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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

Last week I got cut off in traffic while I was having a bad day, and I yelled at the other driver that he was a jerk and shouldn't have done that. If he or a bystander had filmed me doing so, should I be fired from my job and called a racist online?

Should you? No, just like I think this woman shouldn't be fired.

But if you screamed at him for 90 seconds and had a meltdown, while wearing your work uniform, then I don't think you should be surprised if that happens.

I don't think she should be fired on the basis of this interaction, but I'm not surprised the hospital wants to look at her record. If she works with high-needs populations, then she really should understand the power dynamics of a white woman yelling "help, help me" during a (non-violent) verbal altercation with Black boys.

You can say it's unfair, or wrong, that she should have to temper her response based on the chance that she'd get someone hurt, but it should absolutely be part of her training to recognize the power differential, think about the potential ramifications of sic'ing security or the police on Black boys, and change her approach accordingly.

If she doesn't have enough awareness to do that, I think it's worth looking at whether that attitude has spilled into patient care.

So what consequence is appropriate for the young men who used their physical strength to intimidate a pregnant woman, then used race and lies to try to get her fired?

Just wondering who should teach them about their abuse of their male privilege and the internet mob.

The only reasonable conclusion one honestly reaches from the opposing POV is that there should be zero consequences expressly because they are Black and she is white, because the actual sequence of events has been rendered totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He had not rented the bike. The video is clear. You hear the “chunk” and chime of it unlocking 20 seconds in.

You’re editorializing with your sarcasm and presenting that as factual. The actual recorded facts invalidate what you claim in your post.

She hadn't rented it either. So what if he rented it 20 seconds into the video? He still rented it first. She just sat on it, which gains her nothing, because that's not how you rent things.

He physically blocked her from renting it the only way one can rent by physically putting his hand over the scannable code.

You can and I’m guessing, will, keep it up, but you’re not going to get me or others to scream at you so you can declare victory. The woman did not attempt a theft or a line-cut, she did not attempt to get the boys into hot water with police or hospital security, and she didn’t deserve to have multiple people online calling for her firing.

I don't think she deserves to be fired, even though she was wrong in this event. I don't care whether you scream at me or not, and I don't need to declare victory. Just contributing to the conversation.

I’m at no risk of screaming at you, but certainly the repeat posting of “why hadn’t she rented it?” is an attempt to get posters to snap since it’s been answered quite a few times in the last pages alone. I think you’ll be disappointed in the reaction to your contribution to the conversation.

Well, I'll be sure to soldier on in the face of my crushing disappointment.

And I don't find those answers sufficient - they don't make sense, and they don't justify her actions - which is why I keep asking the question.

What action is it that you want justified? What answers don't make sense? At this point your behavior is trollish because you are simply ignoring the people who are trying to answer your questions in good faith, repeating the questions over and over, and dismissing responses out of hadn't without considering them.

Did this woman yell at these men? No, she yells for help but she speaks to them in a normal speaking voice that is annoyed, but controlled.

Does she call the police or accuse them of doing anything they aren't doing? No, she calls for help generally but she accuses them of nothing. It appears that she feels the situation is obvious -- she is on the bike, he is forcing her off the bike.

Does she cry, fake or otherwise? NO. She is kind of whining and complaining throughout the video, and at one point she puts her head in her hand and her shoulders shake, but it is not a "fake cry". She is clearly incredibly frustrated and this is how she expresses her frustration.

You keep asking questions but you won't answer any, you won't engage, you won't acknowledge even basic facts of what occurs in the video. You are antagonizing without no intention of listening or trying to find agreement.

Yes. It’s just trolling with better grammar than one typically gets to see.

Aw, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He had not rented the bike. The video is clear. You hear the “chunk” and chime of it unlocking 20 seconds in.

You’re editorializing with your sarcasm and presenting that as factual. The actual recorded facts invalidate what you claim in your post.

She hadn't rented it either. So what if he rented it 20 seconds into the video? He still rented it first. She just sat on it, which gains her nothing, because that's not how you rent things.

He physically blocked her from renting it the only way one can rent by physically putting his hand over the scannable code.

You can and I’m guessing, will, keep it up, but you’re not going to get me or others to scream at you so you can declare victory. The woman did not attempt a theft or a line-cut, she did not attempt to get the boys into hot water with police or hospital security, and she didn’t deserve to have multiple people online calling for her firing.

I don't think she deserves to be fired, even though she was wrong in this event. I don't care whether you scream at me or not, and I don't need to declare victory. Just contributing to the conversation.

I’m at no risk of screaming at you, but certainly the repeat posting of “why hadn’t she rented it?” is an attempt to get posters to snap since it’s been answered quite a few times in the last pages alone. I think you’ll be disappointed in the reaction to your contribution to the conversation.

Well, I'll be sure to soldier on in the face of my crushing disappointment.

And I don't find those answers sufficient - they don't make sense, and they don't justify her actions - which is why I keep asking the question.

What action is it that you want justified? What answers don't make sense? At this point your behavior is trollish because you are simply ignoring the people who are trying to answer your questions in good faith, repeating the questions over and over, and dismissing responses out of hadn't without considering them.

Did this woman yell at these men? No, she yells for help but she speaks to them in a normal speaking voice that is annoyed, but controlled.

Does she call the police or accuse them of doing anything they aren't doing? No, she calls for help generally but she accuses them of nothing. It appears that she feels the situation is obvious -- she is on the bike, he is forcing her off the bike.

Does she cry, fake or otherwise? NO. She is kind of whining and complaining throughout the video, and at one point she puts her head in her hand and her shoulders shake, but it is not a "fake cry". She is clearly incredibly frustrated and this is how she expresses her frustration.

You keep asking questions but you won't answer any, you won't engage, you won't acknowledge even basic facts of what occurs in the video. You are antagonizing without no intention of listening or trying to find agreement.

Look, I have my own opinion of the video. We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm trolling. It means that your opinion -- just like mine -- is subjective. I'm not mad that you've got a different opinion -- I just don't agree with it.

What action do I want justified? Her choice to sit on that bike and scream for help instead of accepting that she doesn't get to have that bike (because he - in a dickish maneuver - rented it before she did) and leaving. I find it difficult to figure out what sentence should come after "Help me!" "Help me! These teens are trying to take a bike that they have a stronger claim on, but I had dibs!"? What does she need "help" with? Enforcing what property right? She doesn't have one. Protecting her? She's not being attacked - she can get off the bike and leave. To me, it sounds like "Help me, I don't think life is being fair to me right now!"

I get that she's frustrated. I cry when I'm frustrated. That's not what this looked like to me.

Ultimately, she's not on a bike and he's forcing her off. First, she's on an unclaimed bike and he's forcing her off, then she's on his bike, and he's forcing her off.

I've listened to your perspective, I've seen the video, it's not the slam dunk you think it is, and I interpret it differently. That's going to happen in life.

By your own recap, a group of teen boys forced her off a bike that they hadn’t rented. Hm.

No, they forced her off the bike after they rented it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He had not rented the bike. The video is clear. You hear the “chunk” and chime of it unlocking 20 seconds in.

You’re editorializing with your sarcasm and presenting that as factual. The actual recorded facts invalidate what you claim in your post.

She hadn't rented it either. So what if he rented it 20 seconds into the video? He still rented it first. She just sat on it, which gains her nothing, because that's not how you rent things.

He physically blocked her from renting it the only way one can rent by physically putting his hand over the scannable code.

You can and I’m guessing, will, keep it up, but you’re not going to get me or others to scream at you so you can declare victory. The woman did not attempt a theft or a line-cut, she did not attempt to get the boys into hot water with police or hospital security, and she didn’t deserve to have multiple people online calling for her firing.

I don't think she deserves to be fired, even though she was wrong in this event. I don't care whether you scream at me or not, and I don't need to declare victory. Just contributing to the conversation.

I’m at no risk of screaming at you, but certainly the repeat posting of “why hadn’t she rented it?” is an attempt to get posters to snap since it’s been answered quite a few times in the last pages alone. I think you’ll be disappointed in the reaction to your contribution to the conversation.

Well, I'll be sure to soldier on in the face of my crushing disappointment.

And I don't find those answers sufficient - they don't make sense, and they don't justify her actions - which is why I keep asking the question.

What action is it that you want justified? What answers don't make sense? At this point your behavior is trollish because you are simply ignoring the people who are trying to answer your questions in good faith, repeating the questions over and over, and dismissing responses out of hadn't without considering them.

Did this woman yell at these men? No, she yells for help but she speaks to them in a normal speaking voice that is annoyed, but controlled.

Does she call the police or accuse them of doing anything they aren't doing? No, she calls for help generally but she accuses them of nothing. It appears that she feels the situation is obvious -- she is on the bike, he is forcing her off the bike.

Does she cry, fake or otherwise? NO. She is kind of whining and complaining throughout the video, and at one point she puts her head in her hand and her shoulders shake, but it is not a "fake cry". She is clearly incredibly frustrated and this is how she expresses her frustration.

You keep asking questions but you won't answer any, you won't engage, you won't acknowledge even basic facts of what occurs in the video. You are antagonizing without no intention of listening or trying to find agreement.

Look, I have my own opinion of the video. We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm trolling. It means that your opinion -- just like mine -- is subjective. I'm not mad that you've got a different opinion -- I just don't agree with it.

What action do I want justified? Her choice to sit on that bike and scream for help instead of accepting that she doesn't get to have that bike (because he - in a dickish maneuver - rented it before she did) and leaving. I find it difficult to figure out what sentence should come after "Help me!" "Help me! These teens are trying to take a bike that they have a stronger claim on, but I had dibs!"? What does she need "help" with? Enforcing what property right? She doesn't have one. Protecting her? She's not being attacked - she can get off the bike and leave. To me, it sounds like "Help me, I don't think life is being fair to me right now!"

I get that she's frustrated. I cry when I'm frustrated. That's not what this looked like to me.

Ultimately, she's not on a bike and he's forcing her off. First, she's on an unclaimed bike and he's forcing her off, then she's on his bike, and he's forcing her off.

I've listened to your perspective, I've seen the video, it's not the slam dunk you think it is, and I interpret it differently. That's going to happen in life.

By your own recap, a group of teen boys forced her off a bike that they hadn’t rented. Hm.

No, they forced her off the bike after they rented it.

So does that make her a thief as they went on to claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He had not rented the bike. The video is clear. You hear the “chunk” and chime of it unlocking 20 seconds in.

You’re editorializing with your sarcasm and presenting that as factual. The actual recorded facts invalidate what you claim in your post.

She hadn't rented it either. So what if he rented it 20 seconds into the video? He still rented it first. She just sat on it, which gains her nothing, because that's not how you rent things.

He physically blocked her from renting it the only way one can rent by physically putting his hand over the scannable code.

You can and I’m guessing, will, keep it up, but you’re not going to get me or others to scream at you so you can declare victory. The woman did not attempt a theft or a line-cut, she did not attempt to get the boys into hot water with police or hospital security, and she didn’t deserve to have multiple people online calling for her firing.

I don't think she deserves to be fired, even though she was wrong in this event. I don't care whether you scream at me or not, and I don't need to declare victory. Just contributing to the conversation.

I’m at no risk of screaming at you, but certainly the repeat posting of “why hadn’t she rented it?” is an attempt to get posters to snap since it’s been answered quite a few times in the last pages alone. I think you’ll be disappointed in the reaction to your contribution to the conversation.

Well, I'll be sure to soldier on in the face of my crushing disappointment.

And I don't find those answers sufficient - they don't make sense, and they don't justify her actions - which is why I keep asking the question.

What action is it that you want justified? What answers don't make sense? At this point your behavior is trollish because you are simply ignoring the people who are trying to answer your questions in good faith, repeating the questions over and over, and dismissing responses out of hadn't without considering them.

Did this woman yell at these men? No, she yells for help but she speaks to them in a normal speaking voice that is annoyed, but controlled.

Does she call the police or accuse them of doing anything they aren't doing? No, she calls for help generally but she accuses them of nothing. It appears that she feels the situation is obvious -- she is on the bike, he is forcing her off the bike.

Does she cry, fake or otherwise? NO. She is kind of whining and complaining throughout the video, and at one point she puts her head in her hand and her shoulders shake, but it is not a "fake cry". She is clearly incredibly frustrated and this is how she expresses her frustration.

You keep asking questions but you won't answer any, you won't engage, you won't acknowledge even basic facts of what occurs in the video. You are antagonizing without no intention of listening or trying to find agreement.

Look, I have my own opinion of the video. We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm trolling. It means that your opinion -- just like mine -- is subjective. I'm not mad that you've got a different opinion -- I just don't agree with it.

What action do I want justified? Her choice to sit on that bike and scream for help instead of accepting that she doesn't get to have that bike (because he - in a dickish maneuver - rented it before she did) and leaving. I find it difficult to figure out what sentence should come after "Help me!" "Help me! These teens are trying to take a bike that they have a stronger claim on, but I had dibs!"? What does she need "help" with? Enforcing what property right? She doesn't have one. Protecting her? She's not being attacked - she can get off the bike and leave. To me, it sounds like "Help me, I don't think life is being fair to me right now!"

I get that she's frustrated. I cry when I'm frustrated. That's not what this looked like to me.

Ultimately, she's not on a bike and he's forcing her off. First, she's on an unclaimed bike and he's forcing her off, then she's on his bike, and he's forcing her off.

I've listened to your perspective, I've seen the video, it's not the slam dunk you think it is, and I interpret it differently. That's going to happen in life.

By your own recap, a group of teen boys forced her off a bike that they hadn’t rented. Hm.

No, they forced her off the bike after they rented it.

They harassed her in tandem as she was surrounded in order to get her off the bike she was on, when they had not rented it. I do not quite get how that’s not objectively quite a bit worse than anything she’s been filmed doing let alone what you’ve flatly accused her of, with your false and now I’m guessing dropped claims about “siccing security and police.” Unless of course you’d like to resurrect that another several times, which is apparently your style?

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

Do you ride citibike or cabi? Reaching over someone to unlock a bike they are sitting on is highly confrontational and unusual.

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

Oh please.

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

Do you live in NYC? I do. Both of the scenarios you’ve outlined are extremely unlikely in my experience.

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

Yes that’s why those young men are now in jail after harassing her. Because white women are always the victim. And it’s why no one is saying the young man is the victim of an attempted theft.

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

I know this has become a popular belief, but it's wrong. White women do not actually believe they will be seen as the victim in any situation. I'm a white woman, and my experience is that I am often disbelieved, assumed to be overreaction or "overemotional", or assumed to be manipulating a situation. I am as likely, if not more likely, to be accused of "playing the victim" by white men or other white women in position of power OVER me, as any POC. In my experience, when I have been harmed or treated unfairly, the POC in a position to know are more likely to believe me or protect me than the usually white people in positions of authority.

I have been raped (by a white man) and I was disbelieved by other white men and women.

I have experienced bias and harassment in the work place. Some of the white people I worked with did not believe me. Some believed me but advised me that it was in my best interest not to complain because "nothing would happen."

I have been harassed on the street, many times, by men of all races, and I have been told that it is either my fault (for wearing workout clothes, for being out by myself, for being out after dark), or that I need to just learn to ignore it. I have never had someone express sympathy or concern for me over this harassment.

As a white woman in my 40s, it is my assumption generally that people will not believe or trust the things I say, even when they are the truth and even when I have backing for them -- I have learned to sometimes be manipulative in my personal and professional lives so that people believe that they had my ideas themselves, and therefore trust them to be good. I also have a tendency to overexplain myself when under stress, because I have so much experience being disbelieved or dismissed even when I am correct.

I understand the history of white women using their victim status to endanger black men, and it's an ugly and horrible history. I have consciously made choices in my life to try and avoid doing this in terms of choosing how I position myself or how I might appeal to authority in a situation, so as not to endanger others.

But the idea that I go through life believing that all I need to do is bat my eyelashes and say "help!" and a white man will rush to my defense and attack whomever I point at is false. I don't feel that way and it is not my experience. Rather, my experience is that a white man is as likely to attack me as to help me, that I must be careful in how I present myself and make arguments because I have no expectation that I will be taken at my word, and that many people, including white men and other white women, will assume me to be a poor reporter of even my own emotional state.

Just to give you some insight into how white women think and what we experience. Hope this helps.

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

Yes that’s why those young men are now in jail after harassing her. Because white women are always the victim. And it’s why no one is saying the young man is the victim of an attempted theft.

You and everyone defending her see her as a victim, right? You have come up with 1000 possible scenarios to justify her behavior (calling for help and fake crying.)

[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:JFC people. You don't rent the bike by sitting on it. You rent it through the app. It wasn't her bike, he rented it first fair and square. Was he gallant, sweeping his hat off and saying "why of course, milady, the bike is yours, may I lay my riding cape down on this puddle that you might not soil the tires as you leave?" No. But he was in the right and she was throwing a hissy fit. It was on her to deal with her frustration, recognize that he legitimately rented the bike first, and move on like a grown-ass adult.

He rents it 20 seconds into the video, after she'd already sat on the bike. You might not rent a bike by sitting on it, but it's weird to rent a bike that someone else is sitting on. She had a right to be upset.

Renting a bike someone has sat down on and is preparing to rent is obviously antagonistic. She should have, though, recognized these guys were messing with her because they are immature teens.

The video is 90 second long, and at the end she gets of the bike. So she does, ultimately realize that she is dealign with immature teens and moves on with her life.

What if the thousands of people online who have since called this woman a white supremacist and a liar, claimed she's faking her pregnancy, accused her of bias in her medical practice, and dozens of other absolute insane and unsupported accusations ALSO recognized that these guys are immature teens who were messing with a tired pregnant woman?

Like it took her about a minute to figure out what was going on and walk away from the situation. The internet is still trying to get her fired several days later. Who needs to wise up here, exactly?

The internet is the a$$hole here, definitely. But she is not the wronged party, nor is she a victim.

She may or may not be the victim in the actual event - surely she shouldn’t have touched his phone. But now she’s absolutely a victim of the internet mob.

Yup. I think she shouldn't be, and it sucks, and I hope she isn't fired, but that's a risk you take when you have a hissy in front of a bunch of phones.

I think it’s as or more likely that our director of cinematography decided to film to a push hard for a reaction so I think your order of operations are likely wrong.

Ok.

Please let me know if you have any evidence of that.

In fact, I do. The recording helpfully objectively demonstrates that he had not rented the bike, by the video visual of him with his palm over the scannable code, and by the helpful audio where you hear the unlocking, indicating the rental. Since the recording precedes the actual act of bike rental, it makes rational sense that the group wanted to bully her off of it and the now universal language of recording her shows they wanted to embarrass her into complying. Hope that is helpful.

That, to me, isn't evidence. That's interpreting/speculating on what happened.

I agree that, at the beginning of the video, he hadn't rented the bike. Neither had she. It was an open bike -- it was up for grabs. Sitting on the bike didn't make it her bike. Recording before the bike is rented could easily also have been because they saw that she incorrectly thought that it was her bike because she sat on it and was escalating the situation. She wasn't being "bullied" off the bike.

I get that you see it differently. It's definitely open to interpretation.

So if you have something in your grocery cart and someone takes it and walks away with it and pays for it first, you are totally ok with that? What if they have friends there standing around you and filming your reaction...all good? And if you do react in a frustrated way, you should be nationally criticized on the internet and suspended from your job?

She understands that as a white woman, she is always going to be viewed as the victim in any situation. She knows that white comfort is always prioritized over everything else. She is aware that if she makes a loud enough scene, some white man or a cop will come flying in to “rescue” her.

Yes that’s why those young men are now in jail after harassing her. Because white women are always the victim. And it’s why no one is saying the young man is the victim of an attempted theft.

You and everyone defending her see her as a victim, right? You have come up with 1000 possible scenarios to justify her behavior (calling for help and fake crying.)

She’s very clearly the victim… of defamation. Because she is being falsely and maliciously accused of being an attempted thief.