[ratww]

Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2.

If you want to debate in good faith whether people are too quick to call others racist, maybe you should start the debate by enumerating what kind of speech have sparked those claims? Otherwise you're just being hyperbolic and increasing the political divide.

I get that people are pissed for being called racist, but if they REALLY wanna fix that, the first step is admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.

[jariel]

"Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2."

? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story.

In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong.

The woman did 1=2, in that, her actions are wrong.

But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. (Ironically, she could easily pass as a 'person of colour' if she chose to).

This is unfortunately a problem right now in politics and it's perpetuated by the press.

[dragonwriter]

> ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story.

> In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong.

Assault isn't a mere argument, and it's a crime regardless of the race of the perpetrators or victim.

> But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism.

No, she’s being condemned for the objective fact of assaulting a child.

[ratww]

That's a terrible example. She not only falsely accused, but also assaulted someone she had never seen before.

False accusation and assault should be crimes, period. If she had done the same thing to me you can be damn sure I would want her ass in jail regardless of my skin colour. Her arrest is a good thing. Actions that affect others negatively should have consequences.

[jariel]

You're misunderstanding my point.

Assault is a crime, yes, what she did was wrong - yes, of course - I agree with that.

But what she is being destroyed for is 'racism' - not 'assault and false accusation'.

She was being irrational (1=2) and then because of this, castigated for racism - which is a much more devious charge.

Also - it's shocking that anyone is 'shocked' over such a pedestrian encounter. Have HN readers never been in a fight before? Have folks literally never been in an argument?

This kind of stuff is 'daily' on the streets, at WallMart, etc. It's not very civil obviously, but it's really common for people to get upset over things. We have bouncers at bars for this reason. But we're adults and we move past it.

And - 'false accusation' in this manner is clearly not criminal. The woman had her phone stolen, it's reasonable for her in a hysterical state and just see the first iPhone and possibly think it's hers. Again, not nice at all, but not completely crazy.

The proper response to a hysterical person who had their phone stolen, and who maybe thinks you have it is to 'take the high ground' and calmly demonstrate your ownership. That's all. I don't expect this of a kid, but that could have happend.

That we have a 'national story' with literally Al Sharpton because someone 'grabbed someone's arm' is utterly ridiculous. The kid is 'seeking counselling' because someone 'touched him forcefully'? It's a farce. They've turned this utterly minor incident into a bad SNL parody.

Finally - I'm not implying their couldn't have been racism either, this woman could possibly just as nasty as it gets, it's impossible to tell.

And of course, the whole point of CNN putting this on the news is not that this specific moment is important, but that it could be demonstrative of 'systematic racism in the commons' and they want to make an example out of her - but lacking any possible reference to racial motivation, it's just plain stupid.

In summary - this is an example of certain parts of the media castigating individuals who may be of a certain persuasion (in this case 'White') for no reason, and I can see people getting upset over that.

The riot on capital hill however was not mostly a political movement of general malaise, rather, it was specifically about that certain people feel the election was stolen. It was mostly certainly not stolen, but they believe that because Trump told them so, and that's the primary motivation issue of the violence at this point.

[ratww]

No, it's nowhere near reasonable for her to do what she did. Everyone has a damn iPhone and they have very few models which all look very similar. The kid even had his own phone case which she asked him to remove. It's unreasonable to ask a stranger that just appeared in an elevator to give their phone to you.

And maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen a grown woman tackling a 14 year old kid to the ground like this, and if I ever do you can be sure I will call the police. Just because you've seen it often doesn't mean it should be normalised.

And no, she's not being "destroyed" by the racism accusation. But she might be destroyed if she goes to jail and gets a permanent record. And she had it coming. Actions HAVE consequences.

[jariel]

So I don't mean to say it's reasonable in normal circumstances, just given a little bit of hysteria after having lost an iPhone.

I guess I should have said 'undersandable' when someone is angry.

And yes - she is totally destroyed.

Do you understand the implications of your face being all over TMZ and CNN, publishing your name?

She will have death threats.

She will almost certainly lose her job if she has a normal job.

This will tar her for the rest of her life.

People commit suicide over this kind of stuff.

'Naming and shaming' for such a minor even is vindictive and terrible.

I understand CNN wanting to call attention to casual racism, but they should probably using these as 'lesson events' and probably not using real names.

They also dramatize by giving some back story 'son of a musician' and 'lady with a history of DUI' which is shameful - none of that is relevant.

Given how sensitive these things are they could be really polite about it, talk about what happened objective, talk about how the actors could have acted differently without names and colour commentary.

[jbboehr]

> Actions HAVE consequences.

That is a fascinatingly passive synonym for "struggle session."

[ratww]

This is hyperbolic and disrespectful to people who actually went trough it.

Breaking the law has consequences. And the only consequence here is her being prosecuted for assault and battery and potentially going to jail. This has nothing to do with racism accusation, and is nothing compared to the torture you're suggesting.

[chordalkeyboard]

> admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.

I spend most of my mental effort trying to get people on each side to do this, its not easy bro.