It's understandable, not reasonable. I think it's great that so many people are humble and relected enough to state that they were wrong and apoligize for it instead of just vanishing or trying to find way to lessen the shame by undermining those who rightfully told everyone to wait on the other side of the story. That should happen more often in all kind of discussions.Not sure why you or anyone has to apologize. It's perfectly reasonable to take a side (and a reasonable side to take considering the last few months of police interactions).
Don't hold back bolding the last part of is post too. In this specfic case there were clearly something missing.Well said.
It's understandable, not reasonable. I think it's great that so many people are humble and relected enough to state that they were wrong and apoligize for it instead of just vanishing or trying to find way to lessen the shame by undermining those who rightfully told everyone to wait on the other side of the story. That should happen more often in all kind of discussions.
.
Kristen Stewart got away with it.
I kept it because it's true, but in this story, no one knew what that missing part was. Someone propping themselves up for being right in this case means they didn't do anything but assume she was lying so they could wait for the other shoe to drop. It's not a "he said, she said" thing here as much as a "I'll be back to gloat when I'm right" situation.Don't hold back bolding the last part of is post too. In this specfic case there were clearly something missing.
I don't think the problem is that people thought she was telling the truth and ended up being wrong. The problem was the intensely toxic environment which resulted in someone who wanted to wait for the full story being banned after being dog piled.
No wonder these types of threads tend to be echo chambers. Nobody who was wrong needs to apologize. Only apologize if you chastised someone for disagreeing and wanting to wait for the full story to come out.
I kept it because it's true, but in this story, no one knew what that missing part was. Someone propping themselves up for being right in this case means they didn't do anything but assume she was lying so they could wait for the other shoe to drop. It's not a "he said, she said" thing here as much as a "I'll be back to gloat when I'm right" situation.
I kept it because it's true, but in this story, no one knew what that missing part was. Someone propping themselves up for being right in this case means they didn't do anything but assume she was lying so they could wait for the other shoe to drop. It's not a "he said, she said" thing here as much as a "I'll be back to gloat when I'm right" situation.
Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.So when there are two parties involved, and you only hear from one of them, you think that NO ONE KNEW WHAT THE MISSING PART WAS?
Are you joking or are you being intellectually dishonest on purpose?
Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just kind of gross seeing people think this is a thing about scoring points or being right than actually discussing the story and its impact on all of us.
Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.
It is upsetting that some posters are so happy not that this was revealed not to be more police-served racism, but that they were right about not believing her. Like positively cooing with delight that they were right and others were wrong. Score one for devil's advocacy then
Oh please, a page ago you were subtly insulting me for no reason. You didn't try to discuss anything with me, you were perfectly content jumping straight to an insult.Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.
If they were previously attacked for their stance it kind of makes sense that they'd feel the need to point out that they were right.Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.
You were trying to talk about being better than us at discussing this when your initial contributions were all just along the lines of "I'm right, and I'll wait until all the facts to know it." When you say others are jumping to conclusions, it's fair to turn that same magnifying glass back onto yourself.Oh please, a page ago you were subtly insulting me for no reason. You didn't try to discuss anything with me, you were perfectly content jumping straight to an insult.
I agree.If they were previously attacked for their stance it kind of makes sense that they'd feel the need to point out that they were right.
Oh please, a page ago you were subtly insulting me for no reason. You didn't try to discuss anything with me, you were perfectly content jumping straight to an insult.
That's a really dumb opinion to have.Falsely accusing police officers of racism is just as bad as racism itself in my book.
No, I don't care that you had an opinion about the situation, my problem is when people who hold your opinion endlessly insult people because they don't agree with you.You were kind of trying to gloat about being better than us when your initial contributions were all just "I'm right, and I'll wait until all the facts to know it." When you say others are jumping to conclusions, it's fair to turn that same magnifying glass back onto yourself.
I agree.
Who is happy or scoring points? Labor is the only one I saw "scoring points"
Friggin' projection, man.
Agreed. I think people are being a bit dishonest in thinking this won't be a repeated talking point whenever it comes time to trust a story from a woman or black person.
Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.
Which response will satisfy you
"I will hereby withhold my opinion until stutte decrees there are sufficient facts to have one"
"All point systems are to be abolished in favor of a two-party right/wrong index"
"Institutionalized racism may exist once enough data has been gathered"
"Everyone who was wrong earlier may admit to it, but not forget it"
"Without clear evidence: People should be less naive and be more skeptical and use their own judgement when hearing a story from a "victim's" perspective that may sound questionable. "
Which response will satisfy you
"I will hereby withhold my opinion until stutte decrees there are sufficient facts to have one"
"All point systems are to be abolished in favor of a two-party right/wrong index"
"Institutionalized racism may exist once enough data has been gathered"
"Everyone who was wrong earlier may admit to it, but not forget it"
Which response will satisfy you
"I will hereby withhold my opinion until stutte decrees there are sufficient facts to have one"
"All point systems are to be abolished in favor of a two-party right/wrong index"
"Institutionalized racism may exist once enough data has been gathered"
"Everyone who was wrong earlier may admit to it, but not forget it"
no, but the magnitude of her lie should be a shining example of waiting for conclusive evidence before going on a witch hunt, and to not easily fall for anecdotal evidence.
cop could've lost his career, savings, pension, the future of his family all because of a lie. the power of a public backlash could even spell danger on his family's lives, not to mention the perception of people around them.
it is always best to wait for more info, more than anything. that doesn't mean you can't say your piece about the issue, but that also shouldn't mean there should be a mob mentality and just shoot down those who question or disagree with it. some people have even went on as far as researched the legality of requiring id and went to such great lengths to defend the supposed victim.
as for me, she sounded oversensitive at first. you'd think she reflected on her mistakes but she actually made a big thing out of it after the fact. she totally used the cop and that incident to her advantage. good thing there are recorders.
reminds me of the movie jagten/the hunt.
I'm bailing out of this thread. It's devolving into people sniping at each other.
Daniele Watts sucks.
That last one....that....I just added.
Sàmban;130180850 said:Jesus, I'm lost. WTF happened? Some place for a good recap? I scrambled through the thread but I'm still not sure exactly what happened...
Is any one still waiting on Darren Wilson's account of what happened in ferguson?
Is any one still waiting on Darren Wilson's account of what happened in ferguson?
Is any one still waiting on Darren Wilson's account of what happened in ferguson?
Vastly different case.
How long do you think you'll get away with insulting liu kang?Forget it. He/she/it is denser than Jello.
And intellectually dishonestly to boot.
Is any one still waiting on Darren Wilson's account of what happened in ferguson?
How long do you think you'll get away with insulting liu kang?
C'mon dude.
:/
Click on the two links provided in the OT, in chronological order, (Read the Variety article first, then listen to the TMZ audio clips) Honestly other than that, there's nothing else to see here.
I think the point they are trying to make is they are tired of posters getting dogpiled on for having a different opinion then the majority.Labor explained it better than me right above your post. It's just weird to me to see people act like this is about scoring points or being right rather than discussing the story itself and its impact on all of us.
Also I feel like a person immediately distrusting minorities when they interact with cops sets off alarms for me. Look at this post in the Utah sword guy thread: http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=130174259&postcount=263. The guy's own white family didn't believe all the stories until it actually happened to them. I feel like the immediate distrust in this story came from similar thought processes.
With the high tension regarding police/minority interactions lately, taking the side of the accuser in this situation isn't unreasonable. What IS unreasonable is anyone who lambastes other posters because they DON'T immediately take that position.
I think it's understandable to be hostile toward "need to wait for more facts" comments, because they're often used without any specific relevant facts in mind to be waiting for.
In those cases, they're rightfully seen as someone who has picked a side without valid reasons and simply wants to wait for evidence that backs up that side.
That being said, it's obviously not correct to always slam that comment. As sometimes there are relevant facts missing that are important in making a judgement, like in this case where the other side of the story was completely missing.
Asking for more information, evidence, etc. regarding the situation is never a wrong position to take unless the evidence so far explains the situation. Guy with sword shot in the back? The overwhelming possibility of the cops shooting a man running away is almost certain. Only some weird hat trick can make it other wise. The amount of reaching it goes to discredit someone or "brand" them is mindbogglingly sad. Instead of trying to assume the person's character why not entertain the idea of there's not enough evidence. If you strongly feel otherwise don't converse with that person on that subject.
Asking for more information, evidence, etc. regarding the situation is never a wrong position to take unless the evidence so far explains the situation. Guy with sword shot in the back? The overwhelming possibility of the cops shooting a man running away is almost certain. Only some weird hat trick can make it other wise. The amount of reaching it goes to discredit someone or "brand" them is mindbogglingly sad. Instead of trying to assume the person's character why not entertain the idea of there's not enough evidence. If you strongly feel otherwise don't converse with that person on that subject.