First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
lady has mental breakdown over confederate flag
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

runec wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
I mean she's specifically freaking out about racism against black people, when she's... not black. Definitely not....I mean that's taking on someone else's problems very much as her own, overreacting in a way that is not suitable for the situation, and it's for her own benefit. Primarily the fact that she's benefiting from the catharsis of her own white guilt and the reassurance that by feeling so strongly, that she's a "good" person.

Thus, cultural appropriation. Appropriating something that is not hers to aid in her own benefit.


You don't have to match someone else's melanin levels to object to racism.

By that tortured logic the North appropriated black culture by fighting to end slavery.


No. You can sympathize and you can aid. She's not doing that. She's taking on the role of the victim and personally internalizing the issue.

You could say, "yo, do you mind? That's kinda offensive". , you could choose not to shop there... And if a flag was something of a more direct and serious issue (hence the overreacting), and if you saw racism actively happening, you can lend a hand to the victim.

There's a difference between advocating and supporting and internalizing someone else's issues.
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

serifsansserif wrote:
No. You can sympathize and you can aid. She's not doing that. She's taking on the role of the victim and personally internalizing the issue.

You could say, "yo, do you mind? That's kinda offensive". , you could choose not to shop there... And if a flag was something of a more direct and serious issue (hence the overreacting), and if you saw racism actively happening, you can lend a hand to the victim.

There's a difference between advocating and supporting and internalizing someone else's issues.


You're drifting the goal posts away from your statement that this is "cultural appropriation" and her role as the "victim" here is actually pretty valid really. She complains to one employee who blows her off. Then both employees are on her calling her a bitch and what not.

Rather than handling her complaint, the first employee immediately begins to argue with her over what the Confederate flag means. Then employee #2 immediately calls her a bitch and gives her the finger. At that point her reactions to the situation have a lot less to do with the flag and a lot more to do with being a woman alone with her kids that's getting harassed by two assholes into a panic attack / melt down.

Once again, both employees were fired and the store removed the flags saying they receive a variety of designs in bulk from the supplier and the supplier included them with the last shipment. They weren't something the store regularly carried or displayed.



11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

runec wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
No. You can sympathize and you can aid. She's not doing that. She's taking on the role of the victim and personally internalizing the issue.

You could say, "yo, do you mind? That's kinda offensive". , you could choose not to shop there... And if a flag was something of a more direct and serious issue (hence the overreacting), and if you saw racism actively happening, you can lend a hand to the victim.

There's a difference between advocating and supporting and internalizing someone else's issues.


You're drifting the goal posts away from your statement that this is "cultural appropriation" and her role as the "victim" here is actually pretty valid really. She complains to one employee who blows her off. Then both employees are on her calling her a bitch and what not.

Rather than handling her complaint, the first employee immediately begins to argue with her over what the Confederate flag means. Then employee #2 immediately calls her a bitch and gives her the finger. At that point her reactions to the situation have a lot less to do with the flag and a lot more to do with being a woman alone with her kids that's getting harassed by two assholes into a panic attack / melt down.

Once again, both employees were fired and the store removed the flags saying they receive a variety of designs in bulk from the supplier and the supplier included them with the last shipment. They weren't something the store regularly carried or displayed.





except she's the one with a camera and actively and aggressively seeking out confrontation. She's the one armed with a camera to record what happens (she's the one holding it, goes directly into the store, and starts shit. Since she's the one holding the camera, apparently owning the video, etc. she was almost certainly the one who approved of sharing this video in the hopes of getting a reaction, and attention, which is ultimately her goal and desire).

I'm not moving goal posts. I'm saying you are being purposefully blind to a lot of shit going on here.

This is not a store that is purposefully uploading videos saying, "GET 'CHER KKK CONFEDERATE FLAG HEEEEREEE!!!".... The man she starts verbally harrassing is originally walking across the line of sight, he's not going up to her to confront her, it's her taking the aggressive steps to confront HIM.

THIS is why it's an intentional ploy to set her own self up as a victim.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

contrast it to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYtBiPmRBtM

And also note, she's being assaulted. It's also an asian man (thank god he wasn't white, or shit would be fucking CRAZY over this)

also contrast it to the after effect: 4-6 bigger men surround him and verbally assault and intimidate him.

He was wrong to assault her, but what they are doing isn't right either. It's a shake down.

then there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hE06NzQBFA

This is also a violation of rights, and an incidental recording. but here he's being the victim and he's the one in the right.

Just saying....
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
except she's the one with a camera and actively and aggressively seeking out confrontation. She's the one armed with a camera to record what happens (she's the one holding it, goes directly into the store, and starts shit. Since she's the one holding the camera, apparently owning the video, etc. she was almost certainly the one who approved of sharing this video in the hopes of getting a reaction, and attention, which is ultimately her goal and desire).

I'm not moving goal posts. I'm saying you are being purposefully blind to a lot of shit going on here.

This is not a store that is purposefully uploading videos saying, "GET 'CHER KKK CONFEDERATE FLAG HEEEEREEE!!!".... The man she starts verbally harrassing is originally walking across the line of sight, he's not going up to her to confront her, it's her taking the aggressive steps to confront HIM.

THIS is why it's an intentional ploy to set her own self up as a victim.


Yes, she's putting it on camera and yes, she's doing it so she can share it on social media as she's documenting what she feels is the problem and filming the location/address in question. I'm not debating that part. I'm debating your argument that it's "cultural appropriation" for her to object to the Confederate flag because she isn't black.

The man she's talking to is an employee of the store. She does not walk up to him either. Their exchange is at a distance. He however does return and goes right up to her when she's talking to the other employee that calls her a bitch. She took no "aggressive steps" towards him, but he returned and approached her and says "look at this liberal" while the other guy is going off on her. She then complies and leaves the store.

Then one of them follows her outside and continues to harass her, leading to her panic attack. Which has nothing to do with the flag at that point.

A customer complaint is not an aggressive attack on one's person and you most certainly do NOT handle a customer complaint by verbally attacking the person complaining and harassing them in the parking lot.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

runec wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
except she's the one with a camera and actively and aggressively seeking out confrontation. She's the one armed with a camera to record what happens (she's the one holding it, goes directly into the store, and starts shit. Since she's the one holding the camera, apparently owning the video, etc. she was almost certainly the one who approved of sharing this video in the hopes of getting a reaction, and attention, which is ultimately her goal and desire).

I'm not moving goal posts. I'm saying you are being purposefully blind to a lot of shit going on here.

This is not a store that is purposefully uploading videos saying, "GET 'CHER KKK CONFEDERATE FLAG HEEEEREEE!!!".... The man she starts verbally harrassing is originally walking across the line of sight, he's not going up to her to confront her, it's her taking the aggressive steps to confront HIM.

THIS is why it's an intentional ploy to set her own self up as a victim.


Yes, she's putting it on camera and yes, she's doing it so she can share it on social media as she's documenting what she feels is the problem and filming the location/address in question. I'm not debating that part. I'm debating your argument that it's "cultural appropriation" for her to object to the Confederate flag because she isn't black.

The man she's talking to is an employee of the store. She does not walk up to him either. Their exchange is at a distance. He however does return and goes right up to her when she's talking to the other employee that calls her a bitch. She took no "aggressive steps" towards him, but he returned and approached her and says "look at this liberal" while the other guy is going off on her. She then complies and leaves the store.

Then one of them follows her outside and continues to harass her, leading to her panic attack. Which has nothing to do with the flag at that point.

A customer complaint is not an aggressive attack on one's person and you most certainly do NOT handle a customer complaint by verbally attacking the person complaining and harassing them in the parking lot.


Yes, but the first video I shared, I pointed out how both sides were wrong. I'm not justifying the actions of either. The video also wasn't one uploaded (at least the original first half) by the victim. I'm saying she initiated this. This was her original intent. This was something on a meta level, she chose to share to illicit this response. Also, this does absolutely nothing to prove racism. This has nothing to do with anything other than her own intent to be a victim. Racism is her trojan horse method of illiciting the response. Thus the appropriation.

The first video I shared, the first half was not about racism, but they tried to make it so in the second half (the whole, "black women ought to be CHERISHED" bit and posturing/intimidation bit though really destroyed their case, but again, thank the fucking lord above it wasn't a white guy...)

The second video was about the police trying to avoid record keeping and thus being held accountable for any mistakes they might have, did just that.

Just because it's a noble cause doesn't mean people won't exploit it. Just because someone is a victim at the end doesn't mean they cannot also be a willful aggressor (who just picked the wrong (or, since this is about sympathy, perhaps the right) prey.)
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
contrast it to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYtBiPmRBtM

And also note, she's being assaulted. It's also an asian man (thank god he wasn't white, or shit would be fucking CRAZY over this)

also contrast it to the after effect: 4-6 bigger men surround him and verbally assault and intimidate him.

He was wrong to assault her, but what they are doing isn't right either. It's a shake down.

then there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hE06NzQBFA

This is also a violation of rights, and an incidental recording. but here he's being the victim and he's the one in the right.

Just saying....


You've demonstrated a contrast. But what exactly is the point you're trying to prove with said contrast?

Also, he's getting a dressing down from the NAACP and some nuns. Where are they verbally assaulting him or giving him a "shake down"? They let him know he needs to apologize to the community and then they peacefully leave and tell him to have a good day. I must have missed where they insulted him or demanded money or else.

Given that he assaulted and choked a girl, that seems like a fairly mild response.


11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

runec wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
contrast it to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYtBiPmRBtM

And also note, she's being assaulted. It's also an asian man (thank god he wasn't white, or shit would be fucking CRAZY over this)

also contrast it to the after effect: 4-6 bigger men surround him and verbally assault and intimidate him.

He was wrong to assault her, but what they are doing isn't right either. It's a shake down.

then there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hE06NzQBFA

This is also a violation of rights, and an incidental recording. but here he's being the victim and he's the one in the right.

Just saying....


You've demonstrated a contrast. But what exactly is the point you're trying to prove with said contrast?

Also, he's getting a dressing down from the NAACP and some nuns. Where are they verbally assaulting him or giving him a "shake down"? They let him know he needs to apologize to the community and then they peacefully leave and tell him to have a good day. I must have missed where they insulted him or demanded money or else.

Given that he assaulted and choked a girl, that seems like a fairly mild response.




See, now you're justifying a wrong because it was in response to another wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

My point is, quite simply that the OP's video is of a woman intentionally trying to manipulate public opinion to try and either garner their sympathy or tell her she's a "hero" for doing what was "right". It's using an issue for emotional manipulation, and, unfortunately, I can see through it.

The appropriation of another group of people's issue is there, but even without it, at its essence it's a woman trying to play victim (or become a victim) to get the love and adoration that results from posting it onto the intertubes.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17
And as for it not being a shakedown in the first video I posted, I mention the overwhelming odds in their favor, the verbal tone, and aggressive behavior, (though yes, no actual violence), and this is EXACTLY what the woman in the first video is claiming is so wrong and offensive... A FUCKING FLAG. A symbol of speech.

The arguments go both ways. This is exactly what has made me disassociate with liberalism. If you're going to fight the good fight, stay on the moral high ground. Don't use the same god damned tactics you're claiming the other side cannot use.
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
Yes, but the first video I shared, I pointed out how both sides were wrong. I'm not justifying the actions of either. The video also wasn't one uploaded (at least the original first half) by the victim. I'm saying she initiated this. This was her original intent. This was something on a meta level, she chose to share to illicit this response. Also, this does absolutely nothing to prove racism. This has nothing to do with anything other than her own intent to be a victim. Racism is her trojan horse method of illiciting the response. Thus the appropriation.


You're ascribing a lot of supposed premeditated malfeasance to what is basically just a random offended lady that wanted to share her offense with others on social media. Her original intent was obviously to shame the store. It was the employee's response that turns her into a victim. Unless you're suggesting she somehow knew in advance that the store employees were shitheads that would run her out of the store and follow her into the parking lot?

You still haven't come up with a good explanation for why this is cultural appropriation. The Civil War is clearly a part of American heritage and cultural. It's not solely owned by or the problem of any one group. And the Civil War is intimately linked to slavery. Which is what she condemns the symbolism of the flag for.

Again, I'm not debating that a cause can be exploited or that someone with a good cause can be an aggressor. I'm objecting to you characterizing this as "cultural appropriation" as that would mean the Confederate flag and by extension the Civil War is somehow solely a "black" problem. And even then, that's not really what cultural appropriation is.

Maybe you've simply chosen the wrong term to express your objection to her behaviour? Maybe the term you were looking here is actually something like virtue signalling? That would make more sense.
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
See, now you're justifying a wrong because it was in response to another wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.


I'm not justifying it, I'm objecting to your characterization of it as a "shake down". You keep using terms that imply something pretty specific which doesn't actually appear to be happening in said videos.



serifsansserif wrote:
My point is, quite simply that the OP's video is of a woman intentionally trying to manipulate public opinion to try and either garner their sympathy or tell her she's a "hero" for doing what was "right". It's using an issue for emotional manipulation, and, unfortunately, I can see through it.


Okay, so you are talking about something more like virtue signalling, not cultural appropriation. That makes more sense.



serifsansserif wrote:
The appropriation of another group of people's issue is there, but even without it, at its essence it's a woman trying to play victim (or become a victim) to get the love and adoration that results from posting it onto the intertubes.


Whether or not she is trying to "play the victim" or just having a melt down is a more a matter of personal opinion. But either way, she would not have had the opportunity to play the victim or the misfortune of having a break down if not for the employee's response and actions towards her. Which were not appropriate for store employees on any level.

11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

runec wrote:

You're ascribing a lot of supposed premeditated malfeasance to what is basically just a random offended lady that wanted to share her offense with others on social media. Her original intent was obviously to shame the store. It was the employee's response that turns her into a victim. Unless you're suggesting she somehow knew in advance that the store employees were shitheads that would run her out of the store and follow her into the parking lot?


No, I don't think she entered the store with any idea as to what might happen except that she believed SOMETHING wouldhappen worth recording. It could have easily gone either way. She could have been kowtowed to and given a soapbox upon which to pontificate. She was, however, hoping for a reaction of some use to post for her own personal gain.



You still haven't come up with a good explanation for why this is cultural appropriation. The Civil War is clearly a part of American heritage and cultural. It's not solely owned by or the problem of any one group. And the Civil War is intimately linked to slavery. Which is what she condemns the symbolism of the flag for.

Again, I'm not debating that a cause can be exploited or that someone with a good cause can be an aggressor. I'm objecting to you characterizing this as "cultural appropriation" as that would mean the Confederate flag and by extension the Civil War is somehow solely a "black" problem. And even then, that's not really what cultural appropriation is.


You seem to think the cultural appropriation is over the flag. It's not. It's over the issue of racial oppression. Which is what she, due to social media and the news, is what is being proclaimed as being what the flag is about " Don't you know that's a symbol of hate speech!?!??!"

It's not the flag she's appropriating. It's the racism she's proporting to be fighting.
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
And as for it not being a shakedown in the first video I posted, I mention the overwhelming odds in their favor, the verbal tone, and aggressive behavior, (though yes, no actual violence), and this is EXACTLY what the woman in the first video is claiming is so wrong and offensive... A FUCKING FLAG. A symbol of speech.

The arguments go both ways. This is exactly what has made me disassociate with liberalism. If you're going to fight the good fight, stay on the moral high ground. Don't use the same god damned tactics you're claiming the other side cannot use.


I'm not seeing much of a connection between a group responding to a teenager getting assaulted and choked and some random woman getting offended by a Confederate flag.

This isn't a "liberal" issue. There would be an uproar regardless if x race choked out a girl from y race in a predominately y community. And don't tell me you wouldn't get a response in some areas of the US if a store hung some Pride flags.

And don't bring speech into this because said lady had equal right to exercise hers.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

runec wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
My point is, quite simply that the OP's video is of a woman intentionally trying to manipulate public opinion to try and either garner their sympathy or tell her she's a "hero" for doing what was "right". It's using an issue for emotional manipulation, and, unfortunately, I can see through it.


Okay, so you are talking about something more like virtue signalling, not cultural appropriation. That makes more sense.


No. The issue or racism is what she appropriates in order to do what you are saying. Racism does not affect her, yet she is using this issue for her own gain.




serifsansserif wrote:
The appropriation of another group of people's issue is there, but even without it, at its essence it's a woman trying to play victim (or become a victim) to get the love and adoration that results from posting it onto the intertubes.


Whether or not she is trying to "play the victim" or just having a melt down is a more a matter of personal opinion. But either way, she would not have had the opportunity to play the victim or the misfortune of having a break down if not for the employee's response and actions towards her. Which were not appropriate for store employees on any level.



True. But again, it's not a right and wrong situation here. Both parties are in the wrong. You can't justify being an asshole just because that assholery gets you beaten up.

Unless you want to start the whole "victim blaming" thing, in which case, you'll have a hard time justifying why it's ok to hold people free of agency in their actions, or, understanding that empirical evidence should be disregarded when it warns you against your idealized behaviour, OR conversely, only cling to it when it does suit your narrative.
runec 
41514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/20/17

serifsansserif wrote:
No, I don't think she entered the store with any idea as to what might happen except that she believed SOMETHING wouldhappen worth recording. It could have easily gone either way. She could have been kowtowed to and given a soapbox upon which to pontificate. She was, however, hoping for a reaction of some use to post for her own personal gain.


That's not behaviour unique to social matters. Irate customers with smart phones are probably an alarming portion of Youtube.



serifsansserif wrote:
You seem to think the cultural appropriation is over the flag. It's not. It's over the issue of racial oppression. Which is what she, due to social media and the news, is what is being proclaimed as being what the flag is about " Don't you know that's a symbol of hate speech!?!??!"

It's not the flag she's appropriating. It's the racism she's proporting to be fighting.


She's specifically addressing the flag. The flag can't be separated from what it stands for and you can't separate what it stands for from racism. You also can't exactly culturally appropriate racial oppression. Again, I think you're mistakenly using the wrong term here for what you're trying to express.

Even if you could somehow separate it, culturally speaking anyone decedent from northern states would then still have a cultural "right" to object to the Confederate flag.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.