Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe the two "drunks" were "liberals".................
And the McDonald's workers were hard workin' conservatives...........
I have no idea what you're getting at, other than to make light of the fact that a white man has had his life ruined after being attacked by two black men.
Jesus Christ, what scenario can you possibly come up with where such an attack would be deemed appropriate that you keep asking the same lame question?
And the thread is about the biased reporting anyway.
1. In nearly every post except the one you quoted, I've said this attack wasn't appropriate.
2. What's the bias in the reporting? Someone was wrongly attacked by a group of people at McDonalds and it was reported by multiple local tv stations and newspapers.
3. Many posters have tried to point out this is a racist attack the same way the B-dubs incident was. No evidence suggests it was based on race. I keep asking if that's true or not. Nobody's answering.
Please point out where I said this attack was appropriate. I never have.
Looks like a local story to me involving 2 drunks behaving badly and an employee who did not disengage after getting them out the door.
Yup. Just your average McDonalds employee that did not disengage along with of a few of her feral pals physically assaulting a couple while paralyzing one.
1. In nearly every post except the one you quoted, I've said this attack wasn't appropriate.
2. What's the bias in the reporting? Someone was wrongly attacked by a group of people at McDonalds and it was reported by multiple local tv stations and newspapers.
3. Many posters have tried to point out this is a racist attack the same way the B-dubs incident was. No evidence suggests it was based on race. I keep asking if that's true or not. Nobody's answering.
Please point out where I said this attack was appropriate. I never have.
You can't be serious. Come on. When you write:
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983 Do you know what the fight was about at McDonald's? If it was because the group "hates white people", that's obviously inappropriate. Nothing indicates yet that that is the reason.
You're saying that if it's because of reason X, it's obviously inappropriate - which implies there are circumstances where it would be appropriate.
You don't get that apparently.
It's racist to report the race when a white person is the perp, but not when a minority is the perp. That's the point of the thread.
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983 Do you know what the fight was about at McDonald's? If it was because the group "hates white people", that's obviously inappropriate. Nothing indicates yet that that is the reason.
You're saying that if it's because of reason X, it's obviously inappropriate - which implies there are circumstances where it would be appropriate.
You don't get that apparently.
It's racist to report the race when a white person is the perp, but not when a minority is the perp. That's the point of the thread.
It's inappropriate regardless who the perp(s) is(are). I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is there's no shortage of people here saying the attack was based on the victim's race with zero evidence of that. Again, if that's the reason for the attack, I will categorize it as a hate crime in my mind, and it should certainly be discussed among a larger audience. There's no evidence this attack is due to a victim's race yet, though.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
Here's the message boards today:
B-dubs incident: The customer said they were explicitly asked by an employee to move because they were Black. Many posters here said the whole thing is a hoax based on absolutely no evidence it's a hoax.
McDonald's incident: White guy attacked by a group of Black people. "Definitely because he's white!"
It's inappropriate regardless who the perp(s) is(are). I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is there's no shortage of people here saying the attack was based on the victim's race with zero evidence of that. Again, if that's the reason for the attack, I will categorize it as a hate crime in my mind, and it should certainly be discussed among a larger audience. There's no evidence this attack is due to a victim's race yet, though.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
Here's the message boards today:
B-dubs incident: The customer said they were explicitly asked by an employee to move because they were Black. Many posters here said the whole thing is a hoax based on absolutely no evidence it's a hoax.
McDonald's incident: White guy attacked by a group of Black people. "Definitely because he's white!"
I'm white, BTW.
I never suggested you thought it was appropriate/inappropriate based on race. You're suggesting it may be inappropriate based on the reason for the attack.
I'm not being snarky, this is a sincere question - is English a second language for you?
It's inappropriate regardless who the perp(s) is(are). I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is there's no shortage of people here saying the attack was based on the victim's race with zero evidence of that. Again, if that's the reason for the attack, I will categorize it as a hate crime in my mind, and it should certainly be discussed among a larger audience. There's no evidence this attack is due to a victim's race yet, though.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
Here's the message boards today:
B-dubs incident: The customer said they were explicitly asked by an employee to move because they were Black. Many posters here said the whole thing is a hoax based on absolutely no evidence it's a hoax.
McDonald's incident: White guy attacked by a group of Black people. "Definitely because he's white!"
I'm white, BTW.
And you're also obviously a liberal.
These two incidents are not at all comparable. In the first, black people were insulted by a bigot who didn't want to sit next to them. It's awful, but nobody was hurt. In the second, black people viciously attacked a white couple, one of whom is now paralyzed.
In the first instance, the white guy did something very wrong (assuming it's true), but it's within the bounds of free speech. In the second instance, black people committed assault and battery, and may even have committed homicide (if the guy dies). In fact, if he does of complications related to his paralysis 20 years from now (which is very possible), those black people will be guilty of murder.
Don't draw comparisons. The black people were 1000x worse, and I hope they are put in prison.
I never suggested you thought it was appropriate/inappropriate based on race. You're suggesting it may be inappropriate based on the reason for the attack.
I'm not being snarky, this is a sincere question - is English a second language for you?
"It's racist to report the race when a white person is the perp, but not when a minority is the perp. That's the point of the thread."
You seemed to claim I was inferring the above earlier, which is not the case. But that's why the point of the thread doesn't make sense. Nobody's claiming it's racist purely based on the race of the perp.
In one instance (BWW), it was explicitly stated the incident was based on race.
In the other (McDonald's), there's no evidence it was based on race.
I'm not claiming either incident should've happened. Make sense yet?
If anyone has evidence otherwise, I'd be glad to see it. I'm going off what's been reported.
"It's racist to report the race when a white person is the perp, but not when a minority is the perp. That's the point of the thread."
You seemed to claim I was inferring the above earlier, which is not the case. But that's why the point of the thread doesn't make sense. Nobody's claiming it's racist purely based on the race of the perp.
In one instance (BWW), it was explicitly stated the incident was based on race.
In the other (McDonald's), there's no evidence it was based on race.
I'm not claiming either incident should've happened. Make sense yet?
If anyone has evidence otherwise, I'd be glad to see it. I'm going off what's been reported.
I give up.
You don't even understand the meaning of what YOU'VE posted - never mind what everyone else has posted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
