Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Page 69 of 70 [ 1117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

26 Jul 2021, 7:23 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Or is it that you simply believe that people of one race should be expected to accept treatment due to their race that people of another race would not?


Your previous attempts to claim Amy Cooper was a victim of "ill-treatment" haven't exactly stacked up Brictoria.


How so: The prosecutors, with all the evidence available to them, found nothing to support charges related to this having been a racially motivated incident, as some claimed - Had there been anything, she would have been charged under a law related to this...


But did they feel something was wrong? :scratch:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

26 Jul 2021, 7:31 am

Brictoria wrote:
Off Topic
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It would be appreciated if you would cease attempting to claim knowledge of my intentions, given you have yet to correctly state them - The lack of any supporting evidence when making such claims indicates a lack of factual basis for the assertion (this comes across as an attempt to "attack the messenger" because their message isn't what you wish to see\hear (or others to, for that matter)).
And related to this, but from the opposite direction - please read my most recent PM to you. Hmm, given events in this thread - re-read the one before it too.

You may have noticed that the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) in order to allow the person to acknowledge or refute my understanding, and so provide their "side" of what was intended and correct potential misunderstandings on my part...

There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims (which has the potential to veer towards (if not be designed as) a "personal attack" should such claims be repeatedly made in such a manner, given the target has no way to refute the "evidence" on which the assertion is made, and so is unable to "defend" themselves), and making observations whilst explaining the reasoning and providing source material used to come to the conclusions reached, in order to allow the target to explain what was meant and (potentially) misunderstood...


Misrepresentation happens a lot and should be called out.
It is tantamount to lying and often an attempt at character assassination if consciously done. 8)



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

26 Jul 2021, 7:50 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
She claims FT characterized her as a *Karen*, and that's sexual and racial discrimination.


According to Damon T Hewitt from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (A civil rights legal expert based in NY)

the (Amy Cooper's) case has no grounds and called it inappropriate, adding that Ms. Cooper’s lawsuit does nothing to connect her former employer’s actions to racial discrimination. “I think it’s frankly inappropriate to hijack civil rights statutes with these kinds of claims,” “I’m not going to say a white person can never face discrimination. I would not say that. But in this instance, there just seems to be no claim at all.”
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/0 ... uit-racist

Given Amy Cooper is making this a civil rights case as a white woman it looks like she is just going to waste the court's time.

If Hewitt's interpretation is correct then its possible the state could take further action against her for making an inflammatory claim of racism against a corporation and abusing the law for personal benefit.

She is not making it a civil rights case.

She replaced her civil rights attorney with employment discrimination attorneys.

She is claiming racial and sexual employment discrimination.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

26 Jul 2021, 9:18 am

Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Off Topic
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It would be appreciated if you would cease attempting to claim knowledge of my intentions, given you have yet to correctly state them - The lack of any supporting evidence when making such claims indicates a lack of factual basis for the assertion (this comes across as an attempt to "attack the messenger" because their message isn't what you wish to see\hear (or others to, for that matter)).
And related to this, but from the opposite direction - please read my most recent PM to you. Hmm, given events in this thread - re-read the one before it too.

You may have noticed that the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) in order to allow the person to acknowledge or refute my understanding, and so provide their "side" of what was intended and correct potential misunderstandings on my part...

There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims (which has the potential to veer towards (if not be designed as) a "personal attack" should such claims be repeatedly made in such a manner, given the target has no way to refute the "evidence" on which the assertion is made, and so is unable to "defend" themselves), and making observations whilst explaining the reasoning and providing source material used to come to the conclusions reached, in order to allow the target to explain what was meant and (potentially) misunderstood...


Misrepresentation happens a lot and should be called out.
It is tantamount to lying and often an attempt at character assassination if consciously done. 8)


Which is why I don't go and make random assertions about people: I like to do people the courtesy of explaining my interpretation of what I am discussing (either the subject, or my understanding of what has previously been stated) along with the material on which I based this interpretation, in order to allow the person involved to correct any "misunderstanding" I may have (should that be the case)...

My feeling is that if a person isn't presented with the relevent information on which a claim has been made, then the statement isn't designed to elicit confirmation\clarification of what was stated, but instead to attack the person (or their view) in a manner from which they are unable to defend themselves.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

26 Jul 2021, 9:58 am

Brictoria wrote:
the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) (...) There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims
Of course the vital part missing here is that this can be easily, and without foundation, done in your opinion and the support could be nothing more than something supporting what you think is happening. Just because you can quote it doesn't automatically make it valid, accurate or useful.

The problem really starts when the unearthing and quoting of earlier posts is used to make some point, some complaint or speculation about why someone posts what they do, attempting to demonstrate a perceived untrustworthiness or failing of some sort - it then becomes indistinguishable from an attack on the person.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

26 Jul 2021, 12:01 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) (...) There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims
Of course the vital part missing here is that this can be easily, and without foundation, done in your opinion and the support could be nothing more than something supporting what you think is happening. Just because you can quote it doesn't automatically make it valid, accurate or useful.

The problem really starts when the unearthing and quoting of earlier posts is used to make some point, some complaint or speculation about why someone posts what they do, attempting to demonstrate a perceived untrustworthiness or failing of some sort - it then becomes indistinguishable from an attack on the person.


So when someone posts quotes from more than a year ago, out of context and with with no relation to the current thread in an attempt to discredit a poster, that's not a behaviour that needs to be tolerated? :chin:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

26 Jul 2021, 3:31 pm

auntblabby wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
she needs to move to someplace like spokane or omaha.


She can move to Montana where many people there are MAGA nutters. I saw lot of Trump stuff here last summer. It's all gone now that he is out of office. Doesn't mean they no longer like him.

rather like all the so-called "good germans" after the war.



lol Germany wants nothing to do with Hitler and anything Nazi. I think that is their way of being ashamed of their history and want to keep themselves separated from it so hence Nazi Germany.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

26 Jul 2021, 11:49 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) (...) There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims
Of course the vital part missing here is that this can be easily, and without foundation, done in your opinion and the support could be nothing more than something supporting what you think is happening. Just because you can quote it doesn't automatically make it valid, accurate or useful.

The problem really starts when the unearthing and quoting of earlier posts is used to make some point, some complaint or speculation about why someone posts what they do, attempting to demonstrate a perceived untrustworthiness or failing of some sort - it then becomes indistinguishable from an attack on the person.


So when someone posts quotes from more than a year ago, out of context and with with no relation to the current thread in an attempt to discredit a poster, that's not a behaviour that needs to be tolerated? :chin:


I see this all the time and I hear if you have to go through someone's post history to find a quote by them to use against them that is not relevant to the discussion, you lose the argument.

It's more fun when they get angry when they couldn't find anything to use against you so they end up cursing you out or find anything rude to say to you. So sorry for not being a MAGA, transphobe, homophobe, racist, etc.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

27 Jul 2021, 1:15 am

League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
the only time I make statements which could remotely be considered as "claiming knowledge of someone's intentions", I provide the material (text and link) (...) There is a difference between "claiming knowledge of a person's intentions" whilst providing nothing to support those claims
Of course the vital part missing here is that this can be easily, and without foundation, done in your opinion and the support could be nothing more than something supporting what you think is happening. Just because you can quote it doesn't automatically make it valid, accurate or useful.

The problem really starts when the unearthing and quoting of earlier posts is used to make some point, some complaint or speculation about why someone posts what they do, attempting to demonstrate a perceived untrustworthiness or failing of some sort - it then becomes indistinguishable from an attack on the person.


So when someone posts quotes from more than a year ago, out of context and with with no relation to the current thread in an attempt to discredit a poster, that's not a behaviour that needs to be tolerated? :chin:


I see this all the time and I hear if you have to go through someone's post history to find a quote by them to use against them that is not relevant to the discussion, you lose the argument.

It's more fun when they get angry when they couldn't find anything to use against you so they end up cursing you out or find anything rude to say to you. So sorry for not being a MAGA, transphobe, homophobe, racist, etc.


It seems like a childish bullying tactic, like if enough time has passed it'll work as a gotcha because the target might not understand the original context anymore. Of course it can backfire if the original context hasn't been forgotten.

But hey, if that doesn't work you can accuse people who disagree with you of harassment and behaving like a stalker simply for expressing their disagreement. I hear that mud sticks well and always helps with distracting from the topic at hand. :lol:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

27 Jul 2021, 4:04 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Or is it that you simply believe that people of one race should be expected to accept treatment due to their race that people of another race would not?


Your previous attempts to claim Amy Cooper was a victim of "ill-treatment" haven't exactly stacked up Brictoria.


How so: The prosecutors, with all the evidence available to them, found nothing to support charges related to this having been a racially motivated incident, as some claimed - Had there been anything, she would have been charged under a law related to this...


Are you confident that was not a valid reason for FT to fire Amy Cooper? I mean everyone up the mayor of NY De Blasio thought that's what she did.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

27 Jul 2021, 4:15 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
She replaced her civil rights attorney with employment discrimination attorneys.

She is claiming racial and sexual employment discrimination.


The court is not going to see her move as sincere. Only strategic. She apologised and admitted fault by voluntarily attending therapy. She can't now turn around and claim she only did that because she was somehow coerced into making a false admission.

Even if by some miracle Amy Cooper was to convince a court she was not of stable mind, Her ex-employer still has very good grounds to have made their decision at the time (since back then she admitted fault) and can't be held legally accountable for her current state of mind.

To put it another way if I smash a glass vase into a thousand pieces and took responsibility and was fired by my employer then I can't turn around and ask my employer to give me back my job because they were being racist/sexist when I broke the vase. Even if the court asked them to, no amount of glue is going to make the vase usable again and my employer cant be expected to buy a new vase if I'm the one who broke it, So too Amy Cooper's prospects of ever working again for FT or expecting her employer to pay money to her for what she admitted at the time was her irresponsible act.

No amount hypotheticals or high powered employment lawyers is going to change that,



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

27 Jul 2021, 6:34 am

1. FT repeatedly made false public statements in magazines, Twitter, Youtube videos that they did an "internal review" into her racism, when they had not done any investigation.

2. FT publicly made a false statement that the "facts were undisputed" that she is a racist.

She claims these false statements are defamatory, negligent, and fueled the perception that she is a *racist, white Karen*.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

27 Jul 2021, 6:42 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
2. FT publicly made a false statement that the "facts were undisputed" that she is a racist.


Please show me where FT called Amy Cooper a racist, They only mentioned racist actions as grounds for dismissal. She complied after her sacking to attend therapy for her racist act,

She has basically already incriminated herself,

Her goose was already cooked, You cant now take it out of the oven and throw it back into a lake and expect it to fly :lol:

You keep repeating nonsense I'll keep reminding you of the facts



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

27 Jul 2021, 6:47 am

cyberdad wrote:
Please show me where FT called Amy Cooper a racist, They only mentioned racist actions as grounds for dismissal. She complied after her sacking to attend therapy for her racist act,

All the citations are in the lawsuit.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... er-lawsuit


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

27 Jul 2021, 6:53 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Please show me where FT called Amy Cooper a racist, They only mentioned racist actions as grounds for dismissal. She complied after her sacking to attend therapy for her racist act,

All the citations are in the lawsuit.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... er-lawsuit


Sorry can't take it seriously,.
She was placed on leave, FT's legal team did an investigation. based on the reports at the time there was grounds to sack her.

What comes afterward is irrelevant. Her bast chance (based on the document being used by her current lawyer) is she is of unstable mind (which is a lie) for which FT are under no obligation to re-hire her or compensate her,

She's on a slippery slope to nowhere.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

27 Jul 2021, 7:14 am

funeralxempire wrote:
So when someone posts quotes from more than a year ago, out of context and with with no relation to the current thread in an attempt to discredit a poster, that's not a behaviour that needs to be tolerated? :chin:
Indeed, it's not a behaviour that needs to be tolerated - it's an attack on the person.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.