False racist attack allegations are the new false rape allegations

[Derec]

So three women who are black did something wrong - racially motivated and wrong.
The picture shows they are in handcuffs.
What's the problem?

The problem is the amount of support they initially received and still receive. Something they very much have it common with Crystal Magnum (remember that racial/gender shitstorm?) and Tawana Brawley.
The NY Times article was still positive about Missouriesque SJW efforts on race and decried the fact that this stunt will damage them. Did you miss the call by SJWs to "shut it down" because the university is holding a disciplinary hearing for them?

Can you show any pictures of other folks who do something racially wrong who are in handcuffs? People who are not black?

Of course they are. They are not subject of widespread support though.

Or even other folks who have gotten away with racial wrongs and who are NOT in handcuff and are not black?

Like who?

You are comical.

As are you.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is the amount of support they initially received and still receive.

How and why is that a problem? As a SJWer yourself, you should appreciate anyone's efforts to promote or insure social justice.

 

[Derec]

How and why is that a problem? As a SJWer yourself, you should appreciate anyone's efforts to promote or insure social justice.

And we are back to elementary school level of discourse ...
Aren't you too old for that?

 

[KeepTalking]

Hillary got in on the action too: Why Hasn’t Hillary Deleted This Hoax Tweet? Undeleted tweet here.

I don't use Twitter, and if I did I wouldn't follow Hillary, but I do note the following from the article you reference:

A tweet expressing anger at the “racism and violence” against the students—now proven to have never occurred—still remains on Hillary Clinton’s Twitter page.

Racism and violence are bad, and expressing anger at them is not an incorrect thing to do on the Twitter. Without knowing exactly what she said in her tweet (why doesn't the Daily Beast provide the full tweet?), I can't judge any further whether her tweet is factually incorrect from this article.

On the other hand, why do we expect people to delete their tweets if part of a tweet is factually incorrect? Wouldn't we want to preserve the history of those comments so full discussion can follow? Are you certain that Hillary did not make a later tweet rolling back any counter factual comments that may have been made in the original? That is what I would like to see happen in this kind of situation. When your words are out there, they are out there, you said it so you own it. I don't agree with the idea that people should just delete tweets and then pretend that the tweet never happened.

Of course there is also the possibility that Hillary is so technically illiterate that she does not realize that she could delete the tweet. Or, that she never made the tweet herself, someone on her staff did it, and she was not even aware of the tweet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't use Twitter, and if I did I wouldn't follow Hillary, but I do note the following from the article you reference:

A tweet expressing anger at the “racism and violence” against the students—now proven to have never occurred—still remains on Hillary Clinton’s Twitter page.

Racism and violence are bad, and expressing anger at them is not an incorrect thing to do on the Twitter. Without knowing exactly what she said in her tweet (why doesn't the Daily Beast provide the full tweet?), I can't judge any further whether her tweet is factually incorrect from this article.

On the other hand, why do we expect people to delete their tweets if part of a tweet is factually incorrect? Wouldn't we want to preserve the history of those comments so full discussion can follow? Are you certain that Hillary did not make a later tweet rolling back any counter factual comments that may have been made in the original? That is what I would like to see happen in this kind of situation. When your words are out there, they are out there, you said it so you own it. I don't agree with the idea that people should just delete tweets and then pretend that the tweet never happened.

Of course there is also the possibility that Hillary is so technically illiterate that she does not realize that she could delete the tweet. Or, that she never made the tweet herself, someone on her staff did it, and she was not even aware of the tweet.

Or possibly, she has more important things to deal with than redacting tweets.

If she had deleted the Tweet, people like Derec would say she was hiding that she "jumped to a conclusion" in this case. Why didn't she post a Tweet saying it never happened and that she was wrong for jumping to conclusions.

 

[Toni]

How and why is that a problem? As a SJWer yourself, you should appreciate anyone's efforts to promote or insure social justice.

And we are back to elementary school level of discourse ...
Aren't you too old for that?

Well, you are. Whether you abandon your preadolescent mindset is a different thing altogether.

 

[Toni]

Don't actual black people get upset at these faux black people trying to benefit from their PC clout like these two non-black women are doing here? These two are not people who would trigger anti-black racism. If they don't have to live with anti-black racism, why should they benefit from the attempts to offset it?

I can assure you that all of those women in the photo would be perceived as black by the general public. Or by you should your offspring bring one home as a potential spouse.

Your faux protests to the contrary.

 

[laughing dog]

How and why is that a problem? As a SJWer yourself, you should appreciate anyone's efforts to promote or insure social justice.

And we are back to elementary school level of discourse ...
Aren't you too old for that?

Please do not include me in your childish delusions.

Again, how why is that a problem? And why do you resist being accurately labelled a SJW?

 

[Rhea]

The problem is the amount of support they initially received and still receive. Something they very much have it common with Crystal Magnum (remember that racial/gender shitstorm?) and Tawana Brawley.

Holy Fuckamoley, Derec. Brawley was twenty nine fucking years ago!

Can you show any pictures of other folks who do something racially wrong who are in handcuffs? People who are not black?

Of course they are. They are not subject of widespread support though.

Or even other folks who have gotten away with racial wrongs and who are NOT in handcuff and are not black?

Like who?

You can't think of a single person in the last TWENTY NINE YEARS who was white and falsely accused a black person of something?
Even if it was an evil woman like Susan Smith???

Or someone who did something wrong against a woman and had widespread support such as Steubenville?

(well, I know the answer to this already, but, come on! A twenty nine year old case is the one you decide to bring up? And a 23 year old one? If this is how you demonstrate a terrible trend - you just made you case fall apart.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or even other folks who have gotten away with racial wrongs and who are NOT in handcuff and are not black?

Like who?

You can't think of a single person in the last TWENTY NINE YEARS who was white and falsely accused a black person of something?
Even if it was an evil woman like Susan Smith???

Or Charles Stuart, if we can source events nearly 30 years ago (1989). That was the husband that shot and killed his 7 month pregnant wife, shot himself, and then said a black guy did it. Did it for insurance money.

 

[Derec]

Brawley was twenty nine fucking years ago!

So?

You can't think of a single person in the last TWENTY NINE YEARS who was white and falsely accused a black person of something?
Even if it was an evil woman like Susan Smith???

Your question clearly implied people who have "gotten away with it". So Susan Smith does not apply. But you could say that both Tawana Brawley and Crystal Magnum got away with their false accusations because neither was ever charged with anything in connection with these false allegations.

Or someone who did something wrong against a woman and had widespread support such as Steubenville?

As I recall there was a widespread shitstorm in Steubenville, not widespread support.

(well, I know the answer to this already, but, come on! A twenty nine year old case is the one you decide to bring up? And a 23 year old one? If this is how you demonstrate a terrible trend - you just made you case fall apart.)

What 23 year old one?

 

[Derec]

No, he cannot, would not and will not. His boogie men are black people and women.

Nonsense. I just want everybody treated as individuals. Of course, that is in conflict with the progressive orthodoxy of identity politics.

Anything else someone does that is wrong, no matter how abhorrent, is no big deal. Definitely not worth a mention.

Abhorrent things are always worth a mention. Ask yourself why you think they should not be mentioned when done by members of certain preferred groups.

Pathetic? Yes. Misogynistic? Yes. Racist? Yes. Comical? I just can't find that shit funny.

I feel like I am in a George Orwell novel. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Wanting people to be treated as individuals is racism and misogyny."

- - - Updated - - -

And why do you resist being accurately labelled a SJW?

Why do you continue to beat your wife?

- - - Updated - - -

If she had deleted the Tweet, people like Derec would say she was hiding that she "jumped to a conclusion" in this case. Why didn't she post a Tweet saying it never happened and that she was wrong for jumping to conclusions.

In either case she was jumping to conclusions.

 

[Derec]

Racism and violence are bad, and expressing anger at them is not an incorrect thing to do on the Twitter. Without knowing exactly what she said in her tweet (why doesn't the Daily Beast provide the full tweet?), I can't judge any further whether her tweet is factually incorrect from this article.

The tweet directly referenced the (now discredited) racial violence claims.
And do you really think Hillary would have tweeted this sentiment if a group of white students claimed they were attacked by blacks? Of course not, because such violence does not merit attention.

On the other hand, why do we expect people to delete their tweets if part of a tweet is factually incorrect? Wouldn't we want to preserve the history of those comments so full discussion can follow? Are you certain that Hillary did not make a later tweet rolling back any counter factual comments that may have been made in the original? That is what I would like to see happen in this kind of situation. When your words are out there, they are out there, you said it so you own it. I don't agree with the idea that people should just delete tweets and then pretend that the tweet never happened.

A retraction would have been in order, but she didn't do either. She just left the tweet referencing the hoax as factual stand.

 

[KeepTalking]

The tweet directly referenced the (now discredited) racial violence claims.

Do you have access to the entire tweet? If so, can you quote it here so that we can examine it, and come to an informed conclusion?

And do you really think Hillary would have tweeted this sentiment if a group of white students claimed they were attacked by blacks? Of course not, because such violence does not merit attention.

I'm not sure that the tweet originated from Hillary at all. It would seem, however, that in this case she (or her campaign) did tweet about whites who were attacked by blacks, though it was quite unintentional.

On the other hand, why do we expect people to delete their tweets if part of a tweet is factually incorrect? Wouldn't we want to preserve the history of those comments so full discussion can follow? Are you certain that Hillary did not make a later tweet rolling back any counter factual comments that may have been made in the original? That is what I would like to see happen in this kind of situation. When your words are out there, they are out there, you said it so you own it. I don't agree with the idea that people should just delete tweets and then pretend that the tweet never happened.

A retraction would have been in order, but she didn't do either.

Are you sure? You don't seem like someone who would subscribe to her Twitter.

She just left the tweet referencing the hoax as factual stand.

That remains to be seen. We would need to see the entire tweet, not just the three words quote in your article, to be sure.

 

[Derec]

Do you have access to the entire tweet? If so, can you quote it here so that we can examine it, and come to an informed conclusion?

I had linked to it. Here it is again.
The full text is:

There's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus. http://hrc.io/1SurlaQ -H

Nothing wrong with the sentence itself, but it directly referenced (through that tiny url) the now discredited story.

I'm not sure that the tweet originated from Hillary at all.

It's from her account, signed "-H", which means she is responsible even if she let some intern write it.

It would seem, however, that in this case she (or her campaign) did tweet about whites who were attacked by blacks, though it was quite unintentional.

Unintentional doesn't cut it.

Are you sure? You don't seem like someone who would subscribe to her Twitter.

I don't. But given that she has been called out in several media outlets, if there was a retraction Hilbots would be pointing it out.

That remains to be seen. We would need to see the entire tweet, not just the three words quote in your article, to be sure.

The "entire tweet" is <= 140 characters. And the real problem with it are the 21 characters of the URL to the story of the supposed dastardly attack.

 

[Malintent]

Holy Fuckamoley, Derec. Brawley was twenty nine fucking years ago!

Can you show any pictures of other folks who do something racially wrong who are in handcuffs? People who are not black?

Of course they are. They are not subject of widespread support though.

Or even other folks who have gotten away with racial wrongs and who are NOT in handcuff and are not black?

Like who?

You can't think of a single person in the last TWENTY NINE YEARS who was white and falsely accused a black person of something?
Even if it was an evil woman like Susan Smith???

Or someone who did something wrong against a woman and had widespread support such as Steubenville?

(well, I know the answer to this already, but, come on! A twenty nine year old case is the one you decide to bring up? And a 23 year old one? If this is how you demonstrate a terrible trend - you just made you case fall apart.)

The NYT article made those references that Derec was commenting on. I guess you didn't read what you are protesting about... hey.. just like the BLM crowd.. consistent behavior amongst the Dindus.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you continue to beat your wife?

I don't beat my wife because it is wrong, immoral and illegal (and because she would beat me worse). What prompted such a question?

On the other hand, advocating for one's view of social justice (i.e. being a social justice warrior) is an admirable trait or action. I cannot imagine equating being a social justice warrior with beating a spouse. Really, wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[KeepTalking]

I had linked to it. Here it is again.

Sorry, I must have missed it the first time. Thanks for reposting it.

The full text is:

There's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus. http://hrc.io/1SurlaQ -H

Nothing wrong with the sentence itself, but it directly referenced (through that tiny url) the now discredited story.

So, there is nothing wrong with what she actually tweeted, however, she linked to an article that has not been updated with the correct information. Why is it again that she should delete her tweet? The problem seems to be that the article has not been updated, perhaps that should be taken up with the author of the article, or the editor of the publication where it appeared.

I snipped the rest of your response, because it doesn't matter. What Hillary or her campaign actually tweeted "There's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus." is a statement that contains no counter factual information. In fact, given what actually happened, three black women actually committed the violence, and possibly were acting racist as well, I think you would be totally on board with her leaving the tweet as is. Their violence and racism on campus is just as inexcusable as the original claim.

 

[Rhea]

Holy Fuckamoley, Derec. Brawley was twenty nine fucking years ago!

Can you show any pictures of other folks who do something racially wrong who are in handcuffs? People who are not black?

Of course they are. They are not subject of widespread support though.

Or even other folks who have gotten away with racial wrongs and who are NOT in handcuff and are not black?

Like who?

You can't think of a single person in the last TWENTY NINE YEARS who was white and falsely accused a black person of something?
Even if it was an evil woman like Susan Smith???

Or someone who did something wrong against a woman and had widespread support such as Steubenville?

(well, I know the answer to this already, but, come on! A twenty nine year old case is the one you decide to bring up? And a 23 year old one? If this is how you demonstrate a terrible trend - you just made you case fall apart.)

The NYT article made those references that Derec was commenting on. I guess you didn't read what you are protesting about... hey.. just like the BLM crowd.. consistent behavior amongst the Dindus.

I am often unable to click links because of my limited bandwidth. I am forced to read what people quote as from the link ad the words of the article and what they type without attribution as their own work.

Since Derec ALWAYS brings up Brawley and NEVER brings up Charles Stewart, I can draw conclusions about which are improtant to him.
He doesn't have dozens of recent evil-woman evil-black stories, and he has zero evil white guy stories of any vintage. So I conclude that he completely overlooks all of the evil white guy stories as unimportant to his "social justice for everyone" cause and needs to use decades old evil-women evil-black stories to justify his "social justice for the white guy" cause.

It's pretty reliable.