I've been a PI for 40 years. I understand, on a level above almost all, that as Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is never pure and rarely simple." I see news stories w/ a professionally critical eye. I have worked cases that were reported on in print and tv that had BASIC facts wrong. This is routine. The errors were usually a result of laziness, incompetence, stupidity. But, some were agenda driven. I'm mostly retired but work a case on occasion. A couple years back I worked a case defending a priest charged w/ felony molestation. I think you can visualize the reporting on this case. Well, the trial was a week long and the jury deliberated just a couple hours, acquitting the priest of all charges. As one juror said, they didn't understand why charges were even brought. Reporting has always been flawed. It has gotten exponentially worse in the past decade or so. If you want good reporting, be critical and selective. All reading this have subscribed to Bari Weis. She, Greenwald, Taibbi and a few others are intellectually honest reporters. They are on the endangered species list.
The unintended consequences of this narrative are that when accosted by a person of color (which could very well happen) white women must simply allow it to happen or otherwise be deemed "racist."
I never bought this story for a second. And when I tried to point out how being told "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" sounds like a bona fide threat I don't care who says it...people actually defended that in order to uphold the Karen narrative.
In short, anyone who participates in this nonsense is a bona fide jerk.
There is an expression in the law that “bad facts make bad law.” My takeaway after hearing all of the additional detail is that both of these individuals are a little different. He has a sociopathic nature and she is a little off-kilter. That said, in the moment, in that area with no one else around, she had good reason to be afraid (independent of race). She tried to “level the playing field” by throwing in the race angle. She obviously thought that telling him she would play the race card would make him back off. When that didn’t work, she followed through, clearly still wanting to keep him at bay. When you feel you’re under physical threat, you’re going to play whatever card you have. I’m not going to judge her for that.
The incident was not worth a nation’s attention. It should have been over then and there. Instead, because of our current “over-correcting” culture, she now has to pay for it for many years. I’m embarrassed for our country.
I had exactly the same reaction when I heard the exchange: "Wait a minute, hold on ... he just threatened her!" And what was she supposed to do, neglect to identify him well enough that the cops could find him? If a guy has red hair, is wearing a buffalo plaid shirt, or loafers, I'm going to point that out so he can be recognized -- and if he's black, I'll do the same.
The ugly fruit of intersectional feminism and wokeness: white women are the ultimate evil, and moreover they get to say whether someone is white or not. It's feminist to defend male predators in dresses who want access to our spas, but it's not feminist to defend a woman who attempted to accurately describe a very large man who was threatening her with physical violence. Un-fucking-believable.
Anyone who believes the media today is an imbecile. As a citizen, everyone must understand that it's imperative upon them to look for independent media reporting and to look at multiple sources. The sheep will always follow each other to the slaughter.
The real story here is not Mr Cooper but rather the media again proving itself to be both vile and untrustworthy. It is entertaining to still hear from those who seek to defend the NYT ( or WAPO) and insist that its writers, columnists and opinions are mainstream, middle of the road and unbiased.
I thought the media coverage of this incident was pretty bad at the time, and I said so in the comments on the first NYT article. This account makes it clear that I was right about that. Thanks Bari Weiss and Megan Phelps-Roper.
First, she as a woman alone, addressed with the words he offered, was perfectly correct in feeling threatened. Arguing that her response was disproportionate I think ignores things we can't know, such as tone, body language, and the presence or absence of others close by.
Second, retired and interested in today's issues, I don't have enough time in my day to read sources such as the NYT, WAPO, or their acolytes. It isn't purposeful to progress through bias, lies, and the vacuum of omissions. I think that they are the true creators of the Trump phenomenon in their unending, open contempt for everyone not genuflecting to their ever changing Truths.
Considering the outrageous victimization Amy Cooper is suffering, I wonder if Christian Cooper feels any sense of responsibility at all? Simple compassion? Pity? Anything?
It occurs to me that he could ameliorate a lot of her suffering, which she absolutely does not deserve. He obviously felt she was treated unfairly, because he refused to participate in her legal prosecution. Why then has he refused to meet with her? Why has he decided not to step forward and publicly call for a moratorium on her life sentence of abuse and exile? Is it because he believes her current situation is justified, and it makes him feel vindicated? Or is it that he knows that if he campaigned on her behalf he’d be thrown under the bus by the same mob that chanted for her execution?
Combine the outsourced judgement with the coming Social Credit System, and we have an outsized disaster on our hands.
I read on Twitter last night the very interesting writer Gad Saad wanted to follow Stephen Fry. However Stephen Fry's Twitter account had blocked Gad Saad's account from following. Some have suggested Fry is using a bot to block undesirables ... and Gad somehow fell into the undesirable category.
Kristin Tate has an essay in The Hill today about various corporate entities which are banning undesirables from using their platforms, and these are shopping ... thus banking apps. Tate goes on the make the most prescient statement I've seen in a while "The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products." But I would like to focus on this snip "corporate rewards for compliant behavior."
Think about that for a bit: corporate rewards for compliant behavior. As judged by a piece of Artificial Intelligence.
Who are we to judge this woman? What one of us could survive the level of scrutiny that befell her? I have no idea what was in her mind, how can any of us know that (Kmele says the same)? Instead of common courtesy by Mr. Cooper, we see epic self-righteousness, as if to say "I'm going to catch those wicked people who let their dog off the leash and show them!!!" What's sad is how commonplace self-righteousness has become, especially on social media.
I agree the NYT has really gone off the rails this last year. They're struggling to maintain the emotional excitement of the Trump times. Race and gender are their go to triggers. Nuance and subtlety don't ratchet up the adrenaline. However, we need mainstream news, even the emotional NYT, which I hope returns to real, high quality journalism soon.
This incident has been a good example of the erosion of civil discourse. She needed to get her dog on the leash and apologize for not following the rules. He needed to recognize her fear of him and try to ally those fears rather than exacerbate them. The real story is that this breach of good manners didn't happen and exploded into a national incident.
I gotta admit, this piece did not make me more sympathetic to her. His "you're not gonna like it" comment is certainly uncalled for (mildly threatening) and he's obviously a jerk too who was looking to pick a(nother) fight with a dog person, but she still comes off overwrought, hysterical and, dare I say it, performative. There's just not enough here for a reasonable person to conclude that he was an actual threat. Maybe that's my "male privilege" talking, I don't know. But in her shoes I'd leash my dog and leave, not call the police in a panic. Frankly, she's still performing by pretending she's still facing daily threats while living in another country.
Of course the piece is damning to the NYT, WaPo, and other mainstream media. Many were more interested in the narrative than the nuance, but anybody who's surprised by that at this point should reach out to me about purchasing some swampland I've got going cheap.
Last thing I'll say is that, notwithstanding my lack of sympathy for her, I think we ought to be forgiving and forgetting this relatively trivial all around contretemp at this point. I can think she behaved badly that day, and even think she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with, without thinking this event should ruin her life.
I've been a PI for 40 years. I understand, on a level above almost all, that as Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is never pure and rarely simple." I see news stories w/ a professionally critical eye. I have worked cases that were reported on in print and tv that had BASIC facts wrong. This is routine. The errors were usually a result of laziness, incompetence, stupidity. But, some were agenda driven. I'm mostly retired but work a case on occasion. A couple years back I worked a case defending a priest charged w/ felony molestation. I think you can visualize the reporting on this case. Well, the trial was a week long and the jury deliberated just a couple hours, acquitting the priest of all charges. As one juror said, they didn't understand why charges were even brought. Reporting has always been flawed. It has gotten exponentially worse in the past decade or so. If you want good reporting, be critical and selective. All reading this have subscribed to Bari Weis. She, Greenwald, Taibbi and a few others are intellectually honest reporters. They are on the endangered species list.
The unintended consequences of this narrative are that when accosted by a person of color (which could very well happen) white women must simply allow it to happen or otherwise be deemed "racist."
I never bought this story for a second. And when I tried to point out how being told "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" sounds like a bona fide threat I don't care who says it...people actually defended that in order to uphold the Karen narrative.
In short, anyone who participates in this nonsense is a bona fide jerk.
There is an expression in the law that “bad facts make bad law.” My takeaway after hearing all of the additional detail is that both of these individuals are a little different. He has a sociopathic nature and she is a little off-kilter. That said, in the moment, in that area with no one else around, she had good reason to be afraid (independent of race). She tried to “level the playing field” by throwing in the race angle. She obviously thought that telling him she would play the race card would make him back off. When that didn’t work, she followed through, clearly still wanting to keep him at bay. When you feel you’re under physical threat, you’re going to play whatever card you have. I’m not going to judge her for that.
The incident was not worth a nation’s attention. It should have been over then and there. Instead, because of our current “over-correcting” culture, she now has to pay for it for many years. I’m embarrassed for our country.
I had exactly the same reaction when I heard the exchange: "Wait a minute, hold on ... he just threatened her!" And what was she supposed to do, neglect to identify him well enough that the cops could find him? If a guy has red hair, is wearing a buffalo plaid shirt, or loafers, I'm going to point that out so he can be recognized -- and if he's black, I'll do the same.
The ugly fruit of intersectional feminism and wokeness: white women are the ultimate evil, and moreover they get to say whether someone is white or not. It's feminist to defend male predators in dresses who want access to our spas, but it's not feminist to defend a woman who attempted to accurately describe a very large man who was threatening her with physical violence. Un-fucking-believable.
Stop reading the Times. It’s propaganda. It is neither news nor fit to print.
No matter who is right or who is wrong, this woman suffered too much of her alleged offense. It is unacceptable in a democratic society.
Anyone who believes the media today is an imbecile. As a citizen, everyone must understand that it's imperative upon them to look for independent media reporting and to look at multiple sources. The sheep will always follow each other to the slaughter.
The real story here is not Mr Cooper but rather the media again proving itself to be both vile and untrustworthy. It is entertaining to still hear from those who seek to defend the NYT ( or WAPO) and insist that its writers, columnists and opinions are mainstream, middle of the road and unbiased.
I thought the media coverage of this incident was pretty bad at the time, and I said so in the comments on the first NYT article. This account makes it clear that I was right about that. Thanks Bari Weiss and Megan Phelps-Roper.
I have two concerns.
First, she as a woman alone, addressed with the words he offered, was perfectly correct in feeling threatened. Arguing that her response was disproportionate I think ignores things we can't know, such as tone, body language, and the presence or absence of others close by.
Second, retired and interested in today's issues, I don't have enough time in my day to read sources such as the NYT, WAPO, or their acolytes. It isn't purposeful to progress through bias, lies, and the vacuum of omissions. I think that they are the true creators of the Trump phenomenon in their unending, open contempt for everyone not genuflecting to their ever changing Truths.
Considering the outrageous victimization Amy Cooper is suffering, I wonder if Christian Cooper feels any sense of responsibility at all? Simple compassion? Pity? Anything?
It occurs to me that he could ameliorate a lot of her suffering, which she absolutely does not deserve. He obviously felt she was treated unfairly, because he refused to participate in her legal prosecution. Why then has he refused to meet with her? Why has he decided not to step forward and publicly call for a moratorium on her life sentence of abuse and exile? Is it because he believes her current situation is justified, and it makes him feel vindicated? Or is it that he knows that if he campaigned on her behalf he’d be thrown under the bus by the same mob that chanted for her execution?
Combine the outsourced judgement with the coming Social Credit System, and we have an outsized disaster on our hands.
I read on Twitter last night the very interesting writer Gad Saad wanted to follow Stephen Fry. However Stephen Fry's Twitter account had blocked Gad Saad's account from following. Some have suggested Fry is using a bot to block undesirables ... and Gad somehow fell into the undesirable category.
Kristin Tate has an essay in The Hill today about various corporate entities which are banning undesirables from using their platforms, and these are shopping ... thus banking apps. Tate goes on the make the most prescient statement I've seen in a while "The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products." But I would like to focus on this snip "corporate rewards for compliant behavior."
Think about that for a bit: corporate rewards for compliant behavior. As judged by a piece of Artificial Intelligence.
Who are we to judge this woman? What one of us could survive the level of scrutiny that befell her? I have no idea what was in her mind, how can any of us know that (Kmele says the same)? Instead of common courtesy by Mr. Cooper, we see epic self-righteousness, as if to say "I'm going to catch those wicked people who let their dog off the leash and show them!!!" What's sad is how commonplace self-righteousness has become, especially on social media.
This is an age where the accusation is all. An accusation-based society, driven by a will-to-power.
I agree the NYT has really gone off the rails this last year. They're struggling to maintain the emotional excitement of the Trump times. Race and gender are their go to triggers. Nuance and subtlety don't ratchet up the adrenaline. However, we need mainstream news, even the emotional NYT, which I hope returns to real, high quality journalism soon.
This incident has been a good example of the erosion of civil discourse. She needed to get her dog on the leash and apologize for not following the rules. He needed to recognize her fear of him and try to ally those fears rather than exacerbate them. The real story is that this breach of good manners didn't happen and exploded into a national incident.
I gotta admit, this piece did not make me more sympathetic to her. His "you're not gonna like it" comment is certainly uncalled for (mildly threatening) and he's obviously a jerk too who was looking to pick a(nother) fight with a dog person, but she still comes off overwrought, hysterical and, dare I say it, performative. There's just not enough here for a reasonable person to conclude that he was an actual threat. Maybe that's my "male privilege" talking, I don't know. But in her shoes I'd leash my dog and leave, not call the police in a panic. Frankly, she's still performing by pretending she's still facing daily threats while living in another country.
Of course the piece is damning to the NYT, WaPo, and other mainstream media. Many were more interested in the narrative than the nuance, but anybody who's surprised by that at this point should reach out to me about purchasing some swampland I've got going cheap.
Last thing I'll say is that, notwithstanding my lack of sympathy for her, I think we ought to be forgiving and forgetting this relatively trivial all around contretemp at this point. I can think she behaved badly that day, and even think she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with, without thinking this event should ruin her life.