Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My, the people trying to malign the PA are salty AF. Seethe!

They are struggling with their own internal misogyny.

They aren’t. They don’t see it as misogyny. Pointing it out changes nothing.

I suppose that is true. Typically progressives deny misogyny on the left exists.

and there it is...

There's always one that has to drag everything back to politics.

God forbid there's ever a discussion where politics isn't mentioned, rest assured the trolls like pp will pathetically insert it in.

+1, complete with lies about the entire Dem leadership calling all white women Karen or something. Sick of that poster, who is probably also the dog whistle poster .

+1 Everything is about politics for them. Have you seen Twitter? Do you know who are obsessed with this case? MAGA crazy people, they are using it to justify their racism. Rational people can understand and acknowledge what happened here without this level of obsession.

True, but this is what the Democrats get for tolerating racially toxic language. Which they have been doing for a long time.

Do we need to state the obvious for you? The people spewing the term Karen at every opportunity are MAGAs, Incels, and some POC women.

While a Venn diagram might show some overlap between these groups and political affiliations, that's not what's driving this. What's driving it is misogyny and racism.

The use of "Karen" is both racist against white people, and sexist against women. That makes it very popular across the political spectrum.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Misunderstanding on her behalf? Odd to word it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Misunderstanding on her behalf? Odd to word it that way.

It’s called being the bigger person. She didn’t understand he wanted her bike. So, yeah, a misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My, the people trying to malign the PA are salty AF. Seethe!

They are struggling with their own internal misogyny.

They aren’t. They don’t see it as misogyny. Pointing it out changes nothing.

I suppose that is true. Typically progressives deny misogyny on the left exists.

and there it is...

There's always one that has to drag everything back to politics.

God forbid there's ever a discussion where politics isn't mentioned, rest assured the trolls like pp will pathetically insert it in.

+1, complete with lies about the entire Dem leadership calling all white women Karen or something. Sick of that poster, who is probably also the dog whistle poster .

+1 Everything is about politics for them. Have you seen Twitter? Do you know who are obsessed with this case? MAGA crazy people, they are using it to justify their racism. Rational people can understand and acknowledge what happened here without this level of obsession.

True, but this is what the Democrats get for tolerating racially toxic language. Which they have been doing for a long time.

Do we need to state the obvious for you? The people spewing the term Karen at every opportunity are MAGAs, Incels, and some POC women.

While a Venn diagram might show some overlap between these groups and political affiliations, that's not what's driving this. What's driving it is misogyny and racism.

The use of "Karen" is both racist against white people, and sexist against women. That makes it very popular across the political spectrum.

Bingo.

It’s a lot more used and popular in the left, though. The right doesn’t really come up with individual demographic insults for women (except for Black women), because they hate all women, with particular hatred for Black women. “Karen” is used by the left because the left particularly hates white women and at least tries to pretend they don’t hate all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

Yes, it is clear she was targeted for harassment. And her lawyer is being very smart. He is sticking to statements that are unequivocal. He makes her look gracious and magnanimous. And he is leaving the rest of us to see the truth. He’s led us there, but doesn’t have to say it.

I have to say he seems very sharp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

Yes, it is clear she was targeted for harassment. And her lawyer is being very smart. He is sticking to statements that are unequivocal. He makes her look gracious and magnanimous. And he is leaving the rest of us to see the truth. He’s led us there, but doesn’t have to say it.

I have to say he seems very sharp.

I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

You are picking and choosing that some of what she has said is factual and some is PR. You believe the parts of what she says that fit your own biases and you refuse to accept the possibility that black young men could be involved in a misunderstanding as that doesn't fit your biases. Your view is that the only option is that they had to be a mob harrassing her and intentionally there to channel rage on the head of a convenient scapegoat because she was a white women and they were young black men. You don't believe parts of her version because you don't believe that there could be a mild confrontation between a white woman and young black men that was just a misunderstanding as that goes against your own biases. So you have decided that you know better than her what happened, despite having a very limited view compared to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

You are picking and choosing that some of what she has said is factual and some is PR. You believe the parts of what she says that fit your own biases and you refuse to accept the possibility that black young men could be involved in a misunderstanding as that doesn't fit your biases. Your view is that the only option is that they had to be a mob harrassing her and intentionally there to channel rage on the head of a convenient scapegoat because she was a white women and they were young black men. You don't believe parts of her version because you don't believe that there could be a mild confrontation between a white woman and young black men that was just a misunderstanding as that goes against your own biases. So you have decided that you know better than her what happened, despite having a very limited view compared to her.

Let me introduce you to the concept of "spin."

[Anonymous]

So, what exactly was the “misunderstanding”?
The perps “thought” it was their bike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

You are picking and choosing that some of what she has said is factual and some is PR. You believe the parts of what she says that fit your own biases and you refuse to accept the possibility that black young men could be involved in a misunderstanding as that doesn't fit your biases. Your view is that the only option is that they had to be a mob harrassing her and intentionally there to channel rage on the head of a convenient scapegoat because she was a white women and they were young black men. You don't believe parts of her version because you don't believe that there could be a mild confrontation between a white woman and young black men that was just a misunderstanding as that goes against your own biases. So you have decided that you know better than her what happened, despite having a very limited view compared to her.

Let me introduce you to the concept of "spin."

Let me introduce you to the concepts of 'internalized racism" and "cognitive bias" and "ego".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

I think it’s the people who know them protecting them.

But I truly believe if they were actually the ones wronged, they would have (activist) lawyers by now. The fact they don’t speaks volumes.

+1. Ben Crump would be all over this if given the chance

Ben Crump already was all over it, spreading and adding libel. Looks like he has since deleted his tweet (but did not apologize.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-hospital-employee-seen-viral-video-appearing-take-bike-young-black-rcna85352

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

Personally, as a woman, I'm ok with the boys not facing consequences. They are kids. It appears that they were looking to stir up trouble with this woman and film it, as evidenced by the friend in the hoodie who seemed disinterested and willing to walk away. This was, at most, a misunderstanding between regular people that should have ended when the parties went their separate ways. It doesn't matter what happens to the boys because they don't have the power to correct the wrong that has been done (assuming that one has been done). It's far more important to address this through the channels that caused this story to blow up. I agree with others that there need to be major changes to the restrictions for online platforms to prevent regular people's lives from being unfairly ruined by an internet mob. It's one thing if you are a public figure, but regular people should not have their careers ruined and their families' safety threatened as a result of an out-of-context two-minute video clip.

They are not kids and knew exactly what they were doing. What next, the do something worse as people like you want to give them a free pass? They should be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

You are picking and choosing that some of what she has said is factual and some is PR. You believe the parts of what she says that fit your own biases and you refuse to accept the possibility that black young men could be involved in a misunderstanding as that doesn't fit your biases. Your view is that the only option is that they had to be a mob harrassing her and intentionally there to channel rage on the head of a convenient scapegoat because she was a white women and they were young black men. You don't believe parts of her version because you don't believe that there could be a mild confrontation between a white woman and young black men that was just a misunderstanding as that goes against your own biases. So you have decided that you know better than her what happened, despite having a very limited view compared to her.

Let me introduce you to the concept of "spin."

Let me introduce you to the concepts of 'internalized racism" and "cognitive bias" and "ego".

Those are real things, but they function where every bit of evidence is concerned. You're applying them selectively to defend the harassing men, but I'll argue that they're the reason you can't acknowledge they are the bad actors here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.

You don't have any experience of PR to draw from in evaluating this situation? Yes, I believe she fully understands the situation she was in. Those men harassed her intentionally.

But her attorney's statement holds back from describing the full extent as a practical means to the best realistic end. Too many people are unwilling to hear that she was intentionally harassed on the street, or perhaps they think that's fine. It is better to limit public focus to the gleeful rumor-spreaders.

I agree with this decision but let's have our eyes open. Especially if we're white women of a certain age who live in central-city neighborhoods. We should acknowledge the target on our backs.

You are picking and choosing that some of what she has said is factual and some is PR. You believe the parts of what she says that fit your own biases and you refuse to accept the possibility that black young men could be involved in a misunderstanding as that doesn't fit your biases. Your view is that the only option is that they had to be a mob harrassing her and intentionally there to channel rage on the head of a convenient scapegoat because she was a white women and they were young black men. You don't believe parts of her version because you don't believe that there could be a mild confrontation between a white woman and young black men that was just a misunderstanding as that goes against your own biases. So you have decided that you know better than her what happened, despite having a very limited view compared to her.

Let me introduce you to the concept of "spin."

Let me introduce you to the concepts of 'internalized racism" and "cognitive bias" and "ego".

You have succinctly described Monique Judge.