Yeah, and they invited the customer back now that they know it was a lie.
Before the server recanted, the “proof” was the server’s story and the receipt. Seems strange to me to know about these two things and then still maintain that there was no “proof”
This seems like equivocation around the idea of “proof.” Certainly it’s “evidence,” but given how many of these receipt/graffiti/cake decoration hate crimes have turned out to be hoaxes, I’ve reached the point where there needs to be some sort of corroboration. Unfortunately, there is an abundance of incidents where there’s clear video corroboration, or other means of corroborating shitty bigoted behavior.
The receipt thing struck me as fishy from the get-go, like the sort of thing someone imagines a bigot would right instead of the sort of thing a bigot would actually do.
On behalf of older white people everywhere, thanks for fucking nothing. What benefit to anyone is this sort of evidence-free speculation about that neighbor? It has just given you an opportunity to feel superior to a different group, i.e. “older folks.”
Please just stop and think before you spew next time.
The thing is there’s only a follow-up story when something new happens. The media doesn’t generally report that the story they reported a month ago is still true.
So if somebody stiffs a server and leaves a nasty note on the receipt, the story gets reported. If the incident was true, that’s the end of the story - nothing new is likely to develop. The only likely new development is if new evidence turns up that debunks the original story.
You may be right, and it may even be confirmation bias at play, but it seems to me that more often than not these stiff-the-waiter-and-leave-a-shitty-note stories end up being recanted.
Fair enough. It’s evidence. But if someone takes that route, no use of the word “proof” is available anymore.
Or very cautious use, and I think that’s a good thing.
Proof is always only temporary, until and unless counter evidence comes forward. The only proofs that I’m satisfied are definitive are mathematical ones.
So for the purposes of this kind of discussion, “evidence” is a much better word. It would prevent such nonsense posts as this:
If he had used “evidence” instead of “proof” it would have been obviously false, so much so that even he might not have posted it.
Humans – damn near every one of us – loves to shit on an out-group. If wider society stands by and lets us do it consequence free, all the better.
Obviously not. :rolleyes:
Because I was deliberately deceived. I didn’t act on an accusation, I merely passed it along in good faith. How long should I wait on any story before posting it, just to be “sure”?
Yes, many do love to do that, but they don’t have to, and many people who do it sort of incidentally and in passing like this one would (I think) benefit from having it pointed out to them. Most people are not actually hateful, they just don’t stop and think.
There’s a whole discussion in the “wrong waitress” thread about how the OP shouldn’t have used that expression because it implies that a “right” waitress would put up with being groped. Defenses of that wording boil down to “but it’s just an expression, we’ve said it for years, it doesn’t mean anything like that.” I’m here to suggest that all of the things we’ve said for years and through the use of which we don’t mean anything bad all need to be thought about before they are said again, and people need to be responsible for everything that comes out of their mouth, even if they said it without thinking and without intended malice. There are a lot more hateful things that people say on that basis than are actually intended that way. Intent counts, but it’s not everything. Being thoughtful and mindful are also important.
Oh yeah, good point.
Your main point is valid.
But resurrecting this idiotic misunderstanding of the idiom used in the title of the waitress thread just detracts from your point. The idiom you messed with the wrong X simply means that this particular X is a badass and you are going to suffer. It has never meant or implied that there is any “right” X in any moral sense. Taking offense through willfully misunderstanding the meaning of this idiom is on about the same level of ignorant discourse as claiming that the term black hole is racist.
I’d be interested in knowing what posters in this thread think of the newly released and widely acclaimed films Sorry To Bother You and Blindspotting. Both of them deal with exactly the sort of deeply ingrained (and often unperceived or ignored) racist prejudice that’s being called out here.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with either of these films except that they’re both on my personal to-watch list, and I’d like to know how they struck other people who are pondering these issues.
Triggered much?
Now think how it would feel to open your door to a cop pointing a gun in your face.
Just pointing out the fun of living in era in which incalculable harm can be inflicted by an easily riled mob that lacks critical thinking skills and patience. Even cautioning people to wait before overreacting is becoming a crime. Especially if the fabrication is from a member of the oppressed classes.
You mean grumpy older white people.
Kayaker could’t imagine anyone living next door to Ving Rhames and not knowing it was Ving Rhames. My intent was not to indulge in a feeling of superiority; it was to suggest one possible way to reconcile Kayaker’s incredulousness with what actually happened. If I’ve done my job, then hopefully *Kayaker now sees how it might be possible.
My speculation as to what is plausible should not be taken as any kind of assertion as to the actual circumstances. But if you think I’m wrong about the “older white people” demographic having a disproportionate share of people who are reclusive, out of touch with pop culture, and generally suspicious of black people, feel free to disabuse me of that notion.
Good job pointing out that incalculable harm! Just for funzies, though, I tried calculating it anyway, and the harm came out to – well, “incalculable,” because it consisted of an anonymous family being forbidden from the restaurant, and then later invited back with an apology and a free meal, and I’m just not sure whether that ranks as harm at all.
NOT fake news. It was true news that the server claimed it.
Wow. So in this one case of false accusations, which led to a fleecing of donors of around $1000… , the family wasn’t outed and “consequenced.” Great. The point still stands.