Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
Idiomatic expressions aren't easily interpreted outside of the linguistic group where they are common.Oh yay, a well adjusted American, please do continue to tell us how to interpret common English.
Idiomatic expressions aren't easily interpreted outside of the linguistic group where they are common.Oh yay, a well adjusted American, please do continue to tell us how to interpret common English.
I get that, but that’s not how I think it reads. I find it rather condescending. The implication is that, now he’s here with his specialist grasp on the English language, that he can rid us of our doubt/erroneous opinions.Idiomatic expressions aren't easily interpreted outside of the linguistic group where they are common.
Well that’s me told then.Someone considerably smarter than you x
Better than his chicken.and choked his dog too
Completely agree.With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.
- The situation that led to the arrest.
- The action that led to the death.
With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
- A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
- A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
I respectfully disagree.Better than his chicken.
I would let the authorities deal with it or try to shoo away the dog at worst. Taking something out of pocket to try to feed the dog seems so out of line to me.He had all the right to be confrontational as she was breaking the law and she refused to comply when she got call out. He was supposed to back off while she was jeopardizing the environment of a place that is meant to work the way it works and he enjoys periodically?
He says I am gonna do something which you wont like and then proceeds to take out something and tries to feed the dog. That is something I wouldn't call a normal act to a stranger.He did not say I will do something ‘to your dog’.
The #1 there seems to be getting exaggerated. If she was that scared of him, she would not have approached him when he started filming her. It is clear this chap is overzealous about this birding business and not letting dogs disrupt the same so it is easy to imagine why this dispute got escalated. But if that woman was genuinely scared by his words then she most likely would have put her dog on the leash and gotten out of there.Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
- A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
- A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
If she would call the police without drama saying that a man is giving treats to other people's dogs, That video would never go anywhere, and even some people would be in her favour and if could be considered both assholes. But it never crossed her mind and she went for the racist cardI would let the authorities deal with it or try to shoo away the dog at worst. Taking something out of pocket to try to feed the dog seems so out of line to me.
Her being a racist idiot has been done to death here and I agree.
Yes, she was obviously in the wrong. I wasn't talking about her anyways.If she would call the police without drama saying that a man is giving treats to other people's dogs, That video would never go anywhere, and even some people would be in her favour and if could be considered both assholes. But it never crossed her mind and she went for the racist card
And the authorities came for the "racist threat" when both were long gone. Image how long it would take them to come for a call on a woman that doesn't want to leash the dog.
She was breaking the rules, was asked, she was a jerk and deserved to be treated like a jerk and in the end she crossed the line
I don’t think she felt threatened herself but might have worried that he would harm her dog. Hence she (ironically) almost strangled it to death in her attempt to make sure it stayed right by her side.The #1 there seems to be getting exaggerated. If she was that scared of him, she would not have approached him when he started filming her. It is clear this chap is overzealous about this birding business and not letting dogs disrupt the same so it is easy to imagine why this dispute got escalated. But if that woman was genuinely scared by his words then she most likely would have put her dog on the leash and gotten out of there.
Correct.With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.
- The situation that led to the arrest.
- The action that led to the death.
With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
- A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
- A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Yeah, per the internet sleuths she donated to Obama in 2012 and Pete in 2019. Combine that with her professional credentials and she is your typical white upper class Democrat.I don’t think she felt threatened herself but might have worried that he would harm her dog. Hence she (ironically) almost strangled it to death in her attempt to make sure it stayed right by her side.
I think we can all agree she was rattled. Impossible to know how much of this was down to what he said/did and how much down to her having a ludicrously short trigger. Either way, her behaviour was that of someone who was on the verge of hysteria. Not that this would justify all of her behaviour, obviously.
It is interesting that the internet has worked out her politics and she’s a liberal progressive. So was possibly behaving out of character. Which fits with someone in fight or flight mode. And, once again, I have to stress that behaving out of character is no excuse for how things transpired.
Didn't read like that to me.I get that, but that’s not how I think it reads. I find it rather condescending. The implication is that, now he’s here with his specialist grasp on the English language, that he can rid us of our doubt/erroneous opinions.
Outstanding.What do you call the male version of racist Karen?
"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.
Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.
Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko
The king of non-apologies, closely followed by telling them if they were women rather than men, that wouldn't have affected his......racism."I said, 'I’m sorry you thought I was being racist, but I was not. If you were a bunch of women, I would have done the same thing,'" Austin told the Tribune.
You feel like he's kind of missed the point here if that's the lesson he's learnt....“Should have handled it differently,” he said in an email to the Tribune. “Not my job to have done anything.”
Yeah, that backhanded "apology" was a train wreck.Outstanding.
The king of non-apologies, closely followed by telling them if they were women rather than men, that wouldn't have affected his......racism.
You feel like he's kind of missed the point here if that's the lesson he's learnt....
Terrible OP. Who do you think is the victim here?Here is the story all the rage on social media today -
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/central-park-video-dog-video-african-american-trnd/index.html
Video in question:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The women is definitely out of order but in super quick time all of her info was doxxed online including personal social media accounts, employment info and even her dog's instagram account. Subsequently she has been put on admin leave by her company and her dog that she adopted few weeks ago has also been taken back.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
People are openly are rooting for her life to be ruined due to this incident which I think is a bit much despite her egregious actions.
Ok.Terrible OP. Who do you think is the victim here?
He looks like Jason Donovan.What do you call the male version of racist Karen?
"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.
Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.
Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko
I'm not going to quote the folk who were saying "you're wrong, there's only one way to take what he meant and that's as a threat" because I can't be arsed and I think I have heatstroke. But you're right. It's a really vague statement that can mean a lot of things. I could mean he's going to star dancing an Irish jig. It might rile her up initially, and maybe make her worried when he reached in his pockets to take something out, but that's her own preconceptions if she took it as a threat. And if that's what the argument against what you said is - she assumed that he obviously meant to attack her or her dog - then it's a pretty poor argument to make.Semantics. "Ma'am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on a leash at all times. The sign is right there." It's as much of as ask as it is a tell. Either way, he's reminding her of her civic responsibility. Such an affront (if you're a Karen, I suppose).
Remarkable how some posters are latching onto a vague statement like "If you're going to do what you want, I m going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" as if it's some sort of ominous threat. I can't understand what goes on in some of your heads.
On 1, it's not quite as black & white (no pun intended) as that.With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.
- The situation that led to the arrest.
- The action that led to the death.
With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
- A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
- A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/It's just unnecessary to take up vigilantism and get in people's faces. You can report the person if you're so uppity about it. It's not an ominous threat but as a pet owner I know that one has to constantly deal with people's nonsense at being unable to understand. The fact that he walks around with treats to take action against people is bizarre.
Of course it's nothing compared to bring a racist and trying to use race to get someone in trouble which is truly appalling behaviour.
Isn't that the point, it doesn't really matter what his intentions are, only how she perceives it and if that is a reasonable perception? She could reasonably fear for her or her dog's safety in the situation because of his odd behaviour, and I know many women who would..But there isn't. In his mind, a dog off the leash is a threat for the birds that he clearly likes to watch.
This was so satisfying. I can’t wrap my mind around the concept of not enjoying seeing racists suffer for their racist actions.What do you call the male version of racist Karen?
"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.
Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.
Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko
The point is that she wasn't following the rules to begin with. The whole exchange took place because she ignored the rules, ignored a request to follow the rules, and ignored a suggestion to go elsewhere if she didn't care to follow the rules.Isn't that the point, it doesn't really matter what his intentions are, only how she perceives it and if that is a reasonable perception? She could reasonably fear for her or her dog's safety in the situation because of his odd behaviour, and I know many women who would..
They were in polite disagreement until the dog treats and vague comments were cracked out and something clearly distressed her which I think people are mis-characterising is being a Karen. I do think you are being unfair to say she was looking for a reason in your assessment. By his account the last thing she says before the video is 'get your hands off my dog' and at the start of the videos she is about to put the leash on until she sees he is now filming her and she becomes even more rattled.
I mean, in my view he didn't do anything wrong per se, definitely not illegal or even immoral, and that isn't the argument. However it is very naive to say something vaguely threatening as a man to a woman alone in Central Park, even if meant tongue in cheek and that is the limit of my criticism of him.
You could definitely foresee a strong reaction to something like that, even if your behaviour is perfectly explainable after the fact like in this case. There is definitely a 'dynamic' of his physical safety not being in question, while hers is, along with the racial 'dynamic', in my interpretation of the event.
To state the obvious- that doesn't mitigate her attempts to use his race to threaten him, only to understand why she became unhinged in the interaction in the first place.
To reiterate the points she was in the wrong for the dog being off the leash and was actively malicious in her racism.
If he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.Remarkable how some posters are latching onto a vague statement like "If you're going to do what you want, I m going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" as if it's some sort of ominous threat. I can't understand what goes on in some of your heads.
That’s it in a nutshell. Very little else in all this debate really mattersAmy wasn't scared. Like almost any scofflaw/Karen, she was annoyed at being told she's breaking the rules. Rather than admit she was in the wrong, correct her behaviour and be on her way, she instead chose to double down and use race and gender to screw Mr. Cooper over.
That would be all well and good, but she mentioned his race as a threat to himIf he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.
At that point, regardless of she being a vile person, she has enough reason to argue she was feeling threatened.
She never perceived him as a threat though. She forcefully walked toward him when he started filming because she was annoyed by it and she went from being clearly annoyed to pretending to be scared when the police answered the phone. Even if we all agree that someone could have interpreted his words as a threat, she didn't, which makes that part irrelevant to what happened afterwards.If he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.
At that point, regardless of she being a vile person, she has enough reason to argue she was feeling threatened.
Of course she is an a**hole.That would be all well and good, but she mentioned his race as a threat to him
I like what he had to say. While the twitter mob may have got justice, they always take it too far. Too many in these mobs want to destroy people until there's nothing left, in a way they're just as sick as people they go after
It is actually amazing the sort of BS people come up with under the guise of nuance and free speech. Some dude was ranting yesterday about how every discussion online nowadays is the same and politically motivated. It is so ridiculous that he felt the need to make that statement in a thread where almost everyone was in agreement that the lady is clearly racist. No one even discussed her political affiliation as part of calling out her racism.Have you read the comments here before responding to what you assume it is they’re stating? Has anyone on this thread condoned her actions? Not that I can see. Some nasty woman gets her comeuppance and life goes on. Does that prevent an examination of the context? Apparently I, and a few others here, have ‘blamed the victim’ for both attempting to understand the context, and for daring to suggest that, though she was undoubtedly out of line, his actions may have been questionable too? Do you not see how damaging that is to fruitful discussion? I honestly doubt you do - I’m not sure, ironically, that you can grapple with that nuance.
If you disagree with what’s being said, great, articulate why that is without ridiculing it and being so overtly aggressive and snide.
Some dude yesterday was so affronted by someone else's opinion that he described himself as 'terrified'.It is actually amazing the sort of BS people come up with under the guise of nuance and free speech. Some dude was ranting yesterday about how every discussion online nowadays is the same and politically motivated. It is so ridiculous that he felt the need to make that statement in a thread where almost everyone was in agreement that the lady is clearly racist. No one even discussed her political affiliation as part of calling out her racism.
I don't think there's a hyperbole when criticizing racism.Some dude yesterday was so affronted by someone else's opinion that he described himself as 'terrified'.
There's a balance to be struck between ignoring or excusing racism and resorting to shrill hyperbole when anyone looks at an issue from even a fractionally different perspective. While repeatedly condemning the evidence of racism.