I said almost exactly this in an earlier post.
I don't know why you're arguing with me about this. We agree. Whether the filmer had a good reason to assume this woman was a racist or not, the woman in the car very quickly proved that she was.
Racist Hawk fans at it again
- Thread starter ForbinsAscynt
- Start date
- Status
I don't know why you're arguing with me about this. We agree. Whether the filmer had a good reason to assume this woman was a racist or not, the woman in the car very quickly proved that she was.
It was more of the attitude. "I caught you doing that is bad and your life is over." Someone was clearly paying attention in their Social Justice Warrior 101 class.
Look…I’m not defending the woman. Her comments were despicable, something I’ve said in a variety of ways in multiple posts in this thread. I’m trying to help others who believe the person filming is absolved of any guilt here.
Brandenburg v. Ohio could set precedent, at least allegorically.
There is the problem. Many people may not know this, but things are put in your employment record and left there even if there isn't an evidence and you are cleared. Have someone go to the HR person and say you were sexually harrassing them because they are mad they didn't get the promotion, and even if they don't file paperwork and admit to lying, a note is placed in your file and left there. So come promotion time, hey look, we may have an issue person here, you get passed over due to a wrongful claim.
Facebook doesn't clean out wrong statements, this will ride that woman forever possibly. When I got resumes, I would do some heavy internet stalking to see who I wanted to interview. If you couldn't verify that it wasn't her, she may not get the interview.
Facebook doesn't clean out wrong statements, this will ride that woman forever possibly. When I got resumes, I would do some heavy internet stalking to see who I wanted to interview. If you couldn't verify that it wasn't her, she may not get the interview.
How on earth could someone be guilty by having their car hit by a likely drunk driver, being called racial slurs, and accurately describing the person taking those entitled and racist actions?
Yeah, that's my only issue with all of this. If there was something that led to the filmer accusing her of white privilege, fine and good, but there isn't a lot of context of what led to the filmer making that statement.
Based on how the racist lady responded to the 'white privilege' comment though, it is probably safe to assume she said or did something else to elicit the 'white privilege' comment. Would be interesting to know what was said or how it came about though.
But one version can still be a lot more convincing.
For example: what’s more likely, that passenger was a saint before the filming started, or that she was being a complete ass?
1. Do we know the judgement of this traffic situation?
2. Nobody should victim of slurs or innuendo
3. I’m not arguing this. I have agreed with it multiple times
Releasing this video was dumb.
She should have blackmailed them.
And then posted the video.
She should have blackmailed them.
And then posted the video.
What does Brandenburg v. Ohio have to do with this at all? I'm not saying it doesn't but I don't see a link from what little I remember of the facts of the case.
How many non racists immediately respond to an accusation by calling someone the n word?
Am I the only one concerned that guy hit her car twice and apparently was allowed to to just continue to drive around with his racist wife?
You were questioning people who believed woman filming was absolved of guilt.
Guilty of an accurate description of reality?
I wasn’t there but plenty of witnesses say her car was hit twice.
If it was on the street, it is required to call the cops. We have no idea what happened in regards to cops being called or anything.
If I get hit I'm always calling the cops to get a police report. Not leaving it up to the whims of an insurance person.
Just keep in mind, I did say “allegorically”. This situation of one person using racist innuendo and another responding with outright racist comments is not likely to go to bar.
In a nutshell, Brandenburg v. Ohio clarified that speech is not protected if it is meant to incite violence.
- Status