14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[Thermal]

Mea Culpa.

I guess there was another group beating of a student on a school bus that resulted in a hospital trip. Gonna take the hard L on this one.

I followed a link from the comments section of some report of the original story. I should know better than that.

I had a similar problem linking a story about a shooting at a football game at at the school where my wife works. I had to sift through other recent school shootings at football games to find it.

I've been thinking about your argument that Trump supporters are eager to paint themselves as victims. While it's true that they do tend to generally bleat in lockstep, is generalizing group behavior to influence how we interpret the OP incident entirely fair? To be crude, it sounds a bit like 'them blacks are always crying racism'. I try to look at these stories as standalones, then compare the conclusion with national trends. I think it is misleading to push the implied group behavior in front of the narrative. I hear all the time how 'all whites are racist', and 'all men are sexist', 'all contractors are con men', and the other stereotypes thrown around to cast shade on an individual's motivations. The Trump supporter memes seem immune to this criticism, though, and that doesn't feel quite right.

 

[plague311]

I don't understand what the argument is here. According to updated information this fight, according to the school and the Sheriff's department (who did the investigation) said it had exactly **** all to do with the Trump hat at all.

It is implied in the post that the altercation occurred because one of the students involved was wearing a political hat showing support for President Trump. There was no evidence found during the investigation that indicated the student was wearing any of this apparel at the time of the altercation or that his wearing of such apparel on a prior occasion motivated the incident. The incident began with a verbal altercation between two students that escalated when additional students became involved.

This is nothing more than some students getting into a fight, and beating the ass of their target. It's not right, no one condones it (despite the claims of some bitching that's what's taking place), and it sucks the kid got whooped. That being said, this kids' mom needs to stop saying it's related to her kid wearing Trump ****. It's not true, and there's no evidence to support it.

 

[Giordano]

I had a similar problem linking a story about a shooting at a football game at at the school where my wife works. I had to sift through other recent school shootings at football games to find it.

I've been thinking about your argument that Trump supporters are eager to paint themselves as victims. While it's true that they do tend to generally bleat in lockstep, is generalizing group behavior to influence how we interpret the OP incident entirely fair? To be crude, it sounds a bit like 'them blacks are always crying racism'. I try to look at these stories as standalones, then compare the conclusion with national trends. I think it is misleading to push the implied group behavior in front of the narrative. I hear all the time how 'all whites are racist', and 'all men are sexist', 'all contractors are con men', and the other stereotypes thrown around to cast shade on an individual's motivations. The Trump supporter memes seem immune to this criticism, though, and that doesn't feel quite right.

I would add that IMO there is a particularly strongly coordinated right wing media that often helps to propagate and distort these particular memes and helps the lockstep. Fox, many websites, etc.

 

[Thermal]

I don't understand what the argument is here. According to updated information this fight, according to the school and the Sheriff's department (who did the investigation) said it had exactly **** all to do with the Trump hat at all.



This is nothing more than some students getting into a fight, and beating the ass of their target. It's not right, no one condones it (despite the claims of some bitching that's what's taking place), and it sucks the kid got whooped. That being said, this kids' mom needs to stop saying it's related to her kid wearing Trump ****. It's not true, and there's no evidence to support it.

The mom claims (rightly taken with a dose of skepticism here) that the hospital found older bruising in addition to the fresh ones, and that the kid admitted that bullying had been escalating since he wore the hat to school a while back. If true, that's a causal link.

I'm highly skeptical of this narrative, but can't dismiss it outright on any grounds.

 

[Thermal]

I would add that IMO there is a particularly strongly coordinated right wing media that often helps to propagate and distort these particular memes and helps the lockstep. Fox, many websites, etc.

True. But we (ISF posters) apply our own critical standards, distinct from tribal narratives, no?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The mom claims (rightly taken with a dose of skepticism here) that the hospital found older bruising in addition to the fresh ones, and that the kid admitted that bullying had been escalating since he wore the hat to school a while back. If true, that's a causal link.

I'm highly skeptical of this narrative, but can't dismiss it outright on any grounds.

I mean, that's all from the same source, which is the mom. I have a feeling that the her narrative of her child being an innocent lamb preyed upon by vicious blacks for no reason may turn out to be an incomplete truth.

There's really no way to know for sure at this point, but this one is not passing my sniff test. Maybe that's just my bias showing.

The right wing propaganda mill is absolutely giddy to run any story showing that white MAGA people are the real victims.

The story is catnip for all the usual racists you find online.

But, strictly speaking, the correct skeptical position is probably "wait and see", but by then the reactionary press will have moved on to something else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Must half the discussions here be some grander "One True Skeptic" meta-discussion about some exact mental state a person has to be in at every stage of a discussion?

Does it matter? As long as you're intellectually honest enough to change your goddamn mind when presented with new information what difference does it make?

The idea that if we don't start every discussion as some philosophically pure blank slate is unacceptable says more about the people who hand-wring over it then the people it is directed at.

Yes I go into every story where the narrative is a little headline ready with my doubting cap on. I also trust myself to be adult and intellectually honest enough to change my mind in the appropriate direction if/when new information is presented. It ain't that hard.

 

[Thermal]

Must half the discussions here be some grander "One True Skeptic" meta-discussion about some exact mental state a person has to be in at every stage of a discussion?

Does it matter? As long as you're intellectually honest enough to change your goddamn mind when presented with new information what difference does it make?

The idea that if we don't start every discussion as some philosophically pure blank slate is unacceptable says more about the people who hand-wring over it then the people it is directed at.

Yes I go into every story where the narrative is a little headline ready with my doubting cap on. I also trust myself to be adult and intellectually honest enough to change my mind in the appropriate direction if/when new information is presented. It ain't that hard.

Yet it continues to be.

I think that based on the declared theme if the ISF, we do actually have to pound the meta skeptic thing over and over. Because it gets twittered over on every flipping thread. Posts reflect political positions rather than skepticism.

I mean, maybe there should be a banner at the top of each page: "These posts are for skeptical consideration. Breathe them in public at your peril"

eta: oh, and re:

As long as you're intellectually honest enough to change your goddamn mind when presented with new information what difference does it make?

Challenging the starting assumptions should be a big part of critical analysis. That way, if new information does not come along, as it often doesn't, your head would still be in the right place

 

[Thermal]

This post for rent

 

[plague311]

The mom claims (rightly taken with a dose of skepticism here) that the hospital found older bruising in addition to the fresh ones, and that the kid admitted that bullying had been escalating since he wore the hat to school a while back. If true, that's a causal link.

I'm highly skeptical of this narrative, but can't dismiss it outright on any grounds.

I can't seem to be able to find anything with regards to the hilited part. Which source\link did that come from?

I can dismiss the claim outright because it has no evidential basis. There's nothing to support that claim so until something is provided other than an obviously bias source I'm going to dismiss it. Just like I dismiss flat earthers, or anything else without any evidence to support it. There's nothing that lacks skepticism in that.

Yet it continues to be.

I think that based on the declared theme if the ISF, we do actually have to pound the meta skeptic thing over and over. Because it gets twittered over on every flipping thread. Posts reflect political positions rather than skepticism.

I mean, maybe there should be a banner at the top of each page: "These posts are for skeptical consideration. Breathe them in public at your peril"

ETA: The problem with this is everyone thinks THEY are the skeptic. You think you are, I think I am, etc. As was previously stated, it's just screaming in the wind. As shocking as this might seem, we probably only have a handful of true skeptics here, and they are the ones that don't go around proclaiming they are the true skeptics. If you have to claim you are something, you generally aren't that thing.

 

[Thermal]

I can't seem to be able to find anything with regards to the hilited part. Which source\link did that come from?

From the OP, post numero uno:

{The mother} said that when Tyler was examined after the school, nurses found older bruising along with the new injuries. 'He didn't tell us about the bullying, but they took it to a new level yesterday and we are just now learning what he was going through,' she said.

I can dismiss the claim outright because it has no evidential basis. There's nothing to support that claim so until something is provided other than an obviously bias source I'm going to dismiss it. Just like I dismiss flat earthers, or anything else without any evidence to support it. There's nothing that lacks skepticism in that.

But you know the counter argument: if a black person says some negative treatment was motivated by racism, and there is no evidence to support it (that it indisputably happens elsewhere with others is not relevant, evidentiary-wise), the narrative should be rejected there too.

ETA: The problem with this is everyone thinks THEY are the skeptic. You think you are, I think I am, etc. As was previously stated, it's just screaming in the wind. As shocking as this might seem, we probably only have a handful of true skeptics here, and they are the ones that don't go around proclaiming they are the true skeptics. If you have to claim you are something, you generally aren't that thing.

It's true that most of us believe our position is the most critical. But our starting assumptions should be challenged every time, if only to call attention to it for the peanut gallery. I am wrong sometimes. You, too. Other posters as well. Calling attention to this is not crowing about what a skeptic we are; it's about applying the skepticism we all endorse when we see one of us slip up.

As I think you know, I am personally fascinated with the LWB threads. It's where I see flawed starting assumptions go completely off the rails. My working theory is that posters are so worried about seeming racist that they abandon any pretense of skepticism to not give the wrong impression. I keep arguing (apparently at the cost of being labeled one of those white power pussies) that this defensive style is the opposite of what this forum is about.

But as you say, screaming in the wind at this point.

 

[plague311]

From the OP, post numero uno:

Ok, that's what I was thinking, it was coming from the mother. I don't trust her as far as I can throw her and I'm exceptionally weak for a man.

But you know the counter argument: if a black person says some negative treatment was motivated by racism, and there is no evidence to support it (that it indisputably happens elsewhere with others is not relevant, evidentiary-wise), the narrative should be rejected there too.

I'm sure it can be, and I'm sure (for some) it is. This is a bit of a "whataboutism" to me since the LWB threads aren't the subject here. I'm not really sure what relevance it has here, but I'll concede the point. People jump to conclusions.

It's true that most of us believe our position is the most critical. But our starting assumptions should be challenged every time, if only to call attention to it for the peanut gallery. I am wrong sometimes. You, too. Other posters as well. Calling attention to this is not crowing about what a skeptic we are; it's about applying the skepticism we all endorse when we see one of us slip up.

I don't have time to go through and find them all because my ability to care is severely limited right now; however, the bulk of those callout posts are followed by the person doing the calling out claiming that it's not skeptical, that the person that made the post isn't a skeptic, etc. It's fairly consistent, but again if someone wants to argue with this point I won't argue back....I don't really care beyond this statement.

As I think you know, I am personally fascinated with the LWB threads. It's where I see flawed starting assumptions go completely off the rails. My working theory is that posters are so worried about seeming racist that they abandon any pretense of skepticism to not give the wrong impression. I keep arguing (apparently at the cost of being labeled one of those white power pussies) that this defensive style is the opposite of what this forum is about.

But as you say, screaming in the wind at this point.

I think most people enjoy being the opposing voice.

 

[bluesjnr]

I think most people enjoy being the opposing voice.

I disagree.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, that's what I was thinking, it was coming from the mother. I don't trust her as far as I can throw her and I'm exceptionally weak for a man.

We don't know much about her credibility in parenting. Is it plausible that she may have strong political opinions but still be a responsible and honest parent who is recounting accurately? I think that possibility is being summarily discounted because many here disagree with her politics.

I'm sure it can be, and I'm sure (for some) it is. This is a bit of a "whataboutism" to me since the LWB threads aren't the subject here. I'm not really sure what relevance it has here, but I'll concede the point. People jump to conclusions.

The parallel was brought up and bantered by other posters. I admit to being curious why the thinking is so different on this one, given similar story structure (bad thing happens, one party claims an unevidenced motivation, narrative spins according to popular opinions).

I think most people enjoy being the opposing voice.

I think most enjoy dogpiling much more. Without an opposing voice, though, there is not much to discuss beyond an echo chamber.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree.

Well, you're wrong.

 

[plague311]

We don't know much about her credibility in parenting. Is it plausible that she may have strong political opinions but still be a responsible and honest parent who is recounting accurately? I think that possibility is being summarily discounted because many here disagree with her politics.

Her politics aren't the reason I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. The fact she made claims that have been disputed by both the police and the school district play more of a role. The fact that she also is taking snapshots of her kid in the hospital, when it's blatantly obvious her kid doesn't want to be pictured (covering his head with a blanket) leads me to believe this is her allowing her politics to drive her confirmation bias than anything else.

She has nothing to recount, she didn't live this experience. Her son did. She's taking his story, adding her slant, hiring an attorney and claiming bias against her child, despite there not being any evidence of any at all.

The parallel was brought up and bantered by other posters. I admit to being curious why the thinking is so different on this one, given similar story structure (bad thing happens, one party claims an unevidenced motivation, narrative spins according to popular opinions).

*shrug* ok.

I think most enjoy dogpiling much more. Without an opposing voice, though, there is not much to discuss beyond an echo chamber.

Sometimes there just isn't solid footing for an opposing voice to stand on. Is this one of those times? No, but there certainly are several.

 

[Thermal]

Her politics aren't the reason I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. The fact she made claims that have been disputed by both the police and the school district play more of a role. The fact that she also is taking snapshots of her kid in the hospital, when it's blatantly obvious her kid doesn't want to be pictured (covering his head with a blanket) leads me to believe this is her allowing her politics to drive her confirmation bias than anything else.

She has nothing to recount, she didn't live this experience. Her son did. She's taking his story, adding her slant, hiring an attorney and claiming bias against her child, despite there not being any evidence of any at all.

This is the part in question though. She may well be recounting exactly what her son said (whether he is being objective or parroting his mother's opinions is yet another option).

Lawyering up is always my big red flag. They are getting deposit slips ready for a check, and that biases them heavily as far as I am concerned. So yeah, higher evidentiary standard needed. I still can't dismiss her recounting wholesale, though.

eat: forgot: her account doesn't really conflict with the school or police. The school was concerned with the immediate instance, not with how the boy believes they were originally motivated. If the assaulting students said the immediate cause was about the boy insulting them or whatever, and the boy agrees that he did, that would be enough for the school and police to declare what started it

 

[ponderingturtle]

We don't know much about her credibility in parenting. Is it plausible that she may have strong political opinions but still be a responsible and honest parent who is recounting accurately? I think that possibility is being summarily discounted because many here disagree with her politics.

And wait until we find out Qanon was all true!

Sure sometimes these outlandish stories turn out to be true like the teacher who branded students with a cross, but more often they are like the Church of Magaism who claimed he was denied service for wearing a maga hat at a NY bar. I mean sure he did spend $70 there before they objected to the hat and he did need to claim that hat is a part of his religion but still.

Up next James O'Keefe will be a legitimate investigative journalist.

 

[plague311]

eat: forgot: her account doesn't really conflict with the school or police. The school was concerned with the immediate instance, not with how the boy believes they were originally motivated. If the assaulting students said the immediate cause was about the boy insulting them or whatever, and the boy agrees that he did, that would be enough for the school and police to declare what started it

It does though. She said it was because of the hat. The police and school say they can find absolutely no evidence of it being because of the hat at all. Her stating that as "fact" is central to her statement. If you take that away this story could just as easily be "kid that talks **** got his ass whooped". Which happens on a day to day basis, whether it's right or not.

 

[Thermal]

It does though. She said it was because of the hat. The police and school say they can find absolutely no evidence of it being because of the hat at all. Her stating that as "fact" is central to her statement. If you take that away this story could just as easily be "kid that talks **** got his ass whooped". Which happens on a day to day basis, whether it's right or not.

Perfectly true. It could also go this way:

School: Why you beat this boy?
Beaters: He called us boneheads.
School: You call them boneheads?
Boy: Yes, but it started a few weeks ago when they didn't like my hat...
School: I don't care how your bad blood got rolling. I care about what started this instance.
Boy: But in the big picture, you know, ultimately...
Police, chiming in with school: We are dealing with this specific assault, not randomly going down memory lane to a trivial root cause a few several various weeks ago. This incident was initiated by name calling.