14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[plague311]

Yeah, it's just apparently in this case you seem to be glaringly condescending towards one group of people involved, the kids, and extremely coddling to the other, Tyler. So your whole rant about how you question the base of these threads doesn't jive. You're doing everything to not dismiss this mother's claims. Saying we should view her skeptically but that there isn't enough evidence to dismiss it. Yet, there's a pile of it you choose to ignore. This runs counter to your claim of questioning the base story.

Gio, imo (he can speak for himself) doesn't seem to be saying you're a racist. You just implied that. He seems to be saying your argument here is in contrast to both your stated claims and your posting history.

 

[Thermal]

Wrong again. I have few opinions on any of the kids, and have said so. Tyler-poo, the *******, I have reserved all judgement on because we have nothing from him on his motivations. The other kids I have only said don't fight clean, like many kids today, and a 'but he started it' video can be viewed as self serving. That's reason for skepticism, not dismissal. Just like the mom: I am skeptical, but not dismissive. Others here, including you, are categorically dismissive. And no, a vague police or school press blurb is weak evidence. Not to be dismissed, again, but not enough to draw a conclusion, as you have.

 

[Giordano]

She said the bullying was immediate, and 'from that point on'. There is no ambiguity there. Unless you expect pages of explanation to preface her statement, it is clear that she says the first wearing of the hat started the bullying and escalation.



Ok, let's go cards-on-the-table, shall we?

You repeatedly compare my comments here to the LWB threads. You are quite unabashedly implying that I am a racist conservative fascist whatever. Please don't deny this; you have been quite insistent about it.

Now, let's assume, just for the moment and in the spirit of the holidays, that I have been posting honestly. That I joined this forum and log in specifically to discuss things skeptically, and challenge my thinking and base assumptions as well as other's. That I find baggage attached to LWB threads and a lot of SI&CE stories. Are you still 'struck' by why I am questioning why this mom's politics are influencing posters' impression of her? Play skeptic, just for a second: is she psychotic because she occasionally retweets a trolly comic meme?

I have posted pro-antifa, pro- UHC, pro-equal funding for public schools, and other fairly hard left political positions, in addition to supporting the narrative on some LWB threads. Does this 'strike' you too? No? But you claim to opine on my body of work here. Little selective about what you choose to look at, I see.

So try for a second to assume I am not a liar when you read my postings. Just for fun. You might find that challenging base assumptions is kind of an obsession of mine, and it is most glaring on threads like these (I don't go into the cesspool of USA politics, because posts there are proudly closed minded). My comments tend to focus on calling out the baggage. There is a **** ton of it when it comes to Agent Orange and race.

I'll keep calling it out. You are free to insinuate that I have an alternate agenda. And I'll call that out too.

Eta: Can't make that stupid face up top go away

Point one: once again her statement does not expressly say there was no bullying before the hat incident. Her statement does not expressly say that it began on wearing the hat. Her statement states that it was "immediate" and from that point one (on wearing the hat). I am looking at the strict language of the statement. I therefore only asked if there was a better statement from her that expressly stated there was no bullying prior to better understand precisely what was alleged; I presumed she must have said much more than the one sentence you quoted and thus a more direct statement would be easily found. Although I remain curious as to if the kid was already a target of bullying prior, this has become a distraction not worth pursuing: for example if the claim is that the bullying escalated on wearing the hat that would also support the OP heading. (was she a direct witness?)

Much more importantly: I have never viewed you, let alone accused you, of being a liar! Similarly I never implied (or sought to imply) you are a racist, fascist, etc. I don't see you in those terms.

My cards have always been on the table and what you see is exactly what what I dealt. All I was (and still am) seeking to point out is that you, and I, and every other human being sees things through the filter of their world views. And typically it is subconscious, with each of us believing that our perspective is the logical and skeptical one. This is reflected in how IMHO you have operated from different assumptions as to the believability of the Mom's statement in this thread versus the believability of what are very equivalent statements from the individuals involved in the incidents in the "... while black" threads. I tend to suspect this reflects your political views in this particular area or perhaps some experiences you've had, but I am not attributing it to racism!

I may be obnoxious and condescending by suggesting that we all must be more self-aware of our subconscious filters, but I am not accusing you of any evil I don't have myself.

 

[novaphile]

I didn't see anything about the bullying happening prior to allegedly wearing the hat. Where did you see that?

I was commenting on your post:

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 read that to mean, existing bullying increased after he wore the hat to school.

It is interesting to note that the child's lawyer is holding mutually contradictory positions on the hat causing the conflict:

Attorney Foye Walker, who is representing the boy, said the attack occurred on a Hamilton County school bus and remains under investigation.

“Tyler wore a Trump hat to school two weeks prior to the beating,” Walker wrote The Post in an email. “It started and/or increased a series of bullying that culminated in his assault and batter … His beating appears to be the result of his support for President Trump.”

Source.

And the mother said it was immediately upon wearing the hat, not some unknown time later. The mother said, from the OP article:

Bolding mine. She is saying that the problem started with, and because of, the hat. she may be wrong, or misreading, or lying, but I don't see the post hoc in play.

It's fair to question that, of course. She has no evidence (although without video rolling at the time, I'm not sure what exactly would constitute evidence. Confession from her attacker? Witnesses, who would likely be the other attackers?). So yeah, we can suspend belief. But you are arguing that what she says is simply fallacious? Why?

Well, as others have pointed out, the mother's grip on reality appears a little strained.

The Lawyer's comment that the bullying "started and/or increased" does not make things very clear, does it?

Why are you so certain that the mother is telling the truth, when nothing else supports her?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Libruls are freedom hating bullies and MAGAs are persecuted like Jesus for their beliefs.

 

[Thermal]

...Well, as others have pointed out, the mother's grip on reality appears a little strained.

Others have said this. Others have said outright that *checks notes* her occasional retweeting indicates psychosis. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous assumption. You can't deduce psychosis based on a few clicks on twitter.

This doesn't address the post hoc, though. That fallacy relies on over reliance on correlation. If the mom is right, and the bullying did start with the hat wearing, it would not be a post hoc fallacy. It would be correctly attributing causation. But we don't know why the mom claims this, or how accurate her claims are.

The Lawyer's comment that the bullying "started and/or increased" does not make things very clear, does it?

Not at all. But is that not pretty standard lawyer-speak, trying to cover all the bases?

Why are you so certain that the mother is telling the truth, when nothing else supports her?

I don't understand the question. I have said multiple times that I don't believe her, and am highly skeptical of her claims. Do you have me confused with another poster?

 

[Thermal]

Point one: once again her statement does not expressly say there was no bullying before the hat incident. Her statement does not expressly say that it began on wearing the hat. Her statement states that it was "immediate" and from that point one (on wearing the hat). I am looking at the strict language of the statement. I therefore only asked if there was a better statement from her that expressly stated there was no bullying prior to better understand precisely what was alleged; I presumed she must have said much more than the one sentence you quoted and thus a more direct statement would be easily found. Although I remain curious as to if the kid was already a target of bullying prior, this has become a distraction not worth pursuing: for example if the claim is that the bullying escalated on wearing the hat that would also support the OP heading. (was she a direct witness?)

Her claims have thus far been in the form of snippets and tweets. I think you maybe giving too much weight to her few words.

That said, I'm inclined to agree that the kids likely already disliked each other, and the hat fanned the flames. Kids, IME, don't suddenly get political on the bus. But...and like Nicki Minaj, this is a big but...I don't think this because of the mom's twitter feed.

Much more importantly: I have never viewed you, let alone accused you, of being a liar! Similarly I never implied (or sought to imply) you are a racist, fascist, etc. I don't see you in those terms.

My cards have always been on the table and what you see is exactly what what I dealt. All I was (and still am) seeking to point out is that you, and I, and every other human being sees things through the filter of their world views. And typically it is subconscious, with each of us believing that our perspective is the logical and skeptical one. This is reflected in how IMHO you have operated from different assumptions as to the believability of the Mom's statement in this thread versus the believability of what are very equivalent statements from the individuals involved in the incidents in the "... while black" threads. I tend to suspect this reflects your political views in this particular area or perhaps some experiences you've had, but I am not attributing it to racism!

Ok. I think the highlited is where we are disconnecting. First, I have argued both for and against LWB narratives. You are somehow not accepting that, and focusing on when I argue against it. Fine. Here is why I do not see them as 'very equivalent statements':

On the LWB threads I have argued against, it is because the narrative relies on the reader to assume racism in this instance as a given.

This one has the narrative tacked on tail-end: the story is told blandly (kid beaten, mom says it was because of hat). The narrative is then applied ITT, that because the mom sometimes retweets troll memes, she is unhinged and therefore all she says can be dismissed. Both narratives rely on the reader to project a socio-political bias that is not actually a fact in evidence. The stories have no legs without this projection.

I may be obnoxious and condescending by suggesting that we all must be more self-aware of our subconscious filters, but I am not accusing you of any evil I don't have myself.

Yet you still refer to 'my politics', while sidestepping the times where my opinions differ. On most threads where a white person shoots a black person, cop or not, I am against the shooter. I'd like to get my hands on the SOB that murdered Eric Garner. How does that jibe with your view of 'my politics'? It sounds as though you are euphemizing for a very different word, which doesn't make much sense, all-in.

 

[plague311]

Wrong again. I have few opinions on any of the kids, and have said so. Tyler-poo, the *******, I have reserved all judgement on because we have nothing from him on his motivations.

That raises a good point. Why hasn't Tyler said anything with regards to this story? He's just let his mom do the talking for him. I wonder why that is considering they obviously want the world to know about it? Something doesn't smell right.

The other kids I have only said don't fight clean, like many kids today, and a 'but he started it' video can be viewed as self serving.

It can also be viewed as defending one's self against a provably untrue storyline that depicts her as "sadistic" rather than merely wanting revenge. You know what is self serving? Using your son as a prop in a claim made to the world that he's a victim of political violence (with no evidence to support it) just to get yourself some notoriety. That is the definition of self serving. No idea why we're quiet about that...just kidding I know why.

That's reason for skepticism, not dismissal. Just like the mom: I am skeptical, but not dismissive. Others here, including you, are categorically dismissive. And no, a vague police or school press blurb is weak evidence. Not to be dismissed, again, but not enough to draw a conclusion, as you have.

It's too weak of evidence for you because this is exactly what happens in these situations. There's never enough evidence for you. If there is, it isn't strong enough and therefor you get to dismiss it out of hand. That's really ******* convenient isn't it? There's literally no other evidence that can be brought forward to make her claim untrue, so you've created a circumstance where you can't be proven wrong, fallacious as it may be.

Here we have a woman making a claim, the only woman involved in the entire thing making this claim. No one else outside of her has even mentioned the hat. We have bodies that have investigated and dismissed the involvement of the hat, but conveniently, that just won't work as evidence. All in all there is literally no evidence at all to support the hat having anything to do with anything, but you say she can't be dismissed and somehow that is skepticism? I call it completely illogical and the antithesis of skepticism.

ETA: I'm not dismissing her because of her tweets. I'm dismissing her because that's what the evidence points to and that's how Occam's razor works.

 

[Thermal]

That raises a good point. Why hasn't Tyler said anything with regards to this story? He's just let his mom do the talking for him. I wonder why that is considering they obviously want the world to know about it? Something doesn't smell right.

I assume it's because the mom is trying to keep his face out of the limelight. The hospital pics she posted were clearly taken to show the boo boos on his hairline without showing his face (you thought earlier that he was hiding in shame or something, but it's really clear that he was allowing the 'injuries' to be photographed without an actual face pic).

You still ducked the point, though. You lied about my position. Again. I reserve judgement on little Tyler poo, the *******, till we have heard from him, at least through a police report. Not a tweet. An actual quote from him.

It can also be viewed as defending one's self against a provably untrue storyline that depicts her as "sadistic" rather than merely wanting revenge. You know what is self serving? Using your son as a prop in a claim made to the world that he's a victim of political violence (with no evidence to support it) just to get yourself some notoriety. That is the definition of self serving. No idea why we're quiet about that...just kidding I know why.

I agree. Both versions can be viewed as self serving, so we should be skeptical of both till we have more evidence than tweets and press blurbs.

You can stop lying about me calling her sadistic and a monster and the aggressor, too. I agreed with another poster that the beating was sadistic, because that's how kids fight nowadays. They fight mean, not clean. Stop walking my position around to judging her as the aggressor. I have stated clearly and repeatedly that we have no idea who started either fight.

It's too weak of evidence for you because this is exactly what happens in these situations. There's never enough evidence for you. If there is, it isn't strong enough and therefor you get to dismiss it out of hand. That's really ******* convenient isn't it? There's literally no other evidence that can be brought forward to make her claim untrue, so you've created a circumstance where you can't be proven wrong, fallacious as it may be.

Here we have a woman making a claim, the only woman involved in the entire thing making this claim. No one else outside of her has even mentioned the hat. We have bodies that have investigated and dismissed the involvement of the hat, but conveniently, that just won't work as evidence. All in all there is literally no evidence at all to support the hat having anything to do with anything, but you say she can't be dismissed and somehow that is skepticism? I call it completely illogical and the antithesis of skepticism.

Another lie. I am very satisfied when we get direct quotes from the actors and police reports. Remember the BWW thread? I was satisfied when we saw the actual police report...which was very different from the freaking tweets that the rest of you were basing conclusions on.

I asked earlier: what evidence of this hat would you expect? You think someone was rolling footage of it at the time? You think his adversaries brought it up? You think the police interviewed every student on the bus the day he wore it (weeks before) and they all had crystal clear recollection of it?

I wouldn't expect any evidence of the Hat, except from Tyler poo, the *********, and the other kids. And we haven't heard from them.

ETA: I'm not dismissing her because of her tweets. I'm dismissing her because that's what the evidence points to and that's how Occam's razor works.

There is no actual evidence. Tweets and short blurbs. Might be enough for yoh to drop the gavel, but it ain't jack **** to me.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What kid wants their schoolyard fight to become national news? If I were this guy, I would be mortified that mommy was making sure as many people as possible saw my beat down. Each day I am extremely grateful that I was nearly an adult before social media became so widespread.

Maybe public notoriety was the only way to get a lazy school administration to take a bullying issue seriously. Maybe right wing cranks can't resist the urge to make their child into a martyr in the MAGA hat culture wars. Hard to say.

I don't really follow Thermal's point about how "kids these days don't fight fair". My experience coming through school isn't filled with memories of gentlemanly duels of fisticuffs. The few occasions where school kids got into fights were usually highly emotional bouts similar to that of the video. Lots of wild punches and very angry children. This bus fight doesn't strike me as particularly vicious.

 

[Thermal]

What kid wants their schoolyard fight to become national news? If I were this guy, I would be mortified that mommy was making sure as many people as possible saw my beat down. Each day I am extremely grateful that I was nearly an adult before social media became so widespread.

Maybe public notoriety was the only way to get a lazy school administration to take a bullying issue seriously. Maybe right wing cranks can't resist the urge to make their child into a martyr in the MAGA hat culture wars. Hard to say.

I don't really follow Thermal's point about how "kids these days don't fight fair". My experience coming through school isn't filled with memories of gentlemanly duels of fisticuffs. The few occasions where school kids got into fights were usually highly emotional bouts similar to that of the video. Lots of wild punches and very angry children. This bus fight doesn't strike me as particularly vicious.

When I was growing up, fights were pretty common, and quite the spectator sport. Literally a ring around the fighters at an agreed on place and time, and it was policed by the mob and 'dirty fighting', including below-the -belt and jumping, we're dealt with harshly by the group.

I can remember a gym teacher in 8th grade who got wind of some light bullying by a big kid over a little one in the locker room. He recommended in front of the class that the bully be taken out in the woods by 'a few of you guys'. The only time you could jump someone was if they breached the fighting rules, as I recall.

I'm gathering that y'all did what we called 'punk fighting'.

Eta: I don't recall a single instance of flipping out all emotionally till late high school. The **** was coldly laid out, and never took place where it would be quickly broken up

 

[plague311]

I assume it's because the mom is trying to keep his face out of the limelight. The hospital pics she posted were clearly taken to show the boo boos on his hairline without showing his face (you thought earlier that he was hiding in shame or something, but it's really clear that he was allowing the 'injuries' to be photographed without an actual face pic).

Look at the picture in the OP. His face is clearly visible in the video his mother, or whoever, posted that was shown in that article. Why would he be covering his face now? I guess it's possible that she's dumber than I thought. I'm always amazed every day.

I'm staring at the picture and there isn't even the slightest bit of discoloration on the hairline. What "injuries" would there be? She didn't mention any in the post. She didn't say "look at the black and blue marks on his head" or anything similar. Just that they poured milk on his head. I think your assumptions are completely unfounded.

You still ducked the point, though. You lied about my position. Again. I reserve judgement on little Tyler poo, the *******, till we have heard from him, at least through a police report. Not a tweet. An actual quote from him.

I didn't duck anything. What possible feedback would you like with regards to that statement? That's why I said, good point. I wonder why nothing has been released by him. It will be interesting to see what he says.

I agree. Both versions can be viewed as self serving, so we should be skeptical of both till we have more evidence than tweets and press blurbs.

That was my point. You're probably not going to get any more. The kids are going to plead out to something that'll go away when they turn 18 and we'll never hear anything more about it. That's why I am siding with the one that has evidence that supports it instead of the one that has absolutely no evidence to support it at all.

You can stop lying about me calling her sadistic and a monster and the aggressor, too. I agreed with another poster that the beating was sadistic, because that's how kids fight nowadays. They fight mean, not clean. Stop walking my position around to judging her as the aggressor. I have stated clearly and repeatedly that we have no idea who started either fight.

Oh, ok. That's totally different.

*snipped* I asked earlier: what evidence of this hat would you expect?

Any. Literally ******* any evidence at all.

You think someone was rolling footage of it at the time?

If it was big enough to start all of this then it would be big enough to be talked about by more than 1 person that wasn't there. It would show up in either a police or a school investigation. Again, any evidence would work. Anything.

You think his adversaries brought it up?

Why not? You think they'd fight about it, but talking about it is a no-no? Come on.

You think the police interviewed every student on the bus the day he wore it (weeks before) and they all had crystal clear recollection of it?

More of your hyperbole. If it's not perfect, then it obviously couldn't happen. Do people normally buy this approach? It's transparent.

Anyway, they wouldn't have to interview every student, just the ones involved. They wouldn't need perfect recollection, but recalling one individual item that began everything is completely within reason. You knew that though.

I wouldn't expect any evidence of the Hat, except from Tyler poo, the *********, and the other kids. And we haven't heard from them.

Are you trying to drive home a point by using this repeatedly? This Trumpian style of repetition? Do you feel it's somehow supporting your argument? Tough to watch.

Anyway, yes we have heard from one of them. The woman that released the video that pointed out that it was related to this Tyler kid hitting her daughter. She released the video and you called it self serving.

There is no actual evidence. Tweets and short blurbs. Might be enough for yoh to drop the gavel, but it ain't jack **** to me.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not really seeing anything that seems like obvious signs of real injury here either. The kid's scalp seems a bit red. The mother's post is extremely vague about the extent of her son's injury. The DailyFail's categorization of "hospitalized" seems almost certainly untrue.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the kid got a medical evaluation and sent home largely without any real treatment because he didn't have anything worse than a couple bruises.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Speaking of self serving, here's the MAGA mom's gofundme page: https://www.gofundme.com/f/BusAttackTyler?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

Curious enough, she claims all her son's previous friends are now calling him a racist and that's why they need money to homeschool.

 

[plague311]

Speaking of self serving, here's the MAGA mom's gofundme page: https://www.gofundme.com/f/BusAttackTyler?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

Curious enough, she claims all her son's previous friends are now calling him a racist and that's why they need money to homeschool.

Kind of puts an end to the theory that she's trying to keep her son out of the limelight, hide his face, and so on.

She's almost got what she wanted though. $11,400 of $12,000. Good for her, bleed the saps.

 

[novaphile]

...

This doesn't address the post hoc, though. That fallacy relies on over reliance on correlation. If the mom is right, and the bullying did start with the hat wearing, it would not be a post hoc fallacy. It would be correctly attributing causation. But we don't know why the mom claims this, or how accurate her claims are.

Sorry to keep dragging this out, but no, this is an example of post hoc.

If the mother had reported that students had said:
"Take that, Trump-lover" or,
"Make America Great, pound on a racist!"
etc.

We'd have evidence of causation.

But the bullying started on the same day that he wore a Trump hat, is a post hoc.

Maybe she has more information that she didn't provide, but we don't, and it currently reads as an assumption. This happened after that, therefore it was caused by that.

Alternative examples:

I put on a blue bicycle helmet and then crashed my bike into a parked car.
The crash was caused by my blue bicycle helmet.

I wore green braces to work and my boss immediately criticised me for not completing a task on time.
His criticism was caused by my green braces.

 

[Thermal]

Sorry to keep dragging this out, but no, this is an example of post hoc.

If the mother had reported that students had said:
"Take that, Trump-lover" or,
"Make America Great, pound on a racist!"
etc.

We'd have evidence of causation.

But the bullying started on the same day that he wore a Trump hat, is a post hoc.

Maybe she has more information that she didn't provide, but we don't, and it currently reads as an assumption. This happened after that, therefore it was caused by that.

Alternative examples:

I put on a blue bicycle helmet and then crashed my bike into a parked car.
The crash was caused by my blue bicycle helmet.

I wore green braces to work and my boss immediately criticised me for not completing a task on time.
His criticism was caused by my green braces.

This is the important bit. She has not delivered an in-depth dissertation on the matter. She tweeted and gave press snippets.

And this is where we differ (and where I apparently differ with most of this forum). To borrow from Asimov: Insufficient data for a meaningful conclusion. The most you could deduce is that she might be post hocing, and watch for better evidence of that. But this is too incomplete for even the most tentative of conclusions, either way. Any conclusion reached reflects that narrative/bias thingy I keep harping about.

Here's another example: you asked me 'why I was so certain the mother was telling the truth'. I responded that I had said just the opposite multiple times. You then snipped out all references to it.

What should I conclude from that? That you misread, but accidentally snipped out the question? That you knew you were wrong in the first place, but don't like sunlight on your bias? That you want to maintain the narrative in your head, so in a fit of cognitive dissonance, you snip out any references that show it to be wrong?

There is insufficient data for me to draw a meaningful conclusion about why you took the time to snip out my question, and the direct refutation to your question. The most it can do is swing my meter a certain way.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Lol

Pretty funny post tbf

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

It's nothing less than the Truth.