't seen as a "personal attack" (or even as being wrong).
It's depressing that the same people who would take those types of actions also commonly try to set themselves up as "judges" of what is "racist", and spend so much time gloating over other's actions, seeking to find racist motives in various interactions, while ignoring the impact of their own activities... The hypocracy that this demonstrates not only weakens the fight against true racism, but also has the potential to cause people who witness their hypocritical actions to react against those people and their prior activities by reciprocating the actions witnessed, which in turn leads to an increase\normalising of those racist actions - Which, I guess, is most likely their intent: instigate confrontations, then stand back and claim the confrontation supports their previous assertions while hiding their culpability as being the initiator of what they are denouncing.
05 Jul 2021, 11:27 pm
06 Jul 2021, 12:00 am
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It's depressing that the same people who would take those types of actions also commonly try to set themselves up as "judges" of what is "racist", and spend so much time gloating over other's actions, seeking to find racist motives in various interactions, while ignoring the impact of their own activities... The hypocracy that this demonstrates not only weakens the fight against true racism, but also has the potential to cause people who witness their hypocritical actions to react against those people and their prior activities by reciprocating the actions witnessed, which in turn leads to an increase\normalising of those racist actions - Which, I guess, is most likely their intent: instigate confrontations, then stand back and claim the confrontation supports their previous assertions while hiding their culpability as being the initiator of what they are denouncing.
It seems to be a strange accusation to level (including the ad hominem claim by your confidant) since instigating confrontations would breach the WP rules of conduct. Yet at no time in my 11 years on this forum have moderators ever accused me of this?
Well, I COULD have included links, but as I had noted in a section you declined to include from the quoted post, then the person who weaponised race against me would claim "personal attack" - I can always provide the details and links via PM, however, as I don't believe that would breach "personal attack" rules. I was speaking in general terms in this portion of my post (not specifics), so as not to cause a confrontation - The intent was to supply an example of the type of activity I have witnessed\endured (not just on this site, but elsewhere as well).
cyberdad wrote:
Secondly this post was about police inaction in terms of not serving or protecting a member of the public. You seem to keep dragging race into this in order to (effectively) instigate confrontation?
Are you SURE about that? I thought it was a post about a person being charged with certain crimes based around "race", suggesting "race" was a major aspect of the thread...
cyberdad wrote:
Third I post news where other people have made a considered and measured conclusions based on the evidence available. I suggest addressing the published news/views (as this is a news forum) if you dispute the claims rather than falling into your usual pattern of attacking the messenger.,
I was discussing (as per the nested section of thread I was particpating in - feel free to go back and read the whole post you selected to take a small excerpt from) the prevalence of racism and how certain racists tend to try and justify their actions as being "acceptable" due to the race of the victim, where they would gleefully decry those very same actions against a mamber of a different race, and how some create "technicalities" to allow grouping certain "races" (hispanic, for example) into a different racial group ("white" for example) to permit them to do this.
As to "attacking the messenger": Surely you don't think you (as the creator of this thread) are the person (or type of person) I was discussing
06 Jul 2021, 2:01 am
Brictoria wrote:
Well, I COULD have included links, but as I had noted in a section you declined to include from the quoted post, then the person who weaponised race against me would claim "personal attack" - I can always provide the details and links via PM, however, as I don't believe that would breach "personal attack" rules. I was speaking in general terms in this portion of my post (not specifics), so as not to cause a confrontation - The intent was to supply an example of the type of activity I have witnessed\endured (not just on this site, but elsewhere as well).
The problem is you say "against me" but I don't recall launching an attack on you?? Had I done so I am sure I would be among the MIA ex-WP members
Brictoria wrote:
Are you SURE about that? I thought it was a post about a person being charged with certain crimes based around "race", suggesting "race" was a major aspect of the thread...
Ok, I got mixed up between SoHo Karen and the fleeing policeman. The latter wasn't race-related.
Brictoria wrote:
As to "attacking the messenger": Surely you don't think you (as the creator of this thread) are the person (or type of person) I was discussing
Glad we got that cleared up
06 Jul 2021, 6:38 am
06 Jul 2021, 6:52 am
06 Jul 2021, 12:22 pm
06 Jul 2021, 2:57 pm
06 Jul 2021, 6:18 pm
06 Jul 2021, 8:22 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Close...
It's a combination of "Brick" and "Victoria" (Br + ic + toria). This comes from (in reverse order) Victoria, which references the state I live in over here in Australia, coupled with "Brick" representing my interest (going back to my earliest memory) in Lego (bricks), recently having branched out to include certain "heretical" clones such as Cobi, who produce models of military vehicles (predominantly, but not exclusively tanks) from WW1 to modern times, which is an area Lego will never touch, but is also an area of interest to me (The models don't look quite as nice as a plastic model kit, but they're easier to build and don't need painting prior to display - or work to repair if something falls off).
Until I was referred to as a "British Victorian", I had no indication the username could in any way be associated with any form of "nationalism", nor that people would infer any relationship with a country\state outside of the "Victoria" portion, so having an assumed ancestry\heritage "assigned" to me, and used in a way to indicate what I was saying was potentially of lesser value purely as a result of this assumed heritage was quite offensive to me.
I prefer to keep my heritage\racial background vague\unknown, due (among other reasons) to treatment I have received in the past related to it, as well as because (as happened to me in previous interactions on the site) I don't believe that what a person presents should be weighed based upon the "value" another person places on that ancestry\racial heritage of the person who says it (implicit\explicit racial bias\prejudice from the reader), but should instead be considered based upon the actual content presented, irrespective of the poster's racial heritage - The message is what is important (and evaluated by the recipient as being good or bad), whilst the "envelope" it arrives in should be seen as interchangable, and as such able to be seperated from the message without affecting the content of the message.
As an example (I'm only mentioning this portion of family geneology to illustrate the above - don't expect it to lead to further disclosures absent very particular circumstances...): Does the fact that my wife is a descendant of a West Indies slave[1] mean anything she, my daughter (or myself, by association) say regarding slavery carries any more weight than that of any other person discussing the subject - given none of us, nor her parents, or grandparents (not sure how many generations back the ancestor was) were (or experienced) slavery, nor would it be likely that many (if any) members here, nor their parents\grandparents were slaves either? In my mind what I (or she) says about the subject carries the same weight as that of any other person with no (or only) slaves (or, for that matter, slave owners) in their known ancestry may say - It is what the person says that is important, not their skin colour or ancestry.
[1] according to her family the slave was a "princess", however I don't know if it's possible to determine the truth of that (it seems improbable, though not impossible), or whether it was simply colouring added at some point to "improve" that branch of the family tree - nor do we know if her family has any connection with the current Vice President of the USA's family, given they were potential owners of that portion of my wife's family.[/offtopic]
It's a combination of "Brick" and "Victoria" (Br + ic + toria). This comes from (in reverse order) Victoria, which references the state I live in over here in Australia, coupled with "Brick" representing my interest (going back to my earliest memory) in Lego (bricks), recently having branched out to include certain "heretical" clones such as Cobi, who produce models of military vehicles (predominantly, but not exclusively tanks) from WW1 to modern times, which is an area Lego will never touch, but is also an area of interest to me (The models don't look quite as nice as a plastic model kit, but they're easier to build and don't need painting prior to display - or work to repair if something falls off).
Until I was referred to as a "British Victorian", I had no indication the username could in any way be associated with any form of "nationalism", nor that people would infer any relationship with a country\state outside of the "Victoria" portion, so having an assumed ancestry\heritage "assigned" to me, and used in a way to indicate what I was saying was potentially of lesser value purely as a result of this assumed heritage was quite offensive to me.
I prefer to keep my heritage\racial background vague\unknown, due (among other reasons) to treatment I have received in the past related to it, as well as because (as happened to me in previous interactions on the site) I don't believe that what a person presents should be weighed based upon the "value" another person places on that ancestry\racial heritage of the person who says it (implicit\explicit racial bias\prejudice from the reader), but should instead be considered based upon the actual content presented, irrespective of the poster's racial heritage - The message is what is important (and evaluated by the recipient as being good or bad), whilst the "envelope" it arrives in should be seen as interchangable, and as such able to be seperated from the message without affecting the content of the message.
As an example (I'm only mentioning this portion of family geneology to illustrate the above - don't expect it to lead to further disclosures absent very particular circumstances...): Does the fact that my wife is a descendant of a West Indies slave[1] mean anything she, my daughter (or myself, by association) say regarding slavery carries any more weight than that of any other person discussing the subject - given none of us, nor her parents, or grandparents (not sure how many generations back the ancestor was) were (or experienced) slavery, nor would it be likely that many (if any) members here, nor their parents\grandparents were slaves either? In my mind what I (or she) says about the subject carries the same weight as that of any other person with no (or only) slaves (or, for that matter, slave owners) in their known ancestry may say - It is what the person says that is important, not their skin colour or ancestry.
[1] according to her family the slave was a "princess", however I don't know if it's possible to determine the truth of that (it seems improbable, though not impossible), or whether it was simply colouring added at some point to "improve" that branch of the family tree - nor do we know if her family has any connection with the current Vice President of the USA's family, given they were potential owners of that portion of my wife's family.[/offtopic]
Hopefully, this will mitigate the Ad Hominems, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Perhaps people should focus on playing the ball, and not the man?
Where is Martin Luther King Jr, when you need him?
07 Jul 2021, 2:33 am
Off Topic
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Close...
It's a combination of "Brick" and "Victoria" (Br + ic + toria). This comes from (in reverse order) Victoria, which references the state I live in over here in Australia, coupled with "Brick" representing my interest (going back to my earliest memory) in Lego (bricks), recently having branched out to include certain "heretical" clones such as Cobi, who produce models of military vehicles (predominantly, but not exclusively tanks) from WW1 to modern times, which is an area Lego will never touch, but is also an area of interest to me (The models don't look quite as nice as a plastic model kit, but they're easier to build and don't need painting prior to display - or work to repair if something falls off).
Until I was referred to as a "British Victorian", I had no indication the username could in any way be associated with any form of "nationalism", nor that people would infer any relationship with a country\state outside of the "Victoria" portion, so having an assumed ancestry\heritage "assigned" to me, and used in a way to indicate what I was saying was potentially of lesser value purely as a result of this assumed heritage was quite offensive to me.
I prefer to keep my heritage\racial background vague\unknown, due (among other reasons) to treatment I have received in the past related to it, as well as because (as happened to me in previous interactions on the site) I don't believe that what a person presents should be weighed based upon the "value" another person places on that ancestry\racial heritage of the person who says it (implicit\explicit racial bias\prejudice from the reader), but should instead be considered based upon the actual content presented, irrespective of the poster's racial heritage - The message is what is important (and evaluated by the recipient as being good or bad), whilst the "envelope" it arrives in should be seen as interchangable, and as such able to be seperated from the message without affecting the content of the message.
As an example (I'm only mentioning this portion of family geneology to illustrate the above - don't expect it to lead to further disclosures absent very particular circumstances...): Does the fact that my wife is a descendant of a West Indies slave[1] mean anything she, my daughter (or myself, by association) say regarding slavery carries any more weight than that of any other person discussing the subject - given none of us, nor her parents, or grandparents (not sure how many generations back the ancestor was) were (or experienced) slavery, nor would it be likely that many (if any) members here, nor their parents\grandparents were slaves either? In my mind what I (or she) says about the subject carries the same weight as that of any other person with no (or only) slaves (or, for that matter, slave owners) in their known ancestry may say - It is what the person says that is important, not their skin colour or ancestry.
[1] according to her family the slave was a "princess", however I don't know if it's possible to determine the truth of that (it seems improbable, though not impossible), or whether it was simply colouring added at some point to "improve" that branch of the family tree - nor do we know if her family has any connection with the current Vice President of the USA's family, given they were potential owners of that portion of my wife's family.
It's a combination of "Brick" and "Victoria" (Br + ic + toria). This comes from (in reverse order) Victoria, which references the state I live in over here in Australia, coupled with "Brick" representing my interest (going back to my earliest memory) in Lego (bricks), recently having branched out to include certain "heretical" clones such as Cobi, who produce models of military vehicles (predominantly, but not exclusively tanks) from WW1 to modern times, which is an area Lego will never touch, but is also an area of interest to me (The models don't look quite as nice as a plastic model kit, but they're easier to build and don't need painting prior to display - or work to repair if something falls off).
Until I was referred to as a "British Victorian", I had no indication the username could in any way be associated with any form of "nationalism", nor that people would infer any relationship with a country\state outside of the "Victoria" portion, so having an assumed ancestry\heritage "assigned" to me, and used in a way to indicate what I was saying was potentially of lesser value purely as a result of this assumed heritage was quite offensive to me.
I prefer to keep my heritage\racial background vague\unknown, due (among other reasons) to treatment I have received in the past related to it, as well as because (as happened to me in previous interactions on the site) I don't believe that what a person presents should be weighed based upon the "value" another person places on that ancestry\racial heritage of the person who says it (implicit\explicit racial bias\prejudice from the reader), but should instead be considered based upon the actual content presented, irrespective of the poster's racial heritage - The message is what is important (and evaluated by the recipient as being good or bad), whilst the "envelope" it arrives in should be seen as interchangable, and as such able to be seperated from the message without affecting the content of the message.
As an example (I'm only mentioning this portion of family geneology to illustrate the above - don't expect it to lead to further disclosures absent very particular circumstances...): Does the fact that my wife is a descendant of a West Indies slave[1] mean anything she, my daughter (or myself, by association) say regarding slavery carries any more weight than that of any other person discussing the subject - given none of us, nor her parents, or grandparents (not sure how many generations back the ancestor was) were (or experienced) slavery, nor would it be likely that many (if any) members here, nor their parents\grandparents were slaves either? In my mind what I (or she) says about the subject carries the same weight as that of any other person with no (or only) slaves (or, for that matter, slave owners) in their known ancestry may say - It is what the person says that is important, not their skin colour or ancestry.
[1] according to her family the slave was a "princess", however I don't know if it's possible to determine the truth of that (it seems improbable, though not impossible), or whether it was simply colouring added at some point to "improve" that branch of the family tree - nor do we know if her family has any connection with the current Vice President of the USA's family, given they were potential owners of that portion of my wife's family.
Hopefully, this will mitigate the Ad Hominems, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Perhaps people should focus on playing the ball, and not the man?
I doubt it: Any (objectively racist) person who is willing to weaponise (while introducing it into the discussion) another's race (known or assumed) against them is either unlikely to have any qualms about adjusting their words\actions to align with the changed circumstances, or by having qualms and not doing so, it highlights the explicit racial bias they hold\displayed previously.
Pepe wrote:
Where is Martin Luther King Jr, when you need him?
I believe he was "cancelled" as being "colourblind" regarding race is seen as "racist" now: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,026
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
07 Jul 2021, 3:12 am
07 Jul 2021, 7:16 am
^ Yep.
Brictoria, thank you. That was extremely interesting and I understand you much better as a result.
Appreciated! 
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hate crime - Philadelphia children's recreation center |
03 Feb 2024, 2:54 pm |
| Nazi sentenced to 18 years for transphobic hate crime |
03 Feb 2024, 7:41 pm |
| Karen and SovCit videos |
17 Feb 2024, 4:26 pm |
| I hate getting these |
13 Mar 2024, 8:11 am |
