@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

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

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

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.

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.

Being reasonable and even-handed and waiting to see the evidence is in character for me? Why thank you.

You've consistently been inaccurate in your judgments about me. (I was never on board with TWAW, for example. You see me criticizing trans ideology and think I made a heelface turn. I would gently suggest this should be reason for you to question your priors.)

leftists talking about how their political enemies just need "the mao treatment" "annihilating them and their families"

Is not a literal quote of:

A genocide would have been overkill. The top southern 1%-2% being subject to the mao landlord treatment and their holdings redistributed would have led the country to a much better place long term.

I do not agree with ImmanuelCanNot's sentiments, and you can certainly object to them. But there is a difference between talking about how it would have been good to do something to "The top southern 1%-2%" in 1865 and "leftists talking about their political enemies." Of course if you would like to claim that what ImmanuelCanNot actually meant was "the left's political enemies today," you can do that, but you will have to substantiate it rather than just mindreading or projecting. Given that your interpretation of FCfromSSC's accelerationist post is an even more egregious misrepresentation, I suggest you invest some effort before making such an attempt.

So why do you think I "hit peak trans recently"? In what way do you think my views shifted?

I already explained my take on their encounter. As several other people have pointed out to you, both parties can be acting kind of like jerks, that doesn't mean one party (in this case, the kids) wasn't acting like bigger jerks. You don't have to agree with me that the nurse was not 100% innocent and in completely in the right, but at least recognize this is more like a melodrama where people are getting heated up over what's ultimately a nothingburger, and not a court case where one side is Right and the other side is Wrong. There are situations where even if you are legally and morally in the right, you can be an ass about it and deal with the other party in a less than ideal fashion. That you seem unwilling to even engage with any premise other than one that colors strictly within black and white borders is, well, if I were going to be as snarky and uncharitable as you, I would say "in character." Instead, I don't think you actually think that way, I think you are just seeing this encounter entirely through a tribal lens.

Come on, dude. It's a slur everywhere. Nobody uses it except to be insulting. (No, don't point to the handful of trans people who use it to refer to themselves. You also can't call black people "niggers" here just because some black people use it amongst themselves.)

If you accuse me of being bad-faith, and I ask you to point out where exactly in this conversation I have been bad-faith, and you reply like this then I think it's fair for me to complain about this moderator intervention here...

You can complain. Clearly you are complaining.

How about you just let this conversation happen

If by that you mean "How about you just let me continue to do the same thing," no.

There are two possibilities here:

  1. You genuinely believe you aren't doing what we described.
  2. You know you're doing what we described, but you think you can litigate it in such a way that we are forced to "acquit" you.

I personally believe it's 2, but if it's 1, you're just going to have to spend some time figuring out what you're doing wrong, because I am not willing to extend the necessary charity it would require for me to walk you through it (again).

If it's 2, well, short of persuading @ZorbaTHut to overrule us, no, there is no other avenue of appeals.