421
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
421 points (100.0% liked)
News
37741 readers
1727 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but I would be very shocked if the PDA were as innocent as they imply it was for someone to walk out from behind the counter and calmly ask them to knock it off. There are always two sides to every altercation, and even his description, "kind of briefly - we began to kiss" sounds like downplaying the degree of the kissing going on. It sounds like there was a good chance that it was a pretty excessive makeout session. They really seem to want to make it a homophobia thing, and maybe it was... whether the employees' line for excessive would have been the same for a straight couple as for this gay one, I don't know. But I wouldn't be shocked if the request was at least arguably reasonable for a business that doesn't need people sucking face at the counter. Or maybe I'm wrong and the entire restaurant staff in left-leaning Washington DC are just a bunch of homophobes. Idk.
I read his words. It was his words that made me doubt. He and his partner were the victims here, for sure. But that doesn't mean that they are being honest about the preamble to the altercation. But if not fully believing a person about every single detail of their story, if not taking every single assumption that they made as gospel makes me homophobe because they happen to be gay, sure. Whatever.
I didn't say I had evidence. I said I got a feeling from the way he phrased his story. I also said I might be wrong.
"From the way you phrase your posts, I guess you might have disturbing images on your hard drive. I might be wrong."
Would you take offence if I said that? If yes, then think about what you're doing.
You modify a 'never' with a comma and a 'but'. So, not 'never'.
"They kissed in a non-innocent way and I had to assault them."
Hmm, that sounds like bullshit to me.
First of all, the word "but" doesn't negate the statement in the first half of the sentence. "I wanted ice cream, but I ate a donut instead" doesn't mean I never wanted ice cream. The but, in this case was meant to indicate that, while I am on their side in regard to the violence that occurred becuase it was unjustifiable regardless of what started the interaction, I would not be surprised to find put that he downplayed that detail and the employee may have been justified in asking them to stop. Him downplaying that detail, and/or the employee being justified in asking them to stop does not, in an way shape for form, excuse, defend, or approve the violence that followed. That was the exact reason I prefaced that statement with the fact that the physical violence wasn't acceptable here.
It's 'unjustifiable'. So why link that to assuming the victim was obfuscating the truth? In the same sentence, you are absolving the victim of blame while also claiming that they lied.
Because I was prefacing my statement in an attempt to ward off misunderstandings about whose side I was on. I underestimated the degree to which people lack a sense of nuance apparently, though
What 'nuance' is there about speculating that two assaulted gay people were kissing harder than they described?
As you yourself say, it does not have any bearing on the violence done to them being acceptable. So why link those two things together with a comma but?
Dude, you are wrong. Give it up. No guy has ever had the shit beat out of him by a stores employees for straight PDA. This was homophobia, and your bullshit argument just invalidates the very real struggle gay people go through every day. You are clearly not gay. So learn when you don't have the context to speak up, accept you are wrong, and sit the hell down.
I've certainly not heard of a hetero couple being assaulted for kissing. Unless they were seen to be of different ethnic heritages or religions.
How I've seen people deal with seeing kissing they don't want to see: "Stop that and leave."
How I've seen people deal with their bigotry being triggered: escalating violence.
Yes, and in this case it was the side that violently beat a man for an event which started with their queerphobia and the other side that didn't violently beat a man for any reason.
You think a lot about that gay kissing don't you now.
Even a full-on gay orgy in the dead center of the restaurant is no excuse for violence.
But beyond that, people who are bothered by PDA are so fucking lame. You really want a sterile, sexless world devoid of passion and expressions of love? I think that sounds so fucking miserable
You should have stopped after the first sentence.
I don't fucking care if they were in spit-swapping makeout mode, they did nothing wrong.
It's saddening to me that the take of "there's probably more to the story here" is so objectionable. Judgment absolutely should be withheld pending investigation.
Making up stories just so someone can blame the victims is generally not well received here.
It saddening to me to see someone put in the hospital because they kissed their partner. It's even more saddening that assholes like you want to invalidate that experience with your baseless doubt.