Being a Florida Middle-School student, while black

[smartcooky]

Florida woman, Alyse Beechem, is planning to sue Duval County Public Schools after her son, enrolled at Mandarin Middle School, was called a racial slur by his teacher and told that "Black people are beneath white people.

https://www.rawstory.com/racism-in-florida-schools/

"The teacher told the boy that he gets mad when someone calls him a ****** (the n word) but he thinks he can say it about himself. The boy then asked his teacher how she would feel if someone called her a 'cracker,' and she responded by calling him a ****** and saying, you don’t have the privilege to call white people 'crackers' because Black people are beneath white people."

Expect the usual suspects to be along any time now to tell us all about how a teacher calling a student a ****** and telling him that Black people are beneath white people is totally not racism, and that we have to endlessly explore all the other possible excuses before we even consider racism to be involved...

[theprestige]

Assuming it even happened as claimed, I think "public school teachers are scumbags who shouldn't be trusted with our children unsupervised" is the more profitable line of attack.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Assuming it even happened as claimed, I think "public school teachers are scumbags who shouldn't be trusted with our children unsupervised" is the more profitable line of attack.

lol no.

[Thermal]

The kid that has been getting repeatedly suspended for fighting suddemly discovers that he was the real victim all along. The lawyer claiming a constitutional violation was a nice touch. Shakedowns sometimes overlook that 14th amendment angle. Good enough, book 'em, Dano.

[Craig4]

I have no trouble at all believing that the incident happened as described. Having done my time in Florida and left, I can say that there is an uncultured, low-class, unintelligent, element of white people who believe this sort of thing in Florida. That one of their kind is allowed to infest a school surprises me not in the least.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I have no trouble at all believing that the incident happened as described. Having done my time in Florida and left, I can say that there is an uncultured, low-class, unintelligent, element of white people who believe this sort of thing in Florida. That one of their kind is allowed to infest a school surprises me not in the least.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised that such people, and worse are running around loose. What gives me pause is that this teacher has no reported instances of racism, in an age of social media and da net (that we know of), and the first time we hear about this right out in the open utterly reprehensible behavior...is from a lawyer, representing a kid who has been getting repeated suspensions for fighting lately. Funny timing, after apparently being a real clandestine ninja about her klanswomanship.

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The kid that has been getting repeatedly suspended for fighting suddemly discovers that he was the real victim all along. The lawyer claiming a constitutional violation was a nice touch. Shakedowns sometimes overlook that 14th amendment angle. Good enough, book 'em, Dano.

Of course:

Quote:

Jasmine Rand, the attorney representing Beecham, tells News4JAX that seven other students have submitted written statements backing up claims of the teacher using racist language in the classroom.

So maybe there is, you know, actually some substantiation for the student's claims.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

Of course:
So maybe there is, you know, actually some substantiation for the student's claims.

Right, but is "using racist language" from the same circle of hell this woman is being accused of? If the other kiddies heard what the lawyer is claiming, I'd expect to hear explicitly that. For instance, the teacher says something off color. 7 or 8 of the, what, 30 or so students in a class take it as racist. One tells his mom who decides to lawyer up and wring a check out of the district. Could that be a possibility, given the same information?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

Of course:

Quote:

Jasmine Rand, the attorney representing Beecham, tells News4JAX that seven other students have submitted written statements backing up claims of the teacher using racist language in the classroom

So maybe there is, you know, actually some substantiation for the student's claims.

It wouldn't even matter if all 30 students backed up the boy's story, and the whole thing was recorded on a cellphone and it also backed him up; the usual suspects will say that the kids all lied and the video could have been faked (kids are reeeeally good with cellphones don'tchaknow), and insist on carrying out a thorough forensic examination of every other off the wall, totally unlikely excuse they can pull out of their collective arses before racism is even allowed to be considered.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Right, but is "using racist language" from the same circle of hell this woman is being accused of? If the other kiddies heard what the lawyer is claiming, I'd expect to hear explicitly that. For instance, the teacher says something off color. 7 or 8 of the, what, 30 or so students in a class take it as racist. One tells his mom who decides to lawyer up and wring a check out of the district. Could that be a possibility, given the same information?

Because he was the actual ******* target genius!!

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

It wouldn't even matter if all 30 students backed up the boy's story, and the whole thing was recorded on a cellphone and it also backed him up; the usual suspects will say that the kids all lied and the video could have been faked (kids are reeeeally good with cellphones don'tchaknow),

Don't forget the "we don't see what happened before they started recording" canard, that's one of the favorites.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Don't forget the "we don't see what happened before they started recording" canard, that's one of the favorites.

Why not? Right out of the gate, we have already see one of the other canards used by the usual suspects; attacking the victim. One wonders if there is any world for them in which a white teacher calling a black child a ******, and telling them that "blacks are beneath them" is a bad thing?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Because he was the actual ******* target genius!!

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Don't forget the "we don't see what happened before they started recording" canard, that's one of the favorites.

Maybe you two geniuses are seeing something I'm not ( and I checked both the rawstory article and the original source they linked to), but I don't see a single damn word about cel phone recordings. Care to clarify?

Eta: nvm, misread. 2:30 AM and bleary eyed

[dann]

The only thing that surprised me was this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Do Florida students actually wear face masks?
Good for you, students!

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Expect the usual suspects to be along any time now to tell us all about how a teacher calling a student a ****** and telling him that Black people are beneath white people is totally not racism, and that we have to endlessly explore all the other possible excuses before we even consider racism to be involved...

This student's story merits scrutiny as much as any other. The exchanges in these stories always paint the troubled child as speaking in a tone and manner consistent with that of Dick Cavett, while portraying the teachers as the agitated David Duke type, of course.

And why wouldn't they portray it as such? There are some folks who are always willing to believe such claims without question, and attorneys are sometimes the unscrupulous types who chase the money.

Nobody is saying that racism isn't possible or doesn't exist.

[Thermal]

These threads are just fascinating.

I see a story that starts with a lawyer sticking his hand out for some free money. Right away, my eyes narrow. Color me cynical, but these claimants have a financial stake in their unevidenced story being believed (no, the 7 other students did not witness the alleged hateful behavior). As we just saw recently in the Trenton NJ plainclothes thread, claimants often lie through their teeth to shake down that check.

Certain white people see a storyline that allows them to wag their fingers at other white people, and buy the tale hook, line and sinker, no questions. It takes a special kind of sap to swallow such a financially motivated claim uncritically, but here we are yet again.

I'll open the betting window early on this one. What's the over/under that this claim just kind of fades away with no follow-up?

[EaglePuncher]

Yeah, black people are the worst. Always making up stories about racism just to get that quick buck. Probably to buy crack cocaine.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Yeah, black people are the worst. Always making up stories about racism just to get that quick buck. Probably to buy crack cocaine.

It gots nothing to do with being black, white boy. It gots to do with an Esq after ya mane.

If a story came up that had a Conservative Republican student claiming that they wanted a check because a teacher was trying to indoctrinate them into a transsexual lifestyle, would you also buy it uncritically? Don't lie, now.

[Captain_Swoop]

What if something different happened, would you also buy it uncritically?

What a lame argument.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What if something different happened, would you also buy it uncritically?

What a lame argument.

You're quite wrong, and likely know it.

Analogous hypotheticals can be proposed to highlight a reader's biases. How often do we hear performative/paternal racists on yea verily this very forum say "if it was a black guy, do you think the cops would have shot them? Huh? HUH???"

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Thermal

It gots nothing to do with being black, white boy. It gots to do with an Esq after ya mane.

If a story came up that had a Conservative Republican student claiming that they wanted a check because a teacher was trying to indoctrinate them into a transsexual lifestyle, would you also buy it uncritically? Don't lie, now.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What if something different happened, would you also buy it uncritically?

What a lame argument.

Originally Posted by Thermal

You're quite wrong, and likely know it.

Analogous hypotheticals can be proposed to highlight a reader's biases. How often do we hear performative/paternal racists on yea verily this very forum say "if it was a black guy, do you think the cops would have shot them? Huh? HUH???"

Naw, Captain Swoop is right. You're doing your silly straw man where you ignore the strength of the evidence both direct and historic that make the claim of racism not the least bit extraordinary. In this case you want to pretend the freaking video doesn't exist and we're just taking a lawyer (and several students!) words for it.

Nooooooope. People aren't bending over backwards to find racism in general or here in this specific. You're just doing your best to ignore it. Again.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

In this case you want to pretend the freaking video doesn't exist and we're just taking a lawyer (and several students!) words for it.

What video are you referring to? I didn't see one in the linked article, or its source. I also didn't see any classroom footage in the posted TYT vid. There isn't any mention of video evidence at all, from what I can tell?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Naw, Captain Swoop is right. You're doing your silly straw man where you ignore the strength of the evidence both direct and historic that make the claim of racism not the least bit extraordinary. In this case you want to pretend the freaking video doesn't exist and we're just taking a lawyer (and several students!) words for it.

Nooooooope. People aren't bending over backwards to find racism in general or here in this specific. You're just doing your best to ignore it. Again.

Well color me shamed. Tell.me about this preponderance of evidence. I'd especially like to hear about the "freaking video". You know, to set me straight. The floor is yours.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Naw, Captain Swoop is right. You're doing your silly straw man where you ignore the strength of the evidence both direct and historic that make the claim of racism not the least bit extraordinary. In this case you want to pretend the freaking video doesn't exist and we're just taking a lawyer (and several students!) words for it.

Nooooooope. People aren't bending over backwards to find racism in general or here in this specific. You're just doing your best to ignore it. Again.

One, there is no direct evidence, only allegations.

Two, the appeal to "historical evidence" is Conspiracy Theorist's dodge. Because yellowcake and banana republics, therefore Apollo Hoax and MIHOP. That's the level of your reasoning here. "Reasoning", I should say.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The kid that has been getting repeatedly suspended for fighting suddemly discovers that he was the real victim all along. The lawyer claiming a constitutional violation was a nice touch. Shakedowns sometimes overlook that 14th amendment angle. Good enough, book 'em, Dano.

The mother claims that students call him slurs and have gotten physical with him and he has defended himself. Other kids have been suspended along with the boy in question for fighting.

I do find it a little difficult to believe (though not impossible) that the teacher would have said "Black people are beneath white people". Maybe they did but that is one ****** up teacher if so.

I am constantly proven wrong when I claim "Naw, they wouldn't do that! They can't be that stupid!"

Supposedly seven other students have made written statements backing the kids story. Could be a conspiracy though.

Quote from a woman at work yesterday:

"Ya I had Covid really bad, I was in the emergency room, I had pneumonia, it was really bad. **** no I'm not getting the stupid vaccine!" Ya, it's the vaccine that is stupid.

People really are that stupid.

[tyr_13]

Opps. There really is no video here. Just *checks notes* the testimony of several witnesses that something that has happened countless times before happened again. In Florida.

Yeah, doesn't change the calculus by much.

Originally Posted by Warp12

What video are you referring to? I didn't see one in the linked article, or its source. I also didn't see any classroom footage in the posted TYT vid. There isn't any mention of video evidence at all, from what I can tell?

Originally Posted by Thermal

Well color me shamed. Tell.me about this preponderance of evidence. I'd especially like to hear about the "freaking video". You know, to set me straight. The floor is yours.

You've been shown the preponderance of evidence many times before. You're a racism denialist. Not a complete one, but enough of one that it is enough to point out you're doing it again.

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, there is no direct evidence, only allegations.

Two, the appeal to "historical evidence" is Conspiracy Theorist's dodge. Because yellowcake and banana republics, therefore Apollo Hoax and MIHOP. That's the level of your reasoning here. "Reasoning", I should say.

Absolutely not. Thermal claims that an event that is almost unheard of happening should, if one is a good skeptic, be treated with the same level of doubt as something that has several signed witness statements and just today lead to another terrorist attack.

So, no, you're not in the least bit correct that it's the same as the CT dodge. You're not making any sense when, if your analogy were correct, would be 'because yellowcake right up until today much lower concentration contamination in Florida today as well'.

'Teacher says something racist' isn't like claiming the moon landing was faked. Odin's eye you all are lacking in reasoning. 'Reasoning', I should say as single quotes are the ones used for sarcasm.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

'Teacher says something racist' isn't like claiming the moon landing was faked. Odin's eye you all are lacking in reasoning. 'Reasoning', I should say as single quotes are the ones used for sarcasm.

This, and its not uncommon in Florida...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cial-rcna12252

A substitute teacher in Florida has resigned after students said she yelled a racial slur in the classroom. The 59-year-old white woman continued using the slur after going to the principal’s office Wednesday at Lealman Innovation Academy, Pinellas County school officials told the Tampa Bay Times. Principal Connisheia Garcia is Black, as are about 75 percent of the students at the school in St. Petersburg, which focuses on personalized learning for students in grades six through 12

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/f...-b1905072.html

"A school in Florida removed a teacher working with kids with special needs after a video showed her shouting racist remarks at a family walking in a “residents only” neighbourhood, according to a news report. Educator Patricia Schimdt has been sent on administrative leave by the Collier County School District, after she hurled profane remarks targeting a woman and her son when they were out for a walk."

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/1708150...sm-free-speech

A Florida middle school teacher who allegedly hosted a white nationalist podcast has been pulled from the classroom as the school district investigates the claims.

HuffPost first reported the bizarre story, that Dayanna Volitich, a 25-year-old social studies teacher at Crystal River Middle School in Western Florida hosted a white nationalist podcast Unapologetic under the alias “Tiana Dalichov.” The news outlet made the inference based on information posted online by Dalichov that matched Volitich’s biographical details. Volitich’s school profile picture also matched a profile photo on the Dalichov Twitter account, which has since been deleted.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

In this case you want to pretend the freaking video doesn't exist and we're just taking a lawyer (and several students!) words for it.

Originally Posted by Warp12

What video are you referring to? I didn't see one in the linked article, or its source. I also didn't see any classroom footage in the posted TYT vid. There isn't any mention of video evidence at all, from what I can tell?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Opps. There really is no video here.

This is the level of critical analysis I have to come to expect in these "while black" threads.

Good stuff.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This, and its not uncommon in Florida...

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/1708150...sm-free-speech

A Florida middle school teacher who allegedly hosted a white nationalist podcast has been pulled from the classroom as the school district investigates the claims.

HuffPost first reported the bizarre story, that Dayanna Volitich, a 25-year-old social studies teacher at Crystal River Middle School in Western Florida hosted a white nationalist podcast Unapologetic under the alias “Tiana Dalichov.” The news outlet made the inference based on information posted online by Dalichov that matched Volitich’s biographical details. Volitich’s school profile picture also matched a profile photo on the Dalichov Twitter account, which has since been deleted.

Quote:

According to HuffPost reporters Christopher Mathias, Jenna Amatulli, and Rebecca Klein, Volitich bragged on a February 26 podcast about introducing some of her racist views into the classroom in an interview with alt-right figure Lana Lokteff.

In the same episode, Volitich boasted about bringing her white nationalist beliefs into the classroom and hiding her ideology from administrators. She said that when parents complained to the school’s principal about how she is injecting political bias into the classroom, Volitich lied to the principal and said it was not true.

“She believed me and backed off,” she said.

But she's not teaching CRT, so it's OK!

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Warp12

This is the level of critical analysis I have to come to expect in these "while black" threads.

Good stuff.

...you've come to expect your opponents to admit mistakes while you insist that sure, racism leads to terrorist attacks and a non-trivial number of teachers in Florida to say racist things, but that's no reason to believe the eight witnesses who claim that a Florida teacher said racist things?

Racism apologists are wild. Such 'reasoning' and 'critical analysis' sure 'shows' all us who think racism isn't an extraordinary claim.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by shemp

But she's not teaching CRT, so it's OK!

Hey now, just because Florida teachers have been documented to say racist things doesn't mean you should believe eight people saying a Florida teacher said racist things!


(Before this gets straw-maned into believing all claims of racism, yes, there is evidence that if presented could change the provisional belief in the claim. As that doesn't exist yet, it's not reasonable to just pretend it's a toss up. What evidence would the racism apologists accept? Nine students? Only audio, or would one need audio and video? Is the only level of evidence they accept be self-identification as a racist by the teacher?)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Hey now, just because Florida teachers have been documented to say racist things doesn't mean you should believe eight people saying a Florida teacher said racist things!


(Before this gets straw-maned into believing all claims of racism, yes, there is evidence that if presented could change the provisional belief in the claim. As that doesn't exist yet, it's not reasonable to just pretend it's a toss up. What evidence would the racism apologists accept? Nine students? Only audio, or would one need audio and video? Is the only level of evidence they accept be self-identification as a racist by the teacher?)

None, no matter how conclusive!

[SuburbanTurkey]

I guess the school better be praying that this teacher isn't even half as bad as accused, because otherwise the decision not to discipline her and instead treat this kid as the problem is going to look very bad in court.

Article claims the student was reassigned to another classroom (at the request of the teacher) and that was that. Sounds like a systematic failure to provide an environment free from racial intimidation.

Quote:

“[The teacher] told [Beechem’s son] that he gets mad when someone calls him a [n-word], but he thinks he can say it about himself,” the document said. “[Beechem’s son] asked his teacher...how she would feel if someone called her a “cracker,” and she responded by calling him a [n-word], and saying, ‘you don’t have the privilege to call white people “crackers” because Black people are beneath white people.’”

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...iscrimination/

If this is a fabrication then they have figured out the racist caricature perfectly. Racists sure to do to complain that they don't get to say slurs but other people do. I've heard this complaint more times than I can count and its always from racists.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I guess the school better be praying that this teacher isn't even half as bad as accused, because otherwise the decision not to discipline her and instead treat this kid as the problem is going to look very bad in court.

Article claims the student was reassigned to another classroom (at the request of the teacher) and that was that. Sounds like a systematic failure to provide an environment free from racial intimidation.



https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...iscrimination/

If this is a fabrication then they have figured out the racist caricature perfectly. Racists sure to do to complain that they don't get to say slurs but other people do. I've heard this complaint more times than I can count and its always from racists.

Caricature is the right word. The words alleged by the teacher don't sound remotely real. They sound like something entirely made up.

Racists don't say they have the "privilege to use the word cracker". It doesn't even make sense. Racists brace against the whole use of "privilege" as one of them thar librul cuck words, and don't treat cracker as a word they have the "privilege" to use. Also, it's a weird juxtaposition to call him the n-word, then describe social relativism using "being beneath". Kind of like saying "Well you see, you mother ******, you do not have the proper entitlement to use the phrase "cock sucker", as you lack the relative social standing".

A lot of accusations would be very credible at face value. This doesn't sound like one of them.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Caricature is the right word. The words alleged by the teacher don't sound remotely real. They sound like something entirely made up.

Racists don't say they have the privilege to use the word cracker. It doesn't even make sense. Racists brace against the whole use of "privilege" as one of them that librul cuck word, and don't treat cracker as a word they have the "privilege" to use. Also, it's a weird juxtaposition to call him the n-word, then describe social relativism using "being beneath". Kind of like saying "Well you see, you mother ******, you do not have the proper entitlement to use the phrase "cock sucker", as you lack the relative social standing".

A lot of accusations would be very credible at face value. This doesn't sound like one of them.

Your experience must vary from mine. I have heard these complaints, almost verbatim, my entire life from thin-skinned white racists.

Whining that rappers can say ****** but white people can't is a well-worn hobbyhorse.

A racist teacher losing her composure and unloading her bile on some troublemaking (to her eye) black kid seems incredibly believable to me.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Your experience must vary from mine. I have heard these complaints, almost verbatim, my entire life from thin-skinned white racists.

Whining that rappers can say ****** but white people can't is a well-worn hobbyhorse.

A racist teacher losing her composure and unloading her bile on some troublemaking (to her eye) black kid seems incredibly believable to me.

Oh, that part is perfectly credible. "You can say it but we can't?" is well-worn rhetoric, universally familiar. Its the following part that sounds entirely made-up by someone who has never even been in such a situation.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Opps. There really is no video here. Just *checks notes* the testimony of several witnesses that something that has happened countless times before happened again. In Florida.

Yeah, doesn't change the calculus by much.

In terms of the discussion, it changes quite a bit. For instance, a video is strong evidence. Damn near slam-dunk, if it is +/- clear. But more to the point, it shows that you will freely make things up to maintain the argument of your imaginary adversary, without the most cursory fact-checking, so when you make claims (as are coming right up) about your 'adversary's" positions, we can assume they are also pretty likely made up.

Quote:

You've been shown the preponderance of evidence many times before. You're a racism denialist. Not a complete one, but enough of one that it is enough to point out you're doing it again.

There we go. More made-up stuff.

There is no preponderance here. There is a claim, and witness statements that the teacher used "racist language" at some point and in unknown contexts. You do get that even the claimant is not saying that these statements are related to the events in question, right? And of course, for children to make signed statements, that means the lawyer was doing some hustling, along with the parents of the minors. As I say many times, when a lawyer is involved with his/her hand out for a check, I have a very high evidentiary bar, because of the vested financial interest.

Now just that part alone...the lawyer and money part...do you think that is so outlandish a position to hold?

Quote:

Absolutely not. Thermal claims that an event that is almost unheard of happening should, if one is a good skeptic, be treated with the same level of doubt as something that has several signed witness statements and just today lead to another terrorist attack.

A lawyer grubbing for a payout is not in the same universe as a racist mass murderer.

[ot] Aside from the battle royale here: I hope none of your friends were involved, as you posted elsewhere. Actually, I hope that no one's loved ones were involved, but that is a bleak hope[/ot]

Quote:

So, no, you're not in the least bit correct that it's the same as the CT dodge. You're not making any sense when, if your analogy were correct, would be 'because yellowcake right up until today much lower concentration contamination in Florida today as well'.

'Teacher says something racist' isn't like claiming the moon landing was faked. Odin's eye you all are lacking in reasoning. 'Reasoning', I should say as single quotes are the ones used for sarcasm.

Entirely true, as I already said. Saying something racist very likely could have happened. But I'm not swallowing the story wholesale till we hear the "other side". Again, it's an oft-repeated refrain of mine: don't drop the gavel based on one side's unexamined opening arguments. That is like super-duper stupid to do.

Imagine a court case where you only hear the plaintiff's accusations, nothing more. Would you rule, as a judge or juror? You'd be a slobbering idiot to do so. Yet here, that's exactly what posters do. It's really weird.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Thermal

In terms of the discussion, it changes quite a bit. For instance, a video is strong evidence. Damn near slam-dunk, if it is +/- clear. But more to the point, it shows that you will freely make things up to maintain the argument of your imaginary adversary, without the most cursory fact-checking, so when you make claims (as are coming right up) about your 'adversary's" positions, we can assume they are also pretty likely made up.



There we go. More made-up stuff.

There is no preponderance here. There is a claim, and witness statements that the teacher used "racist language" at some point and in unknown contexts. You do get that even the claimant is not saying that these statements are related to the events in question, right? And of course, for children to make signed statements, that means the lawyer was doing some hustling, along with the parents of the minors. As I say many times, when a lawyer is involved with his/her hand out for a check, I have a very high evidentiary bar, because of the vested financial interest.

Now just that part alone...the lawyer and money part...do you think that is so outlandish a position to hold?



A lawyer grubbing for a payout is not in the same universe as a racist mass murderer.

[ot] Aside from the battle royale here: I hope none of your friends were involved, as you posted elsewhere. Actually, I hope that no one's loved ones were involved, but that is a bleak hope[/ot]



Entirely true, as I already said. Saying something racist very likely could have happened. But I'm not swallowing the story wholesale till we hear the "other side". Again, it's an oft-repeated refrain of mine: don't drop the gavel based on one side's unexamined opening arguments. That is like super-duper stupid to do.

Imagine a court case where you only hear the plaintiff's accusations, nothing more. Would you rule, as a judge or juror? You'd be a slobbering idiot to do so. Yet here, that's exactly what posters do. It's really weird.

Lots of lawyers are scumbags, but to automatically assume that any anti-harassment or civil rights litigation is a shameless cash grab reveals how a deeply jaundiced view of how people who are treated unfairly get recourse. The idea that all litigants are money-grubbing bad actors is a fairly common conservative trope, which makes sense when you realize conservatism is opposed to the idea that the powerful can ever be held accountable for their misdeeds.

I'm curious how you square the long history of civil rights actions being litigated in courts with this knee-jerk reflex to smear anyone seeking final recourse as a fraudster.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Lots of lawyers are scumbags, but to automatically assume that any anti-harassment or civil rights litigation is a shameless cash grab reveals how a deeply jaundiced view of how people who are treated unfairly get recourse. The idea that all litigants are money-grubbing bad actors is a fairly common conservative trope, which makes sense when you realize conservatism is opposed to the idea that the powerful can ever be held accountable for their misdeeds.

I'm curious how you square the long history of civil rights actions being litigated in courts with this knee-jerk reflex to smear anyone seeking final recourse as a fraudster.

Not 'smear', or assumed to be a 'fraudster': I expect evidence and criticism. We don't see much of that here, so I gravitate towards the much more skeptical position, and take the heat from those who refuse to question a story.

I occasionally provide construction reports for litigation with a handful of local attorneys (low-rent expert witness). Never once have I seen an objective plaintiff or defendant. Their claims are the classic he said/she said/the truth.

RE: civil rights: different time and place. Rosa Parks was part of a larger movement. She was not jonesing for a payoff.

And as you might recall, I support BLM entirely. But as soon as money enters the picture, as in their well-publicized financial shenanigans, I hold back.

In 21st century USA, if someone stands to benefit, yes, I'm holding them to scrutiny, more so than i would if they were sounding the alarm without a hand sticking out for a check. Color me cynical.

[plague311]

The implication that this woman and her lawyer are just money grabbing liar has no evidence at all. The woman and her lawyer have 3 documented instances of issues happening where they felt wronged.

There are also 7 other students that have experienced racism with this specific teacher. While that might not mean this specific instance is true, it certainly goes to show that this teacher has made multiple racist comments in the past.

It's not like one single event happened and the woman decided to grab a lawyer and get a paycheck. It would appear this kid has been insulted and, possibly, harassed by a teacher with a documented history of making racial comments.

The whole idea that the woman, her son, and the lawyer are just looking for money any more than they are looking for her kid to be treated properly is completely and entirely unsupported. There is actually zero evidence, other than Thermal's unsupported implications that they just must be after the cash, and there's nothing to the mother has been lawsuit prone before.

TL;DR There's mounting evidence a racist teacher said something racist. There's no evidence this woman or her kid had any desire to sue the school until he had multiple run-ins where he felt wronged.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not 'smear', or assumed to be a 'fraudster': I expect evidence and criticism. We don't see much of that here, so I gravitate towards the much more skeptical position, and take the heat from those who refuse to question a story.

No, you don't. No more than anyone else here.