How was I skeptical, it is technically assault. All I said is that to me it was more of a douchebag asshole being a douchebag asshole than committing any sort of bigotry cased crime.
Don't for one fucking second mis-represent my post - At no point did I say that I was skeptical of what occurred in that 8 second clip
In my second post quoted below, I literally said "burn him at the stake for battery or whatever presuming that this 8-second clip gives the overall story in full." Anyone with half a brain knows there is more context to an altercation than 8 seconds. Don't be stupid, and don't misrepresent what I said.
Hey Brad, there's another thread now with a video of a man being asked if he's gay, and when he responds by saying yes, the man punches him in the face.
Guess who is now over there being skeptical of it? Someone and Slow. Now emboldened by getting lucky with Smollett, they'll question every incident no matter how obvious.
Don't tell me they aren't biased.
Do you have a problem with them questioning it and waiting for more information? Or, do you think that they are rushing to judgement claiming its false. Ill check it out.
If they are holding off on judgement and waiting to see what information comes out, that is right. If they are claiming that this is fake just like this case was, then they are wrong and doing the very thing they supposedly advocated against and I will have no problem labeling them as hypocrites.
Whats the name of the horse you have in this race? Why are you injecting yourself?
I have a problem with them expressing doubt about a homophobic motive which seems obvious on the tape and employing faulty reasoning in expressing said skepticism. Eski stated the reasonable position correctly in that thread, which is: it appears to be exactly as advertised and we can revise our opinions later if more information comes out. Different from the Smollett case where we had no video and there were holes in his story. A reasonable position there was either to take no position at all or else lean toward it being a hoax. Not so here..
Yeah that has to be quite a tricky to always define what hate crimes are. A white person can yell "Fuck you n*" before shooting him, but if the ultimate drive was just a drug deal that went bad - is it still a hate crime? The intent to kill came from a bad business deal (financial/monetary), not a racial intent of finding one race to be superior/inferior.
I'm guessing they aren't all as obvious as a white racist shithead shooting up a black church.
Someone is skeptical that the man shouted slurs before the video started recording, claiming no one shouts random slurs even though no one ever said it was random as the victim was actually gay.
Hello VG. How are you.
Okay, so I went through the thread. Slow is speculating about possibilities and coming to conclusions. That is rushing to judgement. Slow is wrong to do that. If he advocated not doing that, it makes him a hypocrite here.
Someone is not doing that. Someone is holding back judgement because details are scarce which is perfectly reasonable. I get that you think his motivation or being skeptical is that he has a bias and hopes this is false, but, that does not make being skeptical wrong.
A racist (not saying he is) could stop at a red light, and a non racist could stop at a red light. Can you infer anything about those two people because they both did the appropriate thing and stopped at a red light?
Seriously? My main point of my post (that you quoted) is that this is one-sided argument. The dude looks more entranced into his phone but the quote from the victim is stating he is randomly chanting "homophobic and misogynistic" slurs at random people in public? How do you even do that? Just walking around town and randomly saying "Hey there c*nty mc c*nt. Hi there fa^^ots". That is just the default speech of your typical left looney at any of their stupid rallies "Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay!". Context context context. There still is no fucking context. There isn't even a direct quote cited.
Better for me to quote him directly so I'm not accused of misrepresenting anything.
Not only is this reasoning faulty as no one said the slurs were random and came out of nowhere, but Someone is generically skeptical of anyone claiming racism or homophobia. See what is bolded. He's engaging in political assumptions, not with facts. Wanting to know all the facts is fine. Being skeptical of something which seems likely based on the information we have due to your political leanings is not. If you see his skepticism as not being political, well again, look at what he wrote.
I have no issue with apolitical skepticism aka just wanting to know all the facts. But that isn't what's happening.
Unless these people knew each other, than it would be random insults. That is, unless something happened before to give those insults context. From what I read, there was no indication of what happened before so it seems reasonable to believe that its being expressed as random.
Being skeptical of something which seems likely? What makes it seem likely? What we have is a claim and an 8 second clip. That is nowhere near close enough for me to make a judgement on the truth of the situation. I can say that if it did happen as claimed that its bigoted and immoral, but, I wont take the step of saying that I believe the situation.
Why should we make a judgement based on so little? Just because there is no counter evidence? Am I understanding that right?
Yeah that has to be quite a tricky to always define what hate crimes are. A white person can yell "Fuck you n*" before shooting him, but if the ultimate drive was just a drug deal that went bad - is it still a hate crime? The intent to kill came from a bad business deal (financial/monetary), not a racial intent of finding one race to be superior/inferior.
I'm guessing they aren't all as obvious as a white racist shithead shooting up a black church.
Yes, and to which I replied to you, wondering why a video of a man asking another if he is gay, then punching him when he says yes, leads you to believe this is drunken asshole behavior instead of homophobic behavior.
Your bias is evident when you ignore the facts and go for an unsupported theory of drunkenness.
Are you kidding? I went into that same bullshit on this very thread in regards to racism. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Again, context, context context.
No, I'm skeptical of ANYTHING outside of those 8 seconds. The guy couldn't even give any specific quotes, he just used a generic blanket term of "He was saying teh homophobic and misogynist statements"... You do realize that homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynist are the PC culture's favorite words right? They type and say them 500 times a day.
It was closing time Saturday, and Sal Trejo waited for an Uber car to pick up him and a group of friends in the Salt Lake City night.
An unidentified man was also looking for his ride, and Trejo, 29, said the man told someone on his phone that he was standing next to a “gay guy.”
Trejo is a “proud gay man,” he told The Washington Post on Monday, and the man in a green T-shirt did not know him. It was rude and unsettling, he said, for a stranger to approach him and say that. He said his friends intervened.
Trejo said he pulled out his phone to begin recording after the man used an anti-gay slur. In an eight-second video, the man appeared to want to confirm one thing. “Are you gay, though?” he asked Trejo.
“Oh, I am,” Trejo said. The man shot back: “Oh, then you are gay.” Then he squared up his arms.
Unless these people knew each other, than it would be random insults. That is, unless something happened before to give those insults context. From what I read, there was no indication of what happened before so it seems reasonable to believe that its being expressed as random.
Being skeptical of something which seems likely? What makes it seem likely? What we have is a claim and an 8 second clip. That is nowhere near close enough for me to make a judgement on the truth of the situation. I can say that if it did happen as claimed that its bigoted and immoral, but, I wont take the step of saying that I believe the situation.
Why should we make a judgement based on so little? Just because there is no counter evidence? Am I understanding that right?
I predict he will try to throw the Nigerians under the bus and claim it was all a premeditated attack on their part and he is surprised to discover this fact. That is the only escape route left for him.
Wait... sorry, you are on the side of the Covington kids? You think their behavior was appropriate and reasonable given the context?Your quote is broken.
The same thing was said about the MAGA boys and that video was far longer. Turns out, the missing details were extremely important.
Wait... sorry, you are on the side of the Covington kids? You think their behavior was appropriate and reasonable given the context?
No, it wouldn't be random. Random is shouting a homophobic slur at a random person. That's not how gay bashing incidents happen. It happens because someone thinks someone else appears to be gay, because they are holding hands with another man, or because of their dress or speech. That isn't random. The notion that this was "random" was made up by Someone. No one said it was random and it isn't likely to have been.
We have a video of a man asking another man if he is gay, then after hearing a yes answer, immediately punches him. I guess after Smollett even a video will not do. One has to wonder where the bar is set for ever believing that anyone says or does anything racist or homophobic in this country lies.
It's enough in and of itself for a battery prosecution and probably enough for a hate crime conviction even without the testimony of the victim. Yeah, we have extraordinarily little to go on here. Keep telling yourself that.
I will need to watch the video because I have not seen it.
I don't think their school should have allowed them to wear MAGA hats, but the evidence suggests they were verbally harassed by extremists before the video ran.
A better point is that the MAGA hat video is nothing like this at all. All that was on that video was a kid smirking at a native American beating a drum. Here, we have someone punching someone else after just learning the person is gay. It's a terrible analogy.