14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[plague311]

Is it literally even possible to have this discussion devoid of context (if you want to look it one way) or baggage (if you want to look at it the other?)

I'm not sure I follow your question, but it's not even 9 a.m. here and I'm just now getting to my first cup of coffee.

 

[theprestige]

Is it literally even possible to have this discussion devoid of context (if you want to look it one way) or baggage (if you want to look at it the other?)

It is possible. For example, this is a pretty context-free analysis:

That the police are involved at all is criminal!

 

[Thermal]

I haven't said on this thread much about the Trump hat apart from pointing out it wasn't a MAGA hat.

The hat is irrelevant as I keep repeating.

I'm not particularly outraged either.

Apart from pointing out you seeming to defend a kid being beaten repeatedly by a nutcase and some how it is ok

If the OP is a story about kids fighting on a bus without injuries, it's a little dull. The hat brings in a theme of political violence motivated by a bit of apparel, that is reaching down to children now. Bad news if true.

 

[plague311]

If the OP is a story about kids fighting on a bus without injuries, it's a little dull. The hat brings in a theme of political violence motivated by a bit of apparel, that is reaching down to children now. Bad news if true.

Which has been all but debunked. There is only one person involved in this entire thing making that claim, and she has a proven history of posting outright lies from right-wing sources. There's not much of a doubt that she's obviously reading a good portion of the claimed bias into it.

 

[qayak]

Apart from pointing out you seeming to defend a kid being beaten repeatedly by a nutcase and some how it is ok

Such a good little ultra-right winger.

 

[qayak]

Ironic considering you haven't had anything to say about the same kid beating on someone else.

Yup, it's a school yard punch-up between children, dressed up with lies, and used to fuel right wing outrage. Some just can't admit that.

 

[Thermal]

Which has been all but debunked. There is only one person involved in this entire thing making that claim, and she has a proven history of posting outright lies from right-wing sources. There's not much of a doubt that she's obviously reading a good portion of the claimed bias into it.

She has retweeted some trolly memes. That hardly defines her entire personhood. Most people are not that one dimensional.

She has also posted anti racism messages. Does that discredit her too, following your logic?

 

[plague311]

She has retweeted some trolly memes. That hardly defines her entire personhood. Most people are not that one dimensional.

I didn't say that it defined her entire personhood, but as someone who has been credited with being a skeptic by, not only yourself, but others, would it not go to "body of work"? Must we look at this in a vacuum? Why is it always a false dichotomy with you? There is a mile of gray area between "defines her entire personhood" and "shows that she is susceptible to believing things that are complete lies and ********".

Again, she's the only person at all making these claims. We have two official bodies who have said they have investigated and can find no connection at all with the hat but there is a connection of previous violence because this kid is shown beating on a girl in the recent past. For the life of me I can't figure out why you're giving her claims so much credit, but seem to disregard the others. As I mentioned before, it's a type of skepticism I'm apparently not familiar with.

She has also posted anti racism messages. Does that discredit her too, following your logic?

Non sequitur. What do anti-racism messages have to do with this at all? She never claimed this was racist, she claimed it was political. I don't think you're following my logic at all. I don't know what this is but it makes no sense as to why you'd bring it up. I'm sure you have a reason though.

 

[Thermal]

I didn't say that it defined her entire personhood, but as someone who has been credited with being a skeptic by, not only yourself, but others, would it not go to "body of work"? Must we look at this in a vacuum? Why is it always a false dichotomy with you? There is a mile of gray area between "defines her entire personhood" and "shows that she is susceptible to believing things that are complete lies and ********".

First off, would you please stop personalizing this? It's a little creepy.

Secondly, retweeting trolly memes is not much to base an evaluation of people on. I'd much rather know about literally anything else to evaluate her credibility.

Again, she's the only person at all making these claims. We have two official bodies who have said they have investigated and can find no connection at all with the hat but there is a connection of previous violence because this kid is shown beating on a girl in the recent past.

Neither body said they found no connection with the hat. Both said the instant criminal matter was started by a verbal altercation. As I opined before, I don't think police have any need to trace conflicts back to when two actors first developed a dislike for each other. It doesn't matter, in the criminal sense. They can dislike each other for whatever reasons, going however far back you like. The police were concerned with the crime, not their ******* relationship.

Also, you might want to read the article from the second video you put up. The police in that one say the hat was not present, not at all that there was no connection.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you're giving her claims so much credit, but seem to disregard the others. As I mentioned before, it's a type of skepticism I'm apparently not familiar with.

Please, please try to read the posts. I have said repeatedly that I am highly skeptical of her claims. What we are talking about are the grounds for evaluating them.

Non sequitur. What do anti-racism messages have to do with this at all? She never claimed this was racist, she claimed it was political. I don't think you're following my logic at all. I don't know what this is but it makes no sense as to why you'd bring it up. I'm sure you have a reason though.

You really need to catch up on the basic reading on this one. She claimed in the OP that this was motivated by racism. Ya sure do have a lot to say about a story you forgot to read.

 

[plague311]

First off, would you please stop personalizing this? It's a little creepy.

Secondly, retweeting trolly memes is not much to base an evaluation of people on. I'd much rather know about literally anything else to evaluate her credibility.

Yeah, why wouldn't we use things that she directly does, that shows what she supports, believes, and wants others to believe as evidence to evaluate someone on? Skepticism!

Neither body said they found no connection with the hat. Both said the instant criminal matter was started by a verbal altercation. As I opined before, I don't think police have any need to trace conflicts back to when two actors first developed a dislike for each other. It doesn't matter, in the criminal sense. They can dislike each other for whatever reasons, going however far back you like. The police were concerned with the crime, not their ******* relationship.

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.

Ok, sorry. I'll really try to work on basic reading comprehension, research, and being skeptical of my own positions in the future.

Also, you might want to read the article from the second video you put up. The police in that one say the hat was not present, not at all that there was no connection.

Please, please try to read the posts. I have said repeatedly that I am highly skeptical of her claims. What we are talking about are the grounds for evaluating them.

Ok, lets set some grounds for evaluating them then? I've now shown evidence that the police and the school (if you need a cite, let me know) have said there was no connection. I'm evaluating her claims based on her known actions, and beliefs as given by her, the direct source.

You really need to catch up on the basic reading on this one.

Duly noted.

She claimed in the OP that this was motivated by racism. Ya sure do have a lot to say about a story you forgot to read.

In my opinion she had dropped that claim since then as I haven't seen her repeat it. I'll admit that I was wrong to make my statement. Though I bet I'll be the only one here that is able to admit it.

Anyway, I'll dig through her timeline to find the anti-racism memes. I'm not sure which ones she's posted, but that's definitely got me curious.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, why wouldn't we use things that she directly does, that shows what she supports, believes, and wants others to believe as evidence to evaluate someone on? Skepticism!

The only thing you have shown is clicking retweet on other people's goofy comic memes. It represents probably like one minute total of her life. Gonna need a little more than that to support this in-depth psychological profile you are pushing.

Ok, sorry. I'll really try to work on basic reading comprehension, research, and being skeptical of my own positions in the future.

Concentrate on those last three words you hilited. "Motivated the incident", in case you forgot. Concentrate real hard kn the difference between 'motivated the incident' and 'sparked initial dislike which escalated over weeks'. Take your time.

k, lets set some grounds for evaluating them then? I've now shown evidence that the police and the school (if you need a cite, let me know) have said there was no connection. I'm evaluating her claims based on her known actions, and beliefs as given by her, the direct source.

You have not. You have shown that you still do not understand the difference between motivating an immediate instance and originating animosities.

Duly noted.



In my opinion she had dropped that claim since then as I haven't seen her repeat it. I'll admit that I was wrong to make my statement. Though I bet I'll be the only one here that is able to admit it.

What you claim are her positions outside this thread are irrelevant. Show your evidence, don't insist it is out there and everyone else has to go find it. .

Anyway, I'll dig through her timeline to find the anti-racism memes. I'm not sure which ones she's posted, but that's definitely got me curious.

When I clicked on her feed, they were some of the most recent postings. I looked back to July before getting bored (looking for evidence or her psychosis that was vaguely alluded to)

 

[plague311]

The only thing you have shown is clicking retweet on other people's goofy comic memes. It represents probably like one minute total of her life. Gonna need a little more than that to support this in-depth psychological profile you are pushing.

Time invested to do it means **** all. If she ran over someone because they were black it would only take a second, but it would still be racist.

Anyway, I'm not pushing an in-depth psychological profile. I'm saying she has an obvious bias that's supported by her taking time, any amount, to go through and push lies\right wing talking points. It's not in-depth, it's surface level and transparent.

Concentrate on those last three words you hilited. "Motivated the incident", in case you forgot. Concentrate real hard kn the difference between 'motivated the incident' and 'sparked initial dislike which escalated over weeks'. Take your time.

Ok, obviously I'm so ******* stupid I don't even get it. I said the mom is the only one claiming the hat had anything to do with it at all. The investigations are saying that the hat had nothing to do with this event at all, either now or earlier. I can take all the time in the world, but I need you to explain to my stupid ass what I'm missing here.

I understand that you're calling me a moron, I totally get it. It's so thinly veiled it would be in the lingerie section at the clothing store, but for the ******* life of me I don't understand why.

You have not. You have shown that you still do not understand the difference between motivating an immediate instance and originating animosities.

You seem to keep bringing this up, origin vs. immediate instances. The police and the school have said the hat wasn't related to this incident (origin or otherwise, they don't clarify, just not related at all). Which is, again, what I am saying. When it comes to this instance the hat had absolutely nothing to do with it according to anyone except the mother. Not Tyler, not the other kids, not the other kids parents, not the school, not the police, not any of Tyler's friends, not anyone in any way is saying the hat was involved. We're two weeks out now, and no one seems to be supporting her claim.

You seem to be arguing against that by repeatedly saying how they could have started hating each other. From what I see, they hated each other because 'Tyler' decided to beat up one of the girls. I've read, but haven't confirmed, that most of these kids that were swinging are related. It sounds to me like revenge for beating up on the girl.

Again, the hat has absolutely **** all to do with anything. 'Tyler', according to all available information, wasn't beaten up for the hat. Two weeks later and nothing anywhere has shown the hat to be involved at all. No claims from either side of the students, nothing released in the police statements, just nothing anywhere at all.

What you claim are her positions outside this thread are irrelevant. Show your evidence, don't insist it is out there and everyone else has to go find it.

I'm not insisting anything. Don't do anything for all I care.

The evidence is her twitter feed, but apparently that doesn't count because you said so. I'm not sure why. Apparently people can only be taken at their word if their efforts in spreading confirmation of their biases is if it takes...a lot of time? I guess. I have no idea.

When I clicked on her feed, they were some of the most recent postings. I looked back to July before getting bored (looking for evidence or her psychosis that was vaguely alluded to)

I am not claiming psychosis, I'm claiming she's reading a bias into something that has no evidence supporting it. Nothing more, nothing less. She spreads right wing information, she spreads things that are lies, and as such she has no issues reading bias into a situation involving her son. It's pretty common among humans.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I'm not going to assemble body of work citations for the purpose of accusing another member of privately favoring political violence. It's not even on topic for this thread.

Conservatives only give a rat about political violence when their victims fight back...

 

[Thermal]

Time invested to do it means **** all. If she ran over someone because they were black it would only take a second, but it would still be racist.

Anyway, I'm not pushing an in-depth psychological profile. I'm saying she has an obvious bias that's supported by her taking time, any amount, to go through and push lies\right wing talking points. It's not in-depth, it's surface level and transparent.

That she has a political bias is not in dispute. That her bias renders her unable to speak honestly about her son is.

Ok, obviously I'm so ******* stupid I don't even get it. I said the mom is the only one claiming the hat had anything to do with it at all. The investigations are saying that the hat had nothing to do with this event at all, either now or earlier. I can take all the time in the world, but I need you to explain to my stupid ass what I'm missing here.

I understand that you're calling me a moron, I totally get it. It's so thinly veiled it would be in the lingerie section at the clothing store, but for the ******* life of me I don't understand why.

As you wish. You claim investigions are saying the hat has nothing to do with this event at all, either now or earlier. Nope. Here's a copy and paste from the article you provided, post #227 (you changed the wording a couple posts up, and not the first time I've caught you doing so):

Officials with the Hamilton County School District said there is no evidence the student was wearing any apparel supporting the president before, or prior to, the incident occurring.

'They found no evidence' is not equivalent to 'they are saying the hat had nothing to do with it'. Two very different statements.

And for the umpteenth time, I am not calling you a moron. I am saying your preconceptions are affecting your objectivity about little Tyler-poo, the *******, and his mother.

You seem to be arguing against that by repeatedly saying how they could have started hating each other. From what I see, they hated each other because 'Tyler' decided to beat up one of the girls. I've read, but haven't confirmed, that most of these kids that were swinging are related. It sounds to me like revenge for beating up on the girl.

You got some evidence for the highlighted? Did he start it, was he ending it, or was he getting the upper hand mid-fight? Too short a vid to get much context for me, and coming out after so long seems a little self-serving from the girl. Why didn't this come out right away, if true?

The evidence is her twitter feed, but apparently that doesn't count because you said so. I'm not sure why. Apparently people can only be taken at their word if their efforts in spreading confirmation of their biases is if it takes...a lot of time? I guess. I have no idea.

Because it is trivially inconsequential. Her honesty and dedication to parenting her child is not evidenced by when she occasionally clicks to retweet.

Look, we're just repeating now. My POV on this, not that you are listening, is that we are both highly skeptical of her and her story. You, because she has right-wing leanings. Me, because she speaks first-hand about what is second-hand knowledge, and the first hand ('Tyler'-poo,the ********), remains silent.

 

[cullennz]

Conservatives only give a rat about political violence when their victims fight back...

Lol

Pretty funny post tbf

Manage to simultaneously excuse your violence, while also still playing the victim.

 

[qayak]

Removed. Factually incorrect.

 

[qayak]

'They found no evidence' is not equivalent to 'they are saying the hat had nothing to do with it'. Two very different statements.

Actually, according to the statement by the school district, the two statements are one and the same.

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.

You are making a positive claim and for that you need evidence. The district stated the evidence is non-existent so your claim is the equivalent of a claim that tea cup orbiting the outer reaches of the solar system is the cause of the incident.

 

[plague311]

That she has a political bias is not in dispute. That her bias renders her unable to speak honestly about her son is.

Right, and the fact everyone else is saying that "there is no evidence" that the hat had anything to do with it at all is evidence against her ability to speak honestly.

As you wish. You claim investigions are saying the hat has nothing to do with this event at all, either now or earlier. Nope. Here's a copy and paste from the article you provided, post #227 (you changed the wording a couple posts up, and not the first time I've caught you doing so):

I quote multiple sources. One of them was snopes, the other was a TV article, and various others. I didn't change a damn thing, the sources worded it differently. If you "catch" me doing something, call it out in real time.

'They found no evidence' is not equivalent to 'they are saying the hat had nothing to do with it'. Two very different statements.

This is the most pedantic ******** I've seen in a long time. They are not "two very different statements". They mean the same thing in this context, you're just trying to save face and it's blatantly see through.

Their investigations are complete, they aren't currently ongoing. It's been turned over to the DA for prosecuting. That means they have said the hat had nothing to do with it since there's no evidence the hat had anything to do with it. If I would have known this pathetic nitpick was all you were after I would have corrected it and mocked the very notion when it started.

You got some evidence for the highlighted? Did he start it, was he ending it, or was he getting the upper hand mid-fight? Too short a vid to get much context for me, and coming out after so long seems a little self-serving from the girl. Why didn't this come out right away, if true?

The video shows him beating up a girl, does it not? That's what I see. A fight where he is beating up a girl. I don't care if he started it, ended it, or had the upper hand at all. I don't care if you have enough context, because my only point in showing the video is that the hat didn't need to play a role because it's obvious they have history. Which, despite your opining, is exactly why the police would have seen an ongoing conflict and figured out how it started. That way they could figure out how to end it because they'd know what the issue was based on, but again though. "Schoolkids" is a good enough reason for the cops to phone it in apparently.

You know what I did notice, though? You have no issues calling this girl "self-serving", while Tyler has never been anything other than a victim. It's funny how you readily stick up for Tyler, and talk about evidence, and context, but you don't even hesitate to call her self-serving based on nothing more than we have for Tyler. Ironic, that.

It's funny that it's self-serving for her to release a video defending herself after this kid plays the victim on TV, but you've never called the mother self-serving for using her kid as a victim on the net. The girl turned the video over to the authorities and the school previously when the issue was reported. It's not like it was completely hidden and she just whipped it out now. Yet, Tyler isn't facing any charges. I wonder why that is?

Because it is trivially inconsequential. Her honesty and dedication to parenting her child is not evidenced by when she occasionally clicks to retweet.

It goes to show she's susceptible to being manipulated or willing to believe things that confirm her bias. I get you're downplaying this as much as you possibly can, but it goes to show a mindset. One a lot of people get stuck in and don't notice when they're doing it.

Look, we're just repeating now. My POV on this, not that you are listening, is that we are both highly skeptical of her and her story. You, because she has right-wing leanings. Me, because she speaks first-hand about what is second-hand knowledge, and the first hand ('Tyler'-poo,the ********), remains silent.

*buzzer* Wrong. I'm skeptical because she has an obvious bias that's confirmed by her posting right wing memes, stories, and lies. If she were posting left wing memes, and the kid had worn a Mayor Pete hat I'd be saying the same thing.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, according to the statement by the school district, the two statements are one and the same.



You are making a positive claim and for that you need evidence. The district stated the evidence is non-existent so your claim is the equivalent of a claim that tea cup orbiting the outer reaches of the solar system is the cause of the incident.

I'm still not making a claim. I am reading words in the English language. You and plague311 are claiming absence of evidence is positively evidence of absence, which doesn't really need to be argued in depth; it's a common fallacy.

Why is it so contentious to evaluate a story without political spin? I don't care what she occasionally retweets. I would care about her performance in more consequential matters, but Lo and Behold, we gots nuttin.

 

[plague311]

I'm still not making a claim. I am reading words in the English language. You and plague311 are claiming absence of evidence is positively evidence of absence, which doesn't really need to be argued in depth; it's a common fallacy.

You are saying that the hat being involved can't be dismissed. All I'm saying is that it can be until evidence is brought to light saying that the hat played a role. At this point there is nothing at all anywhere that supports the claim that the hat played a role. You want to provide some? Go ahead, until then it's just more of the same.

Why is it so contentious to evaluate a story without political spin?

I'm the one saying that the hat wasn't involved. I'm the one taking the ******* politics out of it. I'm saying this is a back and forth between students that could have started in many ways, but it's obvious Tyler isn't some innocent bystander. He was involved as is evidenced by him wailing on that girl in the previous video.

I don't care what she occasionally retweets.

If what she retweets directly refuted my claims, I would say the same thing. It's called "an easy cop out". It's literally dismissing evidence.

I would care about her performance in more consequential matters, but Lo and Behold, we gots nuttin.

Which is standard MO. Nothing meets the bar, nothing is proven, therefore....whatever your desired outcome is. This is what happens every time. That's why I'm so confused that this is considered skepticism. Seems the opposite to me.