Social Media Justice: A "Karen" faces consequences for threatening a Black man with cops

With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
  1. The situation that led to the arrest.
  2. The action that led to the death.
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.

With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
  1. A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
  2. A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
 
Dante said:
With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
  1. The situation that led to the arrest.
  2. The action that led to the death.
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.

With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
  1. A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
  2. A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
 
4bars said:
He had all the right to be confrontational as she was breaking the law and she refused to comply when she got call out. He was supposed to back off while she was jeopardizing the environment of a place that is meant to work the way it works and he enjoys periodically?
Click to expand...
I would let the authorities deal with it or try to shoo away the dog at worst. Taking something out of pocket to try to feed the dog seems so out of line to me.
Her being a racist idiot has been done to death here and I agree.
 
BobbyManc said:
He did not say I will do something ‘to your dog’.
Click to expand...
He says I am gonna do something which you wont like and then proceeds to take out something and tries to feed the dog. That is something I wouldn't call a normal act to a stranger.
 
Dante said:
  1. A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
  2. A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
Click to expand...

The #1 there seems to be getting exaggerated. If she was that scared of him, she would not have approached him when he started filming her. It is clear this chap is overzealous about this birding business and not letting dogs disrupt the same so it is easy to imagine why this dispute got escalated. But if that woman was genuinely scared by his words then she most likely would have put her dog on the leash and gotten out of there.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
I would let the authorities deal with it or try to shoo away the dog at worst. Taking something out of pocket to try to feed the dog seems so out of line to me.
Her being a racist idiot has been done to death here and I agree.
Click to expand...

If she would call the police without drama saying that a man is giving treats to other people's dogs, That video would never go anywhere, and even some people would be in her favour and if could be considered both assholes. But it never crossed her mind and she went for the racist card

And the authorities came for the "racist threat" when both were long gone. Image how long it would take them to come for a call on a woman that doesn't want to leash the dog.

She was breaking the rules, was asked, she was a jerk and deserved to be treated like a jerk and in the end she crossed the line
 
4bars said:
If she would call the police without drama saying that a man is giving treats to other people's dogs, That video would never go anywhere, and even some people would be in her favour and if could be considered both assholes. But it never crossed her mind and she went for the racist card

And the authorities came for the "racist threat" when both were long gone. Image how long it would take them to come for a call on a woman that doesn't want to leash the dog.

She was breaking the rules, was asked, she was a jerk and deserved to be treated like a jerk and in the end she crossed the line
Click to expand...
Yes, she was obviously in the wrong. I wasn't talking about her anyways.
 
Last edited:
crappycraperson said:
The #1 there seems to be getting exaggerated. If she was that scared of him, she would not have approached him when he started filming her. It is clear this chap is overzealous about this birding business and not letting dogs disrupt the same so it is easy to imagine why this dispute got escalated. But if that woman was genuinely scared by his words then she most likely would have put her dog on the leash and gotten out of there.
Click to expand...

I don’t think she felt threatened herself but might have worried that he would harm her dog. Hence she (ironically) almost strangled it to death in her attempt to make sure it stayed right by her side.

I think we can all agree she was rattled. Impossible to know how much of this was down to what he said/did and how much down to her having a ludicrously short trigger. Either way, her behaviour was that of someone who was on the verge of hysteria. Not that this would justify all of her behaviour, obviously.

It is interesting that the internet has worked out her politics and she’s a liberal progressive. So was possibly behaving out of character. Which fits with someone in fight or flight mode. And, once again, I have to stress that behaving out of character is no excuse for how things transpired.
 
Dante said:
With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
  1. The situation that led to the arrest.
  2. The action that led to the death.
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.

With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
  1. A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
  2. A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I don’t think she felt threatened herself but might have worried that he would harm her dog. Hence she (ironically) almost strangled it to death in her attempt to make sure it stayed right by her side.

I think we can all agree she was rattled. Impossible to know how much of this was down to what he said/did and how much down to her having a ludicrously short trigger. Either way, her behaviour was that of someone who was on the verge of hysteria. Not that this would justify all of her behaviour, obviously.

It is interesting that the internet has worked out her politics and she’s a liberal progressive. So was possibly behaving out of character. Which fits with someone in fight or flight mode. And, once again, I have to stress that behaving out of character is no excuse for how things transpired.
Click to expand...

Yeah, per the internet sleuths she donated to Obama in 2012 and Pete in 2019. Combine that with her professional credentials and she is your typical white upper class Democrat.
Good point about her being on the verge of hysteria. I do believe if she had politely asked the man to not film her then despite her being the one who broke the rules, the other guy would have come off looking verse for insisting on filming someone. As it is her action of going through with an ugly threat and even mimicking some kind of scared voice is just indefensible. Still I am sure she will write a book on this incident in 3 year tops.
 
What do you call the male version of racist Karen?

"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.

Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.

Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko

 
jungledrums said:
I get that, but that’s not how I think it reads. I find it rather condescending. The implication is that, now he’s here with his specialist grasp on the English language, that he can rid us of our doubt/erroneous opinions.
Click to expand...
Didn't read like that to me.

Read like a US poster was just noting that the expression may be used in a slightly different, non literal/catchphrase way in the US.

Like "fyi.... here's another way it could have been meant".

The same as I could post that a phrase an American takes as literal, is a joke in the UK.
 
Carolina Red said:
What do you call the male version of racist Karen?

"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.

Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.

Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko

Click to expand...


Outstanding.

"I said, 'I’m sorry you thought I was being racist, but I was not. If you were a bunch of women, I would have done the same thing,'" Austin told the Tribune.
Click to expand...

The king of non-apologies, closely followed by telling them if they were women rather than men, that wouldn't have affected his......racism.


“Should have handled it differently,” he said in an email to the Tribune. “Not my job to have done anything.”
Click to expand...

You feel like he's kind of missed the point here if that's the lesson he's learnt....
 
africanspur said:
Outstanding.



The king of non-apologies, closely followed by telling them if they were women rather than men, that wouldn't have affected his......racism.




You feel like he's kind of missed the point here if that's the lesson he's learnt....
Click to expand...
Yeah, that backhanded "apology" was a train wreck.

Crazy that this happened in the same city that's currently having protests and looting over police killing a black man.
 
crappycraperson said:
Here is the story all the rage on social media today -



https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/central-park-video-dog-video-african-american-trnd/index.html


Video in question:



The women is definitely out of order but in super quick time all of her info was doxxed online including personal social media accounts, employment info and even her dog's instagram account. Subsequently she has been put on admin leave by her company and her dog that she adopted few weeks ago has also been taken back.



People are openly are rooting for her life to be ruined due to this incident which I think is a bit much despite her egregious actions.
Click to expand...

Terrible OP. Who do you think is the victim here?
 
Carolina Red said:
What do you call the male version of racist Karen?

"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.

Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.

Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko

Click to expand...

He looks like Jason Donovan.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Semantics. "Ma'am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on a leash at all times. The sign is right there." It's as much of as ask as it is a tell. Either way, he's reminding her of her civic responsibility. Such an affront (if you're a Karen, I suppose).

Remarkable how some posters are latching onto a vague statement like "If you're going to do what you want, I m going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" as if it's some sort of ominous threat. I can't understand what goes on in some of your heads.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to quote the folk who were saying "you're wrong, there's only one way to take what he meant and that's as a threat" because I can't be arsed and I think I have heatstroke. But you're right. It's a really vague statement that can mean a lot of things. I could mean he's going to star dancing an Irish jig. It might rile her up initially, and maybe make her worried when he reached in his pockets to take something out, but that's her own preconceptions if she took it as a threat. And if that's what the argument against what you said is - she assumed that he obviously meant to attack her or her dog - then it's a pretty poor argument to make.

But then again I live in a country where the most threatening thing is a dodgy chippy where they don't take all the bones out of their battered haddock supper so if someone wants to pull one of those out of their pockets fully loaded with salt and vinegar I'm up for a fecking fight.
 
Dante said:
With regards to the overall situation where the police officer killed the black man by kneeling on his neck, it's two separate incidents:
  1. The situation that led to the arrest.
  2. The action that led to the death.
The two incidents don't excuse each other. Maybe the black guy committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. Either way, the killing of an unarmed suspect is incident of its own, and should be judged on its own merits without prefacing it with the character of the victim.

With regards to the overall situation where the Karen called the police on the 'African American man', it's also two separate incidents:
  1. A single woman got told by a strange man in an isolated location that he was 'going to do what he wanted' and that she 'wouldn't like it'.
  2. A woman weaponised a man's race against him as a threat.
Again, the two incidents don't excuse each other. The woman has a right to be scared. The man should definitely have chosen his words better. But what she did next was racist and can't mitigated by her perception of his actions.
Click to expand...

On 1, it's not quite as black & white (no pun intended) as that.
The woman was spoken to by a strange man, because the woman wasn't obeying the rules in the first place, then she ignored his request to adhere to said rules.
Had she been obeying the rules, or listened to him when he told her that her dog needs to be on the leash as they went back and forth (according to his statement); 1 wouldn't have occurred, and neither would 2.

Admittedly what he said doesn't read greatly, but - she is still intentionally flouting the rules, she then refused his request, then refused to go to an alternative place he suggested then continued doing what she wants to do.
She is still at fault for the first incident, and his 'threat' is strange & mild at best, but doesn't come out of nowhere or for no reason, which is what your statement suggests.

Maybe it's because more people have empathy for dogs than they do with birds, so the horror of this man potentially 'threatening' this woman's dog is causing people to think there are 2 people at fault in varying ways in 2 separate incidents. But there isn't. In his mind, a dog off the leash is a threat for the birds that he clearly likes to watch.
The rules are in place for a reason, and that reason is for the safety & protection of the birds - this man clearly is an avid 'birder' (never heard that term before) so he feels strongly about this and presumably he feeds the dogs treats so the owners know what it feels like to have a living creature that you care about be under possible threat - but again, this wouldn't have escalated to this point if she had followed the rules in the first place, it wouldn't have happened if she put a leash on her dog after he asked, and it wouldn't have happened if she took her dog elsewhere when he suggested it. She refused to do any of that.

I also have no doubt in my mind that because of the colour of this man's skin she didn't take him seriously as someone worth listening to in the first place, and because he didn't back down, she knew she could weaponise his race against him. This is another reason why I don't believe there are 2 separate incidents here, because she would've been fully aware of the power dynamics before he made the 'threat', she was just looking for a reason.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It's just unnecessary to take up vigilantism and get in people's faces. You can report the person if you're so uppity about it. It's not an ominous threat but as a pet owner I know that one has to constantly deal with people's nonsense at being unable to understand. The fact that he walks around with treats to take action against people is bizarre.

Of course it's nothing compared to bring a racist and trying to use race to get someone in trouble which is truly appalling behaviour.
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

Read the word & it reminded me of the above article.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/24/eamo...g-meghan-markle-uppity-itv-ban-word-11208230/

Good old Eamonn got in on it too not too long ago.

To clarify, I am not calling you a racist or inferring anything.
 
villain said:
But there isn't. In his mind, a dog off the leash is a threat for the birds that he clearly likes to watch.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point, it doesn't really matter what his intentions are, only how she perceives it and if that is a reasonable perception? She could reasonably fear for her or her dog's safety in the situation because of his odd behaviour, and I know many women who would..

They were in polite disagreement until the dog treats and vague comments were cracked out and something clearly distressed her which I think people are mis-characterising is being a Karen. I do think you are being unfair to say she was looking for a reason in your assessment. By his account the last thing she says before the video is 'get your hands off my dog' and at the start of the videos she is about to put the leash on until she sees he is now filming her and she becomes even more rattled.

I mean, in my view he didn't do anything wrong per se, definitely not illegal or even immoral, and that isn't the argument. However it is very naive to say something vaguely threatening as a man to a woman alone in Central Park, even if meant tongue in cheek and that is the limit of my criticism of him.

You could definitely foresee a strong reaction to something like that, even if your behaviour is perfectly explainable after the fact like in this case. There is definitely a 'dynamic' of his physical safety not being in question, while hers is, along with the racial 'dynamic', in my interpretation of the event.

To state the obvious- that doesn't mitigate her attempts to use his race to threaten him, only to understand why she became unhinged in the interaction in the first place.

To reiterate the points she was in the wrong for the dog being off the leash and was actively malicious in her racism.
 
Amy wasn't scared. Like almost any scofflaw/Karen, she was annoyed at being told she's breaking the rules. Rather than admit she was in the wrong, correct her behaviour and be on her way, she instead chose to double down and use race and gender to screw Mr. Cooper over.
 
Carolina Red said:
What do you call the male version of racist Karen?

"A white Minneapolis venture capitalist's office lease was terminated after a viral video showed him questioning black entrepreneurs using the gym in a building of which they were all tenants, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Wednesday.

Tom Austin, the managing partner of F2 Group, threatened to call the police on the group of black men on Tuesday. The men are the owners of Top Figure, a Minneapolis-based social media and branding agency. They work out of a WeWork coworking space in the building and are allowed to use the amenities.

Austin ultimately called the building manager, who confirmed the men have a lease in the building. He told the Tribune that his actions led to his company losing its lease in the building."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...bNh1BUEymF084rCAg6hbU-SIIw1gJ5uY4sTbzEvoLO9ko

Click to expand...


This was so satisfying. I can’t wrap my mind around the concept of not enjoying seeing racists suffer for their racist actions.
 
Drainy said:
Isn't that the point, it doesn't really matter what his intentions are, only how she perceives it and if that is a reasonable perception? She could reasonably fear for her or her dog's safety in the situation because of his odd behaviour, and I know many women who would..

They were in polite disagreement until the dog treats and vague comments were cracked out and something clearly distressed her which I think people are mis-characterising is being a Karen. I do think you are being unfair to say she was looking for a reason in your assessment. By his account the last thing she says before the video is 'get your hands off my dog' and at the start of the videos she is about to put the leash on until she sees he is now filming her and she becomes even more rattled.

I mean, in my view he didn't do anything wrong per se, definitely not illegal or even immoral, and that isn't the argument. However it is very naive to say something vaguely threatening as a man to a woman alone in Central Park, even if meant tongue in cheek and that is the limit of my criticism of him.

You could definitely foresee a strong reaction to something like that, even if your behaviour is perfectly explainable after the fact like in this case. There is definitely a 'dynamic' of his physical safety not being in question, while hers is, along with the racial 'dynamic', in my interpretation of the event.

To state the obvious- that doesn't mitigate her attempts to use his race to threaten him, only to understand why she became unhinged in the interaction in the first place.

To reiterate the points she was in the wrong for the dog being off the leash and was actively malicious in her racism.
Click to expand...

The point is that she wasn't following the rules to begin with. The whole exchange took place because she ignored the rules, ignored a request to follow the rules, and ignored a suggestion to go elsewhere if she didn't care to follow the rules.

She has to take accountability for that.

It's that simple.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Remarkable how some posters are latching onto a vague statement like "If you're going to do what you want, I m going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" as if it's some sort of ominous threat. I can't understand what goes on in some of your heads.
Click to expand...
If he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.
At that point, regardless of she being a vile person, she has enough reason to argue she was feeling threatened.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Amy wasn't scared. Like almost any scofflaw/Karen, she was annoyed at being told she's breaking the rules. Rather than admit she was in the wrong, correct her behaviour and be on her way, she instead chose to double down and use race and gender to screw Mr. Cooper over.
Click to expand...

That’s it in a nutshell. Very little else in all this debate really matters

The video clearly shows the blind indignation of someone who has lost touch, possibly only momentarily in fairness, with any kind of reasonableness or self awareness when rightfully challenged for their behaviour.

I really don’t see how there can be any doubt as to her intentions when playing that particular ‘card’ so shamelessly.

It’s very clearly a child like and horrible response to being obviously in the wrong but still wanting to win, casting aside completely any shred of integrity or decency.

The particular racist tactic she employed is its own thing entirely. In that moment, utterly vile.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
If he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.
At that point, regardless of she being a vile person, she has enough reason to argue she was feeling threatened.
Click to expand...
That would be all well and good, but she mentioned his race as a threat to him
 
RedDevil@84 said:
If he had just said it and didn't do anything, then it would have been ok. But then he proceeded to take something from his pocket and started calling out the dog to eat it. That is where at least in my mind, the person has crossed the line between being a socially responsible guy to someone who could be perceived threatening.
At that point, regardless of she being a vile person, she has enough reason to argue she was feeling threatened.
Click to expand...

She never perceived him as a threat though. She forcefully walked toward him when he started filming because she was annoyed by it and she went from being clearly annoyed to pretending to be scared when the police answered the phone. Even if we all agree that someone could have interpreted his words as a threat, she didn't, which makes that part irrelevant to what happened afterwards.

Also it's worth mentioning that he is one who told her to keep her distance and she didn't respect that either which is a weird thing to do if you think that someone is threatening your life.

Edit: And in the video she says that she will call the cops because he is recording, not because she is threatened.
 
Last edited:
jungledrums said:
Have you read the comments here before responding to what you assume it is they’re stating? Has anyone on this thread condoned her actions? Not that I can see. Some nasty woman gets her comeuppance and life goes on. Does that prevent an examination of the context? Apparently I, and a few others here, have ‘blamed the victim’ for both attempting to understand the context, and for daring to suggest that, though she was undoubtedly out of line, his actions may have been questionable too? Do you not see how damaging that is to fruitful discussion? I honestly doubt you do - I’m not sure, ironically, that you can grapple with that nuance.

If you disagree with what’s being said, great, articulate why that is without ridiculing it and being so overtly aggressive and snide.
Click to expand...

It is actually amazing the sort of BS people come up with under the guise of nuance and free speech. Some dude was ranting yesterday about how every discussion online nowadays is the same and politically motivated. It is so ridiculous that he felt the need to make that statement in a thread where almost everyone was in agreement that the lady is clearly racist. No one even discussed her political affiliation as part of calling out her racism.
 
entropy said:
It is actually amazing the sort of BS people come up with under the guise of nuance and free speech. Some dude was ranting yesterday about how every discussion online nowadays is the same and politically motivated. It is so ridiculous that he felt the need to make that statement in a thread where almost everyone was in agreement that the lady is clearly racist. No one even discussed her political affiliation as part of calling out her racism.
Click to expand...
Some dude yesterday was so affronted by someone else's opinion that he described himself as 'terrified'.

There's a balance to be struck between ignoring or excusing racism and resorting to shrill hyperbole when anyone looks at an issue from even a fractionally different perspective. While repeatedly condemning the evidence of racism.
 
If it helps you feel any better I was terrified for Christian Cooper and random strangers diagnosing him with a mental health condition. Not myself personally. Feel free to not quote me in your BS posts.
 
Eckers99 said:
Some dude yesterday was so affronted by someone else's opinion that he described himself as 'terrified'.

There's a balance to be struck between ignoring or excusing racism and resorting to shrill hyperbole when anyone looks at an issue from even a fractionally different perspective. While repeatedly condemning the evidence of racism.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a hyperbole when criticizing racism.
 
entropy said:
If it helps you feel any better I was terrified for Christian Cooper and random strangers diagnosing him with a mental health condition. Not myself personally. Feel free to not quote me in your BS posts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll feel free to quote any old bs, I like. Including yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.