There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but I would be very shocked if the PDA were as innocent as they imply it was for someone to walk out from behind the counter and calmly ask them to knock it off. There are always two sides to every altercation, and even his description, “kind of briefly - we began to kiss” sounds like downplaying the degree of the kissing going on. It sounds like there was a good chance that it was a pretty excessive makeout session. They really seem to want to make it a homophobia thing, and maybe it was… whether the employees’ line for excessive would have been the same for a straight couple as for this gay one, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t be shocked if the request was at least arguably reasonable for a business that doesn’t need people sucking face at the counter. Or maybe I’m wrong and the entire restaurant staff in left-leaning Washington DC are just a bunch of homophobes. Idk.
Lol. Dude, I’m a full on socialist pro-choice pro-LGBT rights progressive. Feel free to check my post history. I couldnt give a fuck if two dudes are kissing. I’m not excusing the violence towards these guys. It’s not OK. There is a point, though, where macking on one another in public becomes a spectacle, gay, straight, pan or whatever. It is not homophobia for a business owner to ask you to cut it out if you are being excessive in front of other guests just because you are gay. I’ve seen straight couples make asses out of themselves in public too. It’s dumb. Asking that to stop in your restaurant is OK. What happened after is absolutely not. Is that clearer to you?
And then one of the men, pretty forcefully, like, pushed me out of the way on my shoulder,” Dingus said. “And then, you know, next thing I know, that kind of just, I think, sparked the rest of them. … They all just kind of started attacking me at that point, dragging me back through the floor and continuously punching me in my head.”
They essentially gang assaulted Mr. Dingus, and you believe it’s only because of some PDA? I highly doubt it, and believe fully that this is a case of homophobia. And almost certainly a hate crime too.
I assumed it happened because of the “heated verbal argument” he said his partner started. Words get exchange, tempers rise and fists come out. Again, I said I may be wrong. Maybe they were all homophobes that wanted to get a few licks in on some gay guys. Or maybe they were all assholes and turned a request into an argument into a fist fight. I don’t know. I just think his retelling of the story seems suggest there was more to it.
Multiple employees beat up a gay man after he had some PDA with his partner. No matter how you look at it the optics are horrible. Short of Mr. Dingus having a weapon or shouting slurs or something like that: there’s no justification for the employees to beat and attack him.
I feel like you’re jumping through several hoops to put the blame back on the person who was beaten by multiple people.
Trying to understand codemonkey, I believe they agrees there’s no justification. What they mean is that once a verbal fight started, tempers could have flared, and violence was inevitable, but not acceptable.
That said, I agree the optics are very bad, and more importantly, society should start from the default position of first assessing if a hate crime happened.
First thing should be “were these folks targeted based on their orientation?”
After that is thoroughly vetted, only then can it be considered “did a bunch of folks get heated in a shake shack after the customers were firmly but non discriminatorily told to knock it off?”
Edit if a reader thinks I took a side other than “hate crime bad, determine hate crime FIRST” with this comment you really need to think again.
I’ve said multiple times that the violence was not okay and there was no excuse for it. No matter how much pda happened. I have also said multiple times that they are absolutely not to blame for the violence assuming neither threw the first punch. I only suggested that he might have downplayed a single detail in his retelling about what caused the employee to talk to them in the first place.
I really havent. Suggesting that the restaurant may have been justified I asking them to stop what they were doing is not excusing the violence even a little and it’s ridiculous for you to conflate the two things
I really havent. Suggesting that the restaurant may have been justified I asking them to stop what they were doing is not excusing the violence
when you invent excuses for bigoted violence that’s what you’re doing, especially if you have to completely invent the accusation that the victims were liars and, therefore, deserved it.
THAT is what you keep doing, and your denials just make it more obvious how much trouble with the truth when you deny the things you’ve already said here for everyone to see.
YOU are the only one suggesting there’s more to it, and you’re doing it so you can side with the bigots/attackers while indirectly calling the victims liars.
you’re not some magnificent puzzle-- your intentions are clear, as you keep calling the victims liars and defending the attackers’ actions as justified.
you’re not excusing the violence towards this couple, but you’re sure going out of your way to excuse all of the bigotry and hate which led to it, even going so far as to assert that they’re liars overblowing the situation so you can claim the bigots/assaulters are blameless, or, at least , that this bigotry and hate was somehow reasonable.
you can claim to be leftie or whatever, but your words here show how you really feel towards the LGBTQ+ community and about those who would discriminate against us.
Dude sometimes people exaggerate. No strike that. USUALLY people exaggerate. Especially to escape blame in their own story. They aren’t to blame for the violence. Period. Full stop. But that doesn’t mean that they weren’t to blame for drawing an employee out to ask them to stop what they were doing. I’m not even saying that they definitely are. I. Don’t. Know. I haven’t seen security footage or anything. But suggesting that they might have been a little more extra in their kissing than they suggested is not tantamount to hating LGBT people. My suggestion doesn’t even have a thing to do with them being gay. Believe it or not, there are times where people jump to the minority card to explain how others feel about them or act towards them when, sometimes, they have legitimate reasons to feel things about someone or act a certain way irrespective of their minority traits. Are we all antisemites for preferring Walz over Shapiro as VP or being against the Palaesrinian genocide? We were accused of it, so it must be true, right? Does suggesting that Jewish people might be wrong about me being an antisemitic also make me antisemitic? Because you’re suggesting I’m a homophobe for not taking this one guy’s belief that the entire restaurant was itching to beat gay people as gospel.
Act like it… by disregarding the fact that gay people are flawed just like the rest of us and sometimes exaggerate or play down details in their stories to come off better? Fine, sure. Gay people are magic. They can’t lie. Feel better?
yet, you’ll call these victims liars - over and over - to rationalize the bigotry and violence they received. and you keep doing it, like everyone can’t see what you’re doing.
Yes, and in this case it was the side that violently beat a man for an event which started with their queerphobia and the other side that didn’t violently beat a man for any reason.
I don’t care if they were fucking the burgers and shakes, the employees can ask them to leave if they’re violating the business’ code of conduct, and after that they can call the police if they’re trespassing.
The customer can sue the shit out of them after the fact if it was discriminatory, and in D.C. that would be a slam dunk if they were just kissing.
Once the employees decided to resort to violence, they fucked up, regardless of what the customers were doing.
Either way, you weren’t there, and homophobes blow up about pretty mundane things all the time, so maybe just take the gay men at their word instead of accusing them of inappropriate behavior and revealing yourself to be a homophobe yourself.
I read his words. It was his words that made me doubt. He and his partner were the victims here, for sure. But that doesn’t mean that they are being honest about the preamble to the altercation. But if not fully believing a person about every single detail of their story, if not taking every single assumption that they made as gospel makes me homophobe because they happen to be gay, sure. Whatever.
It’s saddening to me that the take of “there’s probably more to the story here” is so objectionable. Judgment absolutely should be withheld pending investigation.
Three soldiers suspected of the sexual abuse of a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility in southern Israel were released from custody on Sunday.
In all, 10 soldiers were detained in the case. Last week, prosecutors dropped their demand to extend the detention of two of them.
Thanks for the source. Walking away without any repercussions is not acceptable, even if the five still under remand were really the main perpetrators.
That’s not handing anything over. They’re going for one last big payout after a lifetime of exploitation.
They have their real estate portfolio that they rent at exorbitant prices, or sell at massive mark ups because they got into the market at sane levels and contributed to the feeding frenzy that has led to today’s unaffordable housing.
They strung their employees on, taking the increased profits from inflation without paying their employees enough to keep up.
And now they’re selling their small businesses to those same employees at prices that practically guarantee they will be unable to keep up. Because even though they have all the wealth that they’ve accumulated from a life of exploitation, they deserve to ride off into the sunset with a saddlebag stuffed with gold.
I think the bot is incredibly useful. The criticism falls under a very specific group of users being very loud about their preferred source not ranking the way they expect.
Linking additional sources will improve it. Wikipedia maintains an active list and has an incentive to do so. Personally, I’d like to see a transparent methodology applied to a source: number of articles retracted silently, corrections issued in last 30 days, etc.
That having been said, I’d rather see efforts invested in other areas rather than inventing yet another “weighing” function for multiple ratings. Let us decide if mbfc is good enough or if we prefer ad fontes or Wikipedia or whoever. Give us two or three options and let us decide on our own.
Yeah, it looks like they transcribed both the interview AND the video clips spliced in-between interview questions. In a video world, that flows smoothly because you can see when there is a change in scene. In text, though, it’s just a weird change in font that doesn’t really pull you out of the interview mode.
Mediaite - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Mediaite:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.