Black woman assaults 10 year old White girl
(archive.ph)
Comments (35)
sorted by:
The parents seem baffled about why the black woman did this. To quote the Tweet, "I know why, darling. We all do."
Huh? Are you insinuating a woman of color brutally attacked a random white child because she hates white people? DAS RACIST!
I don't like attributing racism when there is no concrete evidence for it. There are many lunatics in the world, and racism is not the only explanation for a random attack.
But even I can see that the attributions of the media go only one way, and the cover-ups only go one way.
Are you going to offer a better alternative? For many years blacks have been raised being taught that Whites are responsible for all the problems in their lives. Knowing that, is it not reasonable to assume that race was the motive?
While I do think the attack was motivated by racial hatred, the black community hates everyone, including their own unborn children.
Born ones, too. The men abandon them and the women scream and beat the shit out of them.
I do think race was probably the motive. But considering that I just criticized the media for framing every incident as indubitably racially motivated, it'd be pretty hypocritical if I did the same thing, not?
Benefit of the doubt is reserved for decent society and decent people.
Negros are not one and don't let us have the other, so they don't get to have it.
If there is 'doubt', then you admit that you don't know the motivation, but that you draw one conclusion because it suits you.
Did someone hack your account? This is a pretty sweeping statement I'm not accustomed to from you.
This is you giving the benefit of the doubt when there is a solid reason to assume that due to all the relevant factors such as the age and color difference that racism is a cause.
No one knows the motivation outright, and we likely will never get it told to us, but we have a history of these things happening enough to make an assumption that isn't entirely off base. Not to be certain but enough to be the most likely case given what information we have.
Because you have even less reason to prove that assumption wrong than anyone does to prove it right, other than "I don't like to." Its just weak contrarianism (as always).
And no, I'm still here and my positions haven't changed over the years either.
This is me not drawing a conclusion without having the evidence for it. Like I said to someone else, I do think it's likely, but I don't want to be like they are and definitively claim racism when it could be any number of things.
Not really. I could have said "it is inappropriate to".
You're just more open about it?
Ah, the classic moral highground argument. Always a great one in making sure we never use the tactics proven to work while we wait for Karma to hand us a victory.
Which would change nothing about my point. That you have zero evidence against people assuming it and there is a decent enough amount for them to do so.
Or we've never had a conversation on this topic.
Either she really is that clueless, or she knows the answer but understands she can't actually say it because it is one of The Things that Do Not Ever Happen, at least according to the MSM, who are more than happy to destroy the lives of anyone who speaks out of turn.
A lot of Whites know, and know not to say anything.
The crazy part is, in their eyes, talking about this is the hate crime.
At risk of being redundant, whenever a white assaults a black, the question is always "what could the motivation possibly have been? Who would attack a 10-year-old girl WITHOUT PROVOCATION?" The answer is always racism. This question is not even asked the other way around.
I note they never play this game when it does not suit them. Or even when a black woman assaults an 80-year-old Mexican man with a brick and tells him to 'go back to where you came from'? Remember that? Neither does anyone else.
Wrong, the question is never even asked in your first scenario. They don't even bother asking the question, and just jump straight to the answer. It's always racism, no matter the scenario. Hell, asking the question itself is probably white supremacy or something.
Or black-on-Asian crime. Or black-on-Jew crime. They'll either ignore it completely, or ignore the race of the attacker and blame it on white supremacy. And if it's black-on-white, well, the white person probably had it coming, right? Totally did something to provoke that unprovoked attack. Said a no-no word, or just, you know, hundreds of years of slavery or whatever. Or, just, well, boys will be boys, let's not look for any racial elements whatsoever.
Absolutely correct. But if I try to reason backwards, this must be the question. Because if this were to happen the other way around, and you'd dispute that it's racism, the response must be "well, what other reason could there be?"
The formula is as follows: black on anyone (including black) is ignored, because they cannot exploit that. Anyone on black is white supremacy, even if the 'perp' is a 'white Hispanic'.
There was a case of a black guy in New York who raped a girl and beat her bloody as, he claimed, revenge for slavery. When someone commits an atrocity and cites 'replacement theory', this means they always claim 'replacement idea, a conspiracy theory which has led to several mass shootings'. Not when it is their own ideology that is allegedly responsible.
My favorite argument is when they try to claim that black families are weak because of slavery - when they were much stronger before the era of political pandering. And when evangelicals point this out, the point is ignored and they are accused of 'defending slavery'
Though reading this article now, I'm struck by how objective it is compared to how media lies today. They'd just write "signed a pledge which included a racist paragraph" while never describing what it is.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the other answers are: disability, national origin, and religion. Those weren't the case here, but those are occasionally the case (and typically more often in non-US countries).
She just went back to the mall the next day like there was no problem. Nothing to worry about.
They aren't afraid.
Or just stupid.
Arguably there won't be any problem. Arrest? So what, her reputation was probably already worthless. Punishment? Maybe a fine and community service -- of which commissar Tyrone will just sign the paper and they'll share a laugh at honkey law.
Misdemeanor?! I mean I can’t say I’m surprised but I guess I am
When I was in college, I worked for a moving company over summer break.
We would often get temp workers for big jobs like office moves and one day we had a black temp worker. I could tell within a few minutes that he was extremely unstable and I went out of my way to avoid him the rest of the day. I just knew he was going to lose his shit and do something stupid. And this guy was fucking massive so I knew I'd have no chance in a physical altercation.
Shortly after lunch, I heard from others that the black guy pummeled another worker and sent him to the hospital.
Never. Ever. Relax.
They just don't care. They'll throw their entire life away over a perceived insult from a complete stranger.
Why would they care when there's frequently zero repercussions for doing so?
Put simply, even Black Africans can't stand Black Americans.
The only thing keeping the ones that haven't become productive members of society (so most of the urban ones) is that the authorities are protecting them. That protection goes and well, let's just say the Democrats won't bother pandering for the Black vote anymore..
Oh my God I hope that black woman is safe from that dangerous child /S
At least she was fucking arrested. That's new.
It just wasn't worth the cotton.
Rehab dogs, give this lot the death needles instead.