14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[Elagabalus]

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.

Or "Fat Nerdlinger gets progressively bullied at school culminating in ass whoopage?"

 

[plague311]

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.

That just doesn't jive with what I know of police investigations, but I guess anything is possible. Again, I follow the evidence and your story version of events doesn't seem to be supported by what's available. The mother isn't even going after the police for an incomplete investigation, or claiming they lied, or didn't do the due diligence, etc. but she seems more than happy to bitch about the kids. It would be...odd if she just let it be knowing that this is the issue yet isn't calling out the police. All of that screams at a vain attempt to get attention and money, not righting an injustice that's happened to her kid.

 

[plague311]

Or "Fat Nerdlinger gets progressively bullied at school culminating in ass whoopage?"

That absolutely could be the case as well. I just still wouldn't blame it on the hat.

I was a fat ass nerd in school. I got my ass whooped on a regular because I was fat, lived in a trailer park, wore ugly clothes, and had no issues in telling people off. It had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being bullied. It sucks, I sympathize and it makes me extremely happy my parents didn't put me on blast like what's happening to this kid.

 

[Giordano]

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.

It could "go" a lot of ways. Making up scenarios in the absence of actual data can easily lead to solidifying false beliefs in those who are already prejudiced toward certain political or social viewpoints.

 

[Giordano]

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

Oh absolutely!

 

[Giordano]

From the OP, post numero uno:





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.


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.

The black person, or any person saying it, is a legitimate form of evidence. How much to weight to put on it depends on additional factors. What is the basis by which the person attributed it to racism? Is it disputed by others, including the accused, or by known facts in the case. Is the accusation made in a court of law under threat of perjury? Do we know of or have reasons to suspect the motivation of the accuser? And of course statements by an individual accuser are much weaker in the absence of additional support, such as testimony by neutral parties, video tapes (which are in fact common in the "...while Black threads), and other facts that can be established. But for example, though rare, I would be pretty convinced of a charge of racism if the accuser simply claimed the accused said "It is my restaurant and I don't serve Blacks here" and the accused did not dispute having made such a statement.

 

[Thermal]

It could "go" a lot of ways. Making up scenarios in the absence of actual data can easily lead to solidifying false beliefs in those who are already prejudiced toward certain political or social viewpoints.

That's precisely my point: we have painfully little to go on with this story, so it becomes a Rorschach test. And what do we see? Universally, the mom is assumed to be lying because she is a Trump supporter.

All are skeptical, which is great. But I think quite a few several sundry are skeptical for the wrong reasons.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's precisely my point: we have painfully little to go on with this story, so it becomes a Rorschach test. And what do we see? Universally, the mom is assumed to be lying because she is a Trump

Yep lots of reasonable people support Qanon. Just like Pizzagate or how there was no sandyhook shooting.

Mainstream republican thought in this day and age and are not marks against anyone.

 

[Thermal]

The black person, or any person saying it, is a legitimate form of evidence. How much to weight to put on it depends on additional factors. What is the basis by which the person attributed it to racism? Is it disputed by others, including the accused, or by known facts in the case. Is the accusation made in a court of law under threat of perjury? Do we know of or have reasons to suspect the motivation of the accuser? And of course statements by an individual accuser are much weaker in the absence of additional support, such as testimony by neutral parties, video tapes (which are in fact common in the "...while Black threads), and other facts that can be established. But for example, though rare, I would be pretty convinced of a charge of racism if the accuser simply claimed the accused said "It is my restaurant and I don't serve Blacks here" and the accused did not dispute having made such a statement.

Oh, hellz yes, as would I. Or even with less evidence, as in the original Philly Starbucks case.

But many LWB threads rely heavily on it being a white cat getting nasty with a black person for a plus or minus plausible reason, which is assumed to be really motivated by racism. Mowing the Lawn while Black, and a dozen others.

My antenna perk up when there is, as another poster observed, no evident causal link, save the starting assumptions in the poster's playbook.

 

[plague311]

That's precisely my point: we have painfully little to go on with this story, so it becomes a Rorschach test. And what do we see? Universally, the mom is assumed to be lying because she is a Trump supporter.
All are skeptical, which is great. But I think quite a few several sundry are skeptical for the wrong reasons.

Disagree, but whatever.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wow we got from "Trump supporter" to "Oh and by the way here's why we can't trust black people when they say racism exists" in less then five pages. I'm impressed.

ETA: Oh and here I'll save everyone the trouble. "ShOw mE WheRE anYONe SaID thAt!"

 

[Thermal]

No one said it. No one implied it. No one...except you...even seemed to think it.

 

[plague311]

No one said it. No one implied it. No one...except you...even seemed to think it.

To be fair, no one has really said that they don't believe the mother simply because she supports Trump either but that's your claim. Some have implied it, but no one has said, "She supports Trump, so she lies" that I have seen. Especially me.

I've seen them say that she has a bias because she's a Trump supporter, which is so blatantly obvious I can't imagine it would be argued against.

 

[Darat]

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.







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

I certainly don't base my views of her reliability on her political affiliations, I base it on her known irrationality and lack of being able to distinguish between fact and fiction.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I certainly don't base my views of her reliability on her political affiliations, I base it on her known irrationality and lack of being able to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Right. The the only source for the "Trump hat made him a target" claim is the same person who seems to have penchant for wild hyperbole. One tweet has her claiming that these students should be charged for attempted murder. Another has her spreading Q-anon conspiracy crap.

Her twitter is a goldmine of right wing crankery. She does not appear to have a firm grasp on reality.

 

[Darat]

Right. The the only source for the "Trump hat made him a target" claim is the same person who seems to have penchant for wild hyperbole. One tweet has her claiming that these students should be charged for attempted murder. Another has her spreading Q-anon conspiracy crap.



Her twitter is a goldmine of right wing crankery. She does not appear to have a firm grasp on reality.

That's it. If she accepted anti-vax conspiracy theories, no plane 9/11 theories and so on I'd conclude the same about her, it's not her politics.

 

[Thermal]

I certainly don't base my views of her reliability on her political affiliations, I base it on her known irrationality and lack of being able to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Doesn't sound like your post #4:

14 year old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump ... says Trump activist and campaigner.

I don't see any 'break with reality' arguments, and none were presented on the thread. Just the fact that she supports Trump...which, okay, kind of does represent a break with reality on its own, but that's not the point.

Right. The the only source for the "Trump hat made him a target" claim is the same person who seems to have penchant for wild hyperbole. One tweet has her claiming that these students should be charged for attempted murder. Another has her spreading Q-anon conspiracy crap.

Her twitter is a goldmine of right wing crankery. She does not appear to have a firm grasp on reality.

You know, you've said this before, but nothing was presented to the thread. So I looked. Went back to July on her twitter before getting bored, and while there was a lot of typical right wing stuff, there was nothing indicating this fabled 'break with reality'. Did you find something indicating psychosis that I missed?

 

[varwoche]

Right. The the only source for the "Trump hat made him a target" claim is the same person who seems to have penchant for wild hyperbole. One tweet has her claiming that these students should be charged for attempted murder. Another has her spreading Q-anon conspiracy crap.

Her twitter is a goldmine of right wing crankery. She does not appear to have a firm grasp on reality.

Meanwhile the school, located in a county in a bright red part of Florida, investigated the incident, interviewed the participants, interviewed the bus driver, interviewed the kids on the bus, and determined otherwise.

And yet self-styled skeptics say the two sides should be assigned equal weight.

 

[Thermal]

Meanwhile the school, located in a county in a bright red part of Florida, investigated the incident, interviewed the participants, interviewed the bus driver, interviewed the kids on the bus, and determined otherwise.

And yet self-styled skeptics say the two sides should be assigned equal weight.

You are implying political bias on the part of law enforcement? That's pretty cynical, even by my standards.

As I have pointed out, investigators seek to determine the cause of the action, not psychoanalyze the actors till they find underlying root disagreements. I don't think that the police or school's findings contradict the narrative. The original, more distant cause of dislike between the parties is irrelevant to a police report, once they determine an immediate cause for immediate hostilities.

Also, I hear no one saying the versions should be given equal weight. Her version should be met with skepticism. The police and school have said the assault was caused by...what, again? Oh, that's right: they haven't said what they found, just what they didn't find. So we still don't know what they actually did find.

 

[varwoche]

You are implying political bias on the part of law enforcement? That's pretty cynical, even by my standards.

No. In some of these debates, it's been speculated that the officials were pressured into PC. I'm pointing out that wouldn't quite be applicable here.

... Also, I hear no one saying the versions should be given equal weight.

Here you go:

I'm actually saying the school's account is no more credible than the mother's.