News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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.
Problem is, you can never make that determination, bigots will hide their bigotry (at least in a place where bigotry is not socially acceptable, which I think DC qualifies... Oklahoma for example would be different) so unless you have some other indication, or prior knowledge of the person involved, the outward appearance of (asking couple to tone it down because omg gay people) and (asking couple to tone it down because heavy PDA makes some people uncomfortable regardless of the sexes involved) is the same.
Asking anyone, of any orientation or partner, to tone down PDA in a private business property is not a hate crime.
Like, unless you say it specifically, you are addressing the PDA.
BAD: "quit being gay in here"
GOOD: "take the PDA outside, that's not appropriate in here"
The law would care about every detail of the interaction, starting from the initial comments.
Scenario 1:
Not a hate crime. (But crimes certainly happened)
Scenario 2:
This seems like much more of a clear cut hate crime.
I mean like, a few human beings having a disagreement about humans stuff, which results in violence, is just normal crime.
The distinction is rooted in the origin of the dispute, and things said and intentions asking the way. It really matters to the courts.
To be clear though, I'm not trying to water down potential hate crimes. I stick to my original position that any crimes involving protected groups, must be cleared of known hate crime motivations first. But you can absolutely get in a fight with a gay person without any "hate crime" motivations.
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.
yet you're bending over backwards to make excuses for it
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
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.
Except even if I'm 100 percent right, that still excuses nothing
according to what evidence that you didn't make up yourself?
except you're still here trying to excuse iit.
how charming
Third time Krypto's post has been removed in this thread.
Good.
You just can't stop adding to absolute 'never' and 'not' with additional bullshit.
Let's go back to your first post, which started:
You said the victims weren't 'as innocent'. You're victim blaming. You can't cover that up by starting with 'not okay', 'no excuse', and 'not to blame'. You consistently follow on with words that EXPLICITLY MEAN "BUT they are not innocent and have some blame".
You talk like a politician. I can imagine you being on TV saying: "I respect childless women, however, they should vote like their father says".
Stop equivocating. If the violence was wrong, it was wrong. That's it.
You're the kind of person that listens to a broken woman describe being the victim of domestic violence and ask "but what did you do to set him off?"
The only thing evident about you and your line of thinking is resentment.