politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The article makes it appear as if she called the child a slur for no reason at all. Whether her excuse is valid is another question, but you can't just leave that out.
There is literally NEVER a reason to call a child a slur. How is this so hard for you to understand?
I already said I wasn’t trying to excuse her behavior. It was dumb and unnecessary, and clearly not very helpful.
She basically did. I don't see a reason for taking her motives into account whatsoever. If she was a kindergartner you'd say something like "I don't wanna hear it! You don't call people that." and that would be the end of it.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"?
Shut the fuck up and kill yourself.
…did that feel good to be on the receiving end of, or did it hurt?
Yawn. I’ve heard this so often before it’s lost all impact.
Would you find it so difficult not to call a kid the N-word if he tried to take your son's toy?
I already said it's not an excuse for her behavior but it is important context for the story. The article makes it seem like she called him a slur without any provocation whatsoever. Whether the allegation is true or not is a different story, but it's definitely leaving out an important detail from the video.
You could have stopped at "not an excuse". She used a socially sanctioned word against a child, she revelled in repeating it when questioned, she played victim, claimed doxxing and grifted.
I wouldn't care whatever inconvenience she may run into.
The allegation of theft came from the same person verbally abusing the kid. What possible reason is there to believe her? It's more likely she was just fabricating an excuse.
Yeah that’s certainly possible but it’s still unfair reporting to just leave out that part of her story.
Words can and do lead to actions that physically hurt or even kill.
We've since discovered that they can if they become the law
It's not the words that are hurting you in that case, it's the people with guns who are enforcing them.
I do grow weary of "news" picking and choosing which facts to present so that they can make a story that gets more clicks.
It's all manufactured outrage if you ask me. They want you to get mad and stay mad so they can tell you who to hate and what to do about it instead of doing something productive with your life.
Without social media and the Internet, none of us would have ever heard about this incident (or others like it), unless it happened to someone we actually know, and our lives would have likely been better for it. Definitely more peaceful.
I would love to discuss with some of the downvoters why they disliked your statement.
Because there aren’t two sides to calling a child a slur. It’s verge straightforwardly wrong every single time.
I don't really recall anything about two sides. I saw an additional complaint that the new left out context, like they always do, in order to get more clicks.
You hit the nail on the head. A polarized populace is easier to extract money from. The proof is in how much money poor trump supporters are willing to give to a "billionaire". There is a whole economy around a polarized populace. News, poloticians, "influencers", and various businesses like truth social that caters only to a polorized populace. In the end, this is all about money. As it always is.