
It’s not “raging misogynist”. It’s “anti-white.” That’s where this endless denial and refusal to confront the facts comes from. The PA was white, the boys Black, and that defines who is right and who is wrong the Crumps of the world and to many in this thread. Nothing will ever be enough to persuade those folx: the receipt could have been faked, even if the facts are as the PA alleges “weaponizing white women tears” is vastly worse. And note it’s always *white* tears, not just women’s tears—this shows you where they are really coming from. |
Pp again, I misread. You’re not in the same page because the person you’re responding to continues to pretend the receipts proving it was her bike never happened. |
It’s not beyond pathetic. Sadly, it’s persuasive to a broad swath of the country. Almost nobody really cares about facts or principles, they care about what team they’re on. |
Has the hospital made any kind of public apology for putting her on administrative leave (implying she had done something wrong, or at minimum something they needed to investigate?) |
Can’t wait to see what Monique tweets today. Another meltdown? More digging in to her narrative? Maybe she took her meds and will ignore it all? |
It’s anti-white woman, not anti-white. It’s not about white men. |
This is misguided. The whole point of administrative leave is to allow employers take time to try and figure out the facts before rushing to judgment when an issue arises. Administrative leave is almost always paid leave. They didn't accuse her of anything. They aren't going to apologize because they didn't imply she did anything wrong. Putting an employee on paid admin leave while looking into a matter further is standard procedure and doesn't warrant an apology -- even if people are trying to spin it into a punishment or indictment. |
Can someone summarize this thread? Tl;dr |
No word from them but I expect them to clear her soon. If you read the statements from the hospital, they’ve always been neutral— no condemnation of the PA or her behavior, and the don’t say they placed her on leave, only that she is on leave and will be until a review is conducted. They have only said the incident itself was disturbing, never that her behavior was in question. It looks like from the start, the hospital understood this was not an obvious case of a staffer misbehaving. I would not be surprised if they’d talked to the other staffer in the video soon after the incident— I think he saw more if what happened than the video shows and may have been able to offer support for her. |
No |
Btw, the reason I think the other staffer witnessed the incident is that he actually walks past at the very beginning of the video, then comes back to help. So if her story is right that when she got in the bike no one was around, he may actually have seen that as he was walking from the hospital. Would also explain why he was immediately supportive of her and suggesting the re-dick the bike so she can have it. He may have understood it was her bike to begin with. But then sees the guys aren’t going to let it go and suggests an easier (if less fair) suggestion if getting on another bike. |
But sadly it’s true. Any man raised in a good home with decent values doesn’t try to take a bike from a pregnant woman. You’re likely defensive and angry because you know it’s true. |
DP. You're making broad generalizations about another race, and that's just wrong. I agree the guys are scum, but no need to seize on that to make a racist point. |
All things considered, it’s probably best for both parties that they go their separate ways. She gets a reasonable settlement and never works there again. |
At first a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon that the woman was a “Karen” who fake cried to get these guys in trouble while trying to take their bike. A handful of posters defended her, or at least viewed the situation as more nuanced and maybe less racially defined. Then a small group of posters started analyzing the video (as Jeff says: “like the Zapruder film”) and pointing out some issues with the Karen narrative. They (we, I was one of them) pointed out that he actually rents the bike during the video, not before, which is confusing because she’s actually in the bike when he does this. Also pointed out: the guy appears to be covering the QR code on the bike to prevent her from renting it, there are many of them and only one of her, her upset seems genuine and not faked to some, the guy in the purple sweatshirt says they should let her have the bike, a man in the background says “your baby is gonna come out re****ed” (among other heckles). All of this seemed to point to the idea that maybe it was not “his” bike and also that her calls for help and her tears were real signs of distress, not faked to get the guys in trouble. Then on Thursday, the woman’s lawyer came out with two receipts: one for the bike in question, that lasts a minute, and another fir another bike that lasts 25 minutes or so. Her narrative is that she got on the bike first when no one was near it, rented it, then one or more guys approached and pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it, then the altercation you see in the video. Then she rents a new bike and goes home. At this point the thread turned to mostly support the woman, and focus became the internet mob that had jumped to conclusions about her. We discussed how she was doxxed and put on leave, and how a number of people, including a writer named Monique Judge, had made it their personal mission to destroy her life. Sone people in the thread admitted they were wrong and apologized. Sone accepted these apologies and others did not. That about sums it up. I’ll note I actually didn’t participate in the thread the first couple days so only skimmed those pages— I only became interested when I finally watched the video to find out what the fuss was about and became confused because it didn’t look like she was stealing the bike and her distress appeared genuine to me. |