@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

While I agree with your analysis, I'm having trouble picturing a race-flipped version of this story where the woman isn't portrayed as a modern-day Rosa Parks and the boys aren't charged with a crime.

Indeed. And in the race-flipped version, right-wingers wouldn't be indignant about teenage thugs bullying a pregnant nurse.

ETA: All right, acknowledged, this was too uncharitable ( @gattsuru ) because I did not qualify it enough. Would every right-winger be flipping sides as readily as @jeroboam claims leftists would? No. Do I think an awful lot of right-wingers are every bit as hypocritical as I see leftists being right now? Yes. There are ample examples on right-wing social media of outrage over teenage thugs, with varying degrees of thinly (or not) veiled racism, and I don't think that outrage would be the same, and I think even a lot of folks here would be more inclined to consider a more charitable explanation of the kids' behavior (or a more skeptical attitude towards the nurse's story), if it was a pregnant black lady claiming she was beset by white youths while they're claiming she tried to take their bike.

  • -25

The article linked in the Twitter thread is entirely based on an interview they did with the kid and his mother, so I think that's putting it lightly. Unless I'm bad at Twitter and missing where they got her side of the story.

I haven't seen any dispute of the facts, though.

  • -23

They were squatting on the electric bikes, trying to bilk the system to get free rides, and you don't think they were in the wrong?

I said I think they were in the wrong. I don't think they were trying to steal her bike or assaulting her.

  • -18

In conclusion, according to your version of the story

This is my interpretation of the story they are presenting. I am not trying to construct my own narrative.

  • -18

I am thinking very clearly. It's possible everything they are saying is a fabrication, but I've seen no evidence of that.

  • -17

I can think of an explanation that fits the "teens trying to take her bike" narrative, and one that fits the "she tried to take the bike" narrative. You probably can too.

  • -17

You are essentially claiming that if family court and child support etc are biased against men, men have to take that risk into account and if they don't, whatever happens is something they assented to. But I think it is hardly a viable choice when the "choice" in question is between lifelong celibacy and opening yourself up to the possibility of getting completely screwed over by an incredibly broken system.

Sex is risky in many ways besides the obvious. Yes, if you choose not to be celibate, you choose to take on risk.

If you hook up with a malicious actor, you might get screwed over. This is true for women just as much as men. The nature of the screwing might be different, but for every story of some poor fellow who got drunk at a party and wound up stuck with 18 years of child support, there are plenty of stories of women who got drunk at a party and wound up with a child and a deadbeat dad. Or a stalker, or an abuser.

Men and women can be extraordinarily shitty to each other. Without being a conservative myself, I think there is much to be said for the traditional concept of, you know, being careful and selective about who you hook up with. This does not, of course, guarantee that one doesn't wind up with a bad partner who screws you over in the end, but it greatly reduces the likelihood.

I have little sympathy for anyone of either sex who wants to go sow their wild oats and not be held accountable for the reaping.

@KulakRevolt's screed is as usual as entertaining as it is devoid of rigor or probity. It's just another fist shaken at society, another reason why we should burn everything down. And all the people with deep grievances against women coming out, as they always do in threads like these, are missing the point of child support, as they always do in threads like these. The point isn't to "hand your money over to a woman," it's to avoid having unsupported children who become the state's responsibility. You want to get your dick wet, you know there is a possibility of producing a child, and if it's not your responsibility (jointly) to provide for that child, then whose is it? I see no reason why anyone else who wasn't involved in the bumping of uglies should have to pay for it.

Sure, I see your edge case of one woman in one case who was held not responsible for children she was forcibly impregnated with by incest, and I'll agree that there's a certain inequity there when compared with your other edge case of one guy who got drunk at a party and woke up a father nine months later. The law isn't an algorithm, this is like comparing that one man who shot someone in Kansas and got a suspended sentence and that other woman who shot someone in Florida and got life. Even if we agree that the cases are roughly comparable, this does not mean the law treats women murderers more harshly than men and thus laws against murder are sexist and terrible.

None of the men moaning that it's unfair they can't sever parental responsibilities after a hook-up would be satisfied by a law carving out an exception for male rape victims.

  • -17

I agree with everything @SubstantialFrivolity said, and I do not see where you think what we said contradicts anything you just said.

  • -16

The fact that your priors are to treat each side as equally likely to be true

That is not correct.

  • -15

First, you call them facts. They are claims.

Very well. I have seen no dispute of their claims about the sequence of events.

You accused me of not thinking clearly, but I have no inclination to side either with a white nurse or a bunch of black teenagers. I strongly suspect I am not the one being biased by my priors.

  • -14

That you think this is amazing, and rather illustrative of my initial point. I think both sides are slanting the encounter according to their own perceptions of it and neither side was wholly innocent, and the reaction from you is "My God, you actually can see both sides instead of agreeing that this is black and white, don't you know righteousness is a binary value?"

You're right, though, that this thread is a breakpoint of sorts.

  • -14

I don't actually believe what, specifically? That this version of events is accurate, or that they weren't trying to steal her bike?

  • -13

No, I literally cannot imagine a scenario where a pregnant woman successfully forces a teenaged male off a bike he doesn't want to be removed from

That's not the scenario I am imagining.

The scenario I am imagining is she says "Get off that bike!" and swipes her card, and the kid, not wanting to get into a shoving match with a pregnant lady or have her scream that he's sitting on a bike that she just paid for, gets off and loudly protests, as she pulls the bike out and the other kids start filming. They're all shouting at her, she freaks out, and we get the story we have now.

  • -13

And if and when she did, the system won't hold her accountable.

The law does hold women accountable for providing for the care of their children. Women have options men do not have for terminating pregnancy because men do not get pregnant.

Only a handful of infants are surrendered every year under safe haven laws. I doubt many of those were produced by fathers who otherwise would have been willing participants in the child's upbringing.

I'm not going to lie, this entire "personal responsibility" screed you've produced here sounds like an awfully convenient way to avoid the clear double standards that exist surrounding this entire thing.

The double standard is one enforced by biology.

Yes. They're claiming it's unfair they can't sever parental responsibilities because women can.

But they don't actually care about this, they just want to be able to have consequence-free sex and leave the woman stuck with the responsibility of deciding what to do if she becomes pregnant. I believe exactly zero arguments based on "unfairness."

The point you carefully elide is that in those cases where a woman can sever her responsibilities, she's also terminating any responsibility the father has as well. You also speak of adoption and safe haven abandonment as if this is a common and casual option, like Plan B.

  • -12

Sure, but I think that's bad reasoning

No, it isn't.

The original version managed to sell. Yes, to a limited audience

This is why.

  • -12

Yes? Adding it as a comment to more of a roundup thread is less risky than a top-level thread, I received a 7-day ban for my last one.

No, it's not. Do you think you're invisible if you don't post a top-level thread?

I'm not going to ban you for this comment, but it's borderline and adds to our stack of evidence that all you ever post about is Jews, and that even when you pretend you're posting about something else, it will always turn out to be about Jews, and when you respond to someone else in another thread, you will make it about Jews. So yes, if you continue to do this, you will eat another ban.

  • -11

As someone who remembers the ad - you can certainly argue that it's not literally "racist" to state facts and show a picture of the criminal. But I think you'd have to be very naive, or disingenuous, to claim that they did not carefully select that particular crime and that particular criminal for its obvious valences, or that no one involved in the campaign gave any thought to what was being signaled.

Was it powerful? Was it effective? Was there a legitimate argument being made about soft-on-crime policies? Sure. But let's be real here, you can argue that the racial messaging was on point, but you can't argue that it wasn't intentional.

  • -11

Well, if they are lying, I expect we'll hear Comrie's version of the story soon, and I'd be inclined to believe her version over theirs if they have factually contradictory narratives.

  • -10

My understanding is that she was put on leave; I hadn't heard she's been fired. Which I agree is terrible and I hope she sues her employer. But that still isn't "They physically assaulted her."

  • -10

The idea that any reasonable person is even entertaining the idea that these children had the right to effectively assault this woman

I don't see that at all, either an "effective" assault or anyone defending assault. But it's possible she will come forward and say this version of events is a lie, in which case we're back to she-said/they-said.

  • -10

I told you what I think you are doing, with examples. You can of course claim you're not doing it, but I don't believe you. Feel free to consult with other mods if you think you can get a different answer from them.

Why avoid actually quoting the parts of my comments where you think I'm being dishonest?

Because I'm not interested in getting into it with you myself. This entire response is you basically demanding that I engage with you on your hobby horse. No.

On the other hand, I think it's dishonest and bad-faith for Moderators to constantly put on their red hats when I am engaging in discussion.

You can think what you like. We're telling you that we see what you're doing, and no, we aren't going to get into a protracted legalistic debate about what "is" is.

/lukeskywalker quote

Somehow I doubt that,

Well, I can't do anything about you insisting I'm lying about what I believe.

given their story, as they tell it, has some pretty conspicuous and fantastical gaps

I'm open to being persuaded on this, but I don't see conspicuous and fantastical gaps.

you're willing to overlook

Implies I am just willfully cherrypicking which facts I believe. Again, I cannot persuade you of my ingenuousness, but there really isn't much point in engaging if your go-to move in any disagreement is "You're lying, you don't actually believe that."

and/or create your own implausible account

Okay, you find my account implausible. I don't.

which is definitely not the story they are telling.

Clarify this for me. You seem to be claiming that they are claiming that she physically lifted/moved/forced a kid off his bike and manhandled it out of his possession with brute force.

In the above link (which is their version of events), the only statement I find resembling this is:

She then pushed her way onto the bike and attempted to remove it from the docking station and take it.

I suppose you could read that as "She physically forced a resisting teenager off the bike" (which I agree would be very implausible). Which do you think is more likely: that that is indeed what they meant, that she used her Pregnant Lady Strength to bully them, or that they meant she was pushing the kid on the bike and he got off rather than escalating? Note that this does not make that version of events true, but it does not seem implausible to me.

I think our disagreement is that you think the explicit message is "We like to fuck just as much as you do" and that implies "We have exactly the same attitudes towards sex and relationships that you do."

I can see how a socially obtuse person could infer the second statement from the first, but this goes back to the need to help socially obtuse people navigate social messaging that usually communicates things beyond the surface level.

Both your first and your second sentence are bad faith paraphrasings of what both respective parties said, and disingenuous representations of what the reactions were.