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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

I thought about this a little longer and you know, I think it would be reasonable for the hospital to investigate if there is any evidence of racial bias in how she treats patients and coworkers. If she’s the racist people are saying, I’m sure there’s evidence. And prominent activist Roxane Gay has publicly suggested she doesn’t treat black patients appropriately due to her racism. So yes. I think it would be appropriate to investigate and either fire her or publicly clear her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

I thought about this a little longer and you know, I think it would be reasonable for the hospital to investigate if there is any evidence of racial bias in how she treats patients and coworkers. If she’s the racist people are saying, I’m sure there’s evidence. And prominent activist Roxane Gay has publicly suggested she doesn’t treat black patients appropriately due to her racism. So yes. I think it would be appropriate to investigate and either fire her or publicly clear her.

Roxane Gay, why am I surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

So, we can’t discuss it without you going off the deep end? Yeah, why am I not surprised.

I’m not talking about prosecution or her losing her job. I’m talking about her behavior.

I’m not “going off the deep end.” I’m asking you what we are supposed to do if we conclude it’s not okay.

As I just posted, I think it’s right and appropriate for her employer to confirm or deny if she’s a racist.

But otherwise I don’t know what you want. It’s not the job of the general public to declare someone “okay” or “not okay.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

I thought about this a little longer and you know, I think it would be reasonable for the hospital to investigate if there is any evidence of racial bias in how she treats patients and coworkers. If she’s the racist people are saying, I’m sure there’s evidence. And prominent activist Roxane Gay has publicly suggested she doesn’t treat black patients appropriately due to her racism. So yes. I think it would be appropriate to investigate and either fire her or publicly clear her.

We're living in a dystopian world where some people get into an argument over a bikeshare, and now other people are calling for an employer to get involved. Back when our society was sane, no one would care, or even know, about this incident.

This is why I love my BMW. I don't have to share it with anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is she fake crying, if she wants to be taken seriously?

Yes why is this victim not responding more gracefully to these bullies?

Why is that bully crying and screaming? While the victims try to calmly speak with her.

Why are they refusing to let her scan the bike she’s on? Explain.

Why is she refusing to get off the bike they scanned? Explain.

They scanned it after she was already on it. Literally they scan it in the video while she is sitting on it.

Everyone is convinced that this guy rented the bike before the video starts but he very clearly rents the bike midway through the video after preventing her from scanning the bike herself by covering the scanner with his hand. It's right there in the video.

Why didn't this kid just rent another bike. Explain.

Clearly he was renting the bike as it was activated and had the app open. She got on it and claimed it was hers. She didn’t even have her phone out or make any attempt to book the bike. Wouldn’t surprise me if she doesn’t even have the app.

Why didn’t she just rent another bike if she even could. Explain.

The video doesn’t show when he scanned the QR code. He might have scanned it after she sat down. Or scanned it then turned his back. Unclear what the situation was when she sat down.

Except that if he’d paid before she sat down, it would have already been unlocked, instead of unlocking during the video.

This. People are confused. You can't reserve or unlock a bike unless you are right next to it. The bike is locked at the beginning of the video, it is unlocked during the video. We clearly see him covering the screen so she can't unlock it, even though she is straddling the bike and therefore has a better claim to the bike.

She does not steal a bike he paid for. He pays for a bike she is already on, and prevents her from paying for it herself.

You absolutely can reserve a CitiBike even from blocks away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

I thought about this a little longer and you know, I think it would be reasonable for the hospital to investigate if there is any evidence of racial bias in how she treats patients and coworkers. If she’s the racist people are saying, I’m sure there’s evidence. And prominent activist Roxane Gay has publicly suggested she doesn’t treat black patients appropriately due to her racism. So yes. I think it would be appropriate to investigate and either fire her or publicly clear her.

Thankfully she’s in a union, so she’s hopefully protected against a fishing-expedition investigation, as well as being fired based on a viral video and internet mob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

So, we can’t discuss it without you going off the deep end? Yeah, why am I not surprised.

I’m not talking about prosecution or her losing her job. I’m talking about her behavior.

I’m not “going off the deep end.” I’m asking you what we are supposed to do if we conclude it’s not okay.

As I just posted, I think it’s right and appropriate for her employer to confirm or deny if she’s a racist.

But otherwise I don’t know what you want. It’s not the job of the general public to declare someone “okay” or “not okay.”

Yes, that was the point, discussing the morality of weaponizing fake tears. You know, having conversations like adults. But carry on, and ignore the damage she’s doing to women who need to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

My take is the teen was standing next to the bike in the process of renting it, and this woman walked up to the bike, bypassing the others that were open and free to rent, without making eye contact and without asking, "Are you using this one?" because that would be the civilized thing to do and the option that takes into account that other people exist, places her left hand on the handlebar, clutching her greasy bag of food, and slips her let over the crossbar.

The teen reacts as any sane person would to this act of aggression and rudeness. "Hey lady what are you doing?"

She thinks it's 2015 and she's hot stuff, and he must want it because they all do right, and he under her spell will give up the bike. When that bit of mind f*7ckry doesn't work because she's no Kim K., she resorts too...

Expressing dominance through, white lady tears, and cries for help, thinking the teen is going to back off, but this fella isn't having it. This isn't 1960 and he's not fearing a good lynching for daring to make eye contact with a white woman.

But now she's embarrassed and can't back down, because nothing is working, and a neutral 3rd party has started filming.

And she ups the stakes when her colleague comes by, hysterical sobs, but that doesn't work either, because the colleague is just like drama lama soon to be someone's mama, get off the bike, you idiot.

Since he is a white man and a doctor, she complies, like a good little girl, after all of that earlier nonsense. A grown woman, a mother to at least one child, with another on the way, allowed herself to be caught on camera cycling through all of the trick to get a black man shot in the head, and in the end only stopped because a white man told her too.

She'd still be on that bike whining and crying about the black guys trying to hurt her fetus if he hadn't shown up and taken charge.

Everything else is a distraction. This dumb woman played a stupid game and now she's reaping stupid rewards.

Were her actions stupid, racist, and entitled? Heck yes. Stupid, racist, and entitled is a very dangerous combination.

She's lucky in this instance no one got hurt, other than her reputation, hopefully, she learns something and moves on as a more enlightened person.

The fallout, for acting like a fool on a city street...she's now on leave from her employer, pending an investigation. Employers don't like employees who cause problems, especially those who cause public problems, and especially those who don't lack value add. She's a PA, not a surgeon, not a doctor = she's toast.

Internet famous for all of the wrong reasons.

Regardless of the twits on here trying to defend her actions, she has a really large public egg all over her face. So much for life in the big city. Twit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is she fake crying, if she wants to be taken seriously?

Yes why is this victim not responding more gracefully to these bullies?

Why is that bully crying and screaming? While the victims try to calmly speak with her.

Why are they refusing to let her scan the bike she’s on? Explain.

Why is she refusing to get off the bike they scanned? Explain.

They scanned it after she was already on it. Literally they scan it in the video while she is sitting on it.

Everyone is convinced that this guy rented the bike before the video starts but he very clearly rents the bike midway through the video after preventing her from scanning the bike herself by covering the scanner with his hand. It's right there in the video.

Why didn't this kid just rent another bike. Explain.

Clearly he was renting the bike as it was activated and had the app open. She got on it and claimed it was hers. She didn’t even have her phone out or make any attempt to book the bike. Wouldn’t surprise me if she doesn’t even have the app.

Why didn’t she just rent another bike if she even could. Explain.

The video doesn’t show when he scanned the QR code. He might have scanned it after she sat down. Or scanned it then turned his back. Unclear what the situation was when she sat down.

Except that if he’d paid before she sat down, it would have already been unlocked, instead of unlocking during the video.

This. People are confused. You can't reserve or unlock a bike unless you are right next to it. The bike is locked at the beginning of the video, it is unlocked during the video. We clearly see him covering the screen so she can't unlock it, even though she is straddling the bike and therefore has a better claim to the bike.

She does not steal a bike he paid for. He pays for a bike she is already on, and prevents her from paying for it herself.

You absolutely can reserve a CitiBike even from blocks away.

How? You can’t in DC.

[Anonymous]

This was an interesting thread to read. I appreciate those that described the process of renting the bikes.

In my opinion, the headlines saying she was stealing the bike are unfair. The headlines calling her racist are unjustified. I don't want her to lose her job over this.

That being said, she fits the description of a Karen to me. This was all over a bike rental with multiple other bikes available. The person who is right is the person who keeps their cool in what should have been a minor situation. The guys commented on her behavior and filmed her while she lost her composure. When she couldn't get the bike herself she called out for help in a really annoying way trying to get someone to come over and defend her right to have the bike. That sense of entitlement, that you can expect society to back you up in any dispute is what makes her a Karen. If you think she handles the situation well, then I'd suspect you are also a Karen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My take is the teen was standing next to the bike in the process of renting it, and this woman walked up to the bike, bypassing the others that were open and free to rent, without making eye contact and without asking, "Are you using this one?" because that would be the civilized thing to do and the option that takes into account that other people exist, places her left hand on the handlebar, clutching her greasy bag of food, and slips her let over the crossbar.

The teen reacts as any sane person would to this act of aggression and rudeness. "Hey lady what are you doing?"

She thinks it's 2015 and she's hot stuff, and he must want it because they all do right, and he under her spell will give up the bike. When that bit of mind f*7ckry doesn't work because she's no Kim K., she resorts too...

Expressing dominance through, white lady tears, and cries for help, thinking the teen is going to back off, but this fella isn't having it. This isn't 1960 and he's not fearing a good lynching for daring to make eye contact with a white woman.

But now she's embarrassed and can't back down, because nothing is working, and a neutral 3rd party has started filming.

And she ups the stakes when her colleague comes by, hysterical sobs, but that doesn't work either, because the colleague is just like drama lama soon to be someone's mama, get off the bike, you idiot.

Since he is a white man and a doctor, she complies, like a good little girl, after all of that earlier nonsense. A grown woman, a mother to at least one child, with another on the way, allowed herself to be caught on camera cycling through all of the trick to get a black man shot in the head, and in the end only stopped because a white man told her too.

She'd still be on that bike whining and crying about the black guys trying to hurt her fetus if he hadn't shown up and taken charge.

Everything else is a distraction. This dumb woman played a stupid game and now she's reaping stupid rewards.

Were her actions stupid, racist, and entitled? Heck yes. Stupid, racist, and entitled is a very dangerous combination.

She's lucky in this instance no one got hurt, other than her reputation, hopefully, she learns something and moves on as a more enlightened person.

The fallout, for acting like a fool on a city street...she's now on leave from her employer, pending an investigation. Employers don't like employees who cause problems, especially those who cause public problems, and especially those who don't lack value add. She's a PA, not a surgeon, not a doctor = she's toast.

Internet famous for all of the wrong reasons.

Regardless of the twits on here trying to defend her actions, she has a really large public egg all over her face. So much for life in the big city. Twit.

Was that ChatGPT generated fanfic? Because it bore no connection to actual facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was an interesting thread to read. I appreciate those that described the process of renting the bikes.

In my opinion, the headlines saying she was stealing the bike are unfair. The headlines calling her racist are unjustified. I don't want her to lose her job over this.

That being said, she fits the description of a Karen to me. This was all over a bike rental with multiple other bikes available. The person who is right is the person who keeps their cool in what should have been a minor situation. The guys commented on her behavior and filmed her while she lost her composure. When she couldn't get the bike herself she called out for help in a really annoying way trying to get someone to come over and defend her right to have the bike. That sense of entitlement, that you can expect society to back you up in any dispute is what makes her a Karen. If you think she handles the situation well, then I'd suspect you are also a Karen.

I didn’t see other bikes available. Also being a “Karen” doesn’t merit getting internet mobbed and fired anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

So, we can’t discuss it without you going off the deep end? Yeah, why am I not surprised.

I’m not talking about prosecution or her losing her job. I’m talking about her behavior.

I’m not “going off the deep end.” I’m asking you what we are supposed to do if we conclude it’s not okay.

As I just posted, I think it’s right and appropriate for her employer to confirm or deny if she’s a racist.

But otherwise I don’t know what you want. It’s not the job of the general public to declare someone “okay” or “not okay.”

Yes, that was the point, discussing the morality of weaponizing fake tears. You know, having conversations like adults. But carry on, and ignore the damage she’s doing to women who need to be taken seriously.

If you think I’m off the deep end you probably think Roxane Gay should be committed, right?

Not to mention so far from being an adult that she should be sent back to the third grade… right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is she fake crying, if she wants to be taken seriously?

Yes why is this victim not responding more gracefully to these bullies?

Why is that bully crying and screaming? While the victims try to calmly speak with her.

Why are they refusing to let her scan the bike she’s on? Explain.

Why is she refusing to get off the bike they scanned? Explain.

They scanned it after she was already on it. Literally they scan it in the video while she is sitting on it.

Everyone is convinced that this guy rented the bike before the video starts but he very clearly rents the bike midway through the video after preventing her from scanning the bike herself by covering the scanner with his hand. It's right there in the video.

Why didn't this kid just rent another bike. Explain.

Clearly he was renting the bike as it was activated and had the app open. She got on it and claimed it was hers. She didn’t even have her phone out or make any attempt to book the bike. Wouldn’t surprise me if she doesn’t even have the app.

Why didn’t she just rent another bike if she even could. Explain.

The video doesn’t show when he scanned the QR code. He might have scanned it after she sat down. Or scanned it then turned his back. Unclear what the situation was when she sat down.

Except that if he’d paid before she sat down, it would have already been unlocked, instead of unlocking during the video.

This. People are confused. You can't reserve or unlock a bike unless you are right next to it. The bike is locked at the beginning of the video, it is unlocked during the video. We clearly see him covering the screen so she can't unlock it, even though she is straddling the bike and therefore has a better claim to the bike.

She does not steal a bike he paid for. He pays for a bike she is already on, and prevents her from paying for it herself.

You absolutely can reserve a CitiBike even from blocks away.

False, you can check how many bikes are at a station but you can’t reserve one for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was an interesting thread to read. I appreciate those that described the process of renting the bikes.

In my opinion, the headlines saying she was stealing the bike are unfair. The headlines calling her racist are unjustified. I don't want her to lose her job over this.

That being said, she fits the description of a Karen to me. This was all over a bike rental with multiple other bikes available. The person who is right is the person who keeps their cool in what should have been a minor situation. The guys commented on her behavior and filmed her while she lost her composure. When she couldn't get the bike herself she called out for help in a really annoying way trying to get someone to come over and defend her right to have the bike. That sense of entitlement, that you can expect society to back you up in any dispute is what makes her a Karen. If you think she handles the situation well, then I'd suspect you are also a Karen.

I didn’t see other bikes available. Also being a “Karen” doesn’t merit getting internet mobbed and fired anyway.

Agree that I hope she doesn't get fired. Life is full of unfair stuff. If she hadn't acted the fool she wouldn't have to worry but she thought it worth the effort to escalate and then sh*t happens. Those in this thread talking about how they would have cursed or physically confronted three strangers should keep that in mind. The best solution in a minor situation like this to walk away. You aren't helping anything by escalating the situation.

As far as other bikes being available, I thought I read that there were other bikes (debate over which was unlocked) and that she backed down at the end and got another bike. My fault if this isn't the case.