It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

---Hard To Watch---High School Girl Viciously Attacked For Supporting Donald Trump

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
The question at the start of the attack was "did you say F Mexicans?" and then the attacker asked for confirmation "someone tell me she didn't say that" when the attackers group of supporters said "she absolutely said it".

It can be taken that she "said" it, by agreeing, although she didn't post it.


So now we know the group of people in the video agreeing with the attacker were actually lying. They either never saw the post or lied about it intentionally so they could see a fight.

Not necessarily.


She also claims she was agreeing with the users "hell yeah", not the second post. She claims they were posted at the exact same time.

Of course, but that information was not available before the attack.




posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Post go from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom. She claims she replied when she got the alert for the "hell yeah" comment. Once you click and alert and enter the app you no longer get alerts, so chances are legit she never got the alert for the "F Mexicans" comment if she was replying when it was posted.
edit on 14-11-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

There was provocation. She made a mistake and unknowingly sided with the provocateur.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Of course, but that information was not available before the attack.


Yes it was, the girl denied to her attacker. The attacker did not care.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Not the info that it only looked like she had agreed with the F Mexicans statement.
edit on 14-11-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

yea i figured that our by looking at it some more and by reading the story.
if you look her post come right at the same time of both of his.
she could have have very well been posting at the very instance of his second post.
i've seen similar post laps here.

but without being to go back and click the reply, how can we tell. is there a way to find out if someone deleted their account on instagram, or find the account of Slothy_Loppy


edit on 14-11-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Expound please. I think I see what you are getting at but not sure.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I am unable to find an account for Slothy_Loppy, but that is a display name which can be changed. I am gonna wager this guy either renamed or deleted his IG after being exposed as a racist. Hopefully his parents got involved.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Expound please. I think I see what you are getting at but not sure.

It looked like she was agreeing with the F Mexicans post.

The attacker sees that and goes to attack her. Asks her "did you say you hate mexicans?" someone else that saw the post says yes, because that is what it looks like, and the attack ensues.

Did the victim even know that the F Mexican's post was made or that it seemed like she was agreeing with it?
edit on 14-11-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
no if they would've paid attention, and if the way i think it works. if they would have clicked her post that has @slothy_loopy
in it. dollars to doughnuts it would have been his first post. and it was a post lap.

they just assumed it was the second. you know what you get when you assume something.
you make a A@@ out of U and ME

because if you look at her post, it says "one of the few things we can agree on"



edit on 14-11-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

So you are assuming that is how it works and then criticizing people for assuming?

In the end, it doesn't matter. It does look like she was agreeing. That is what they took from it, no matter how incorrect that was.
edit on 14-11-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Right, and they had the chance to get clarification. Once they had clarification they chose to attack anyway.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Right, and they had the chance to get clarification. Once they had clarification they chose to attack anyway.

There was no clarification. She said no, seems like other''s said yes. Not all that clear.

Besides, if the attacker had seem the posts herself the question was rhetorical. She already "knew".



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: alphabetaone

There was provocation. She made a mistake and unknowingly sided with the provocateur.


I am going to suggest you may have a skewed definition of provocation then.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Apparently she didn't though. She wanted to beat her some Trump supporters.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

So your saying Slothy_Loppy didn't provoke something?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

More assuming?

hounddoghowlie might want to have a word with you.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


So you are assuming that is how it works and then criticizing people for assuming?


no i'm criticizing people for not verifying what was said. it was rigght there and the black girl and the other kids could have checked. they jumped to a conclusion just like you are without verifying it first.




In the end, it doesn't matter.

yes it does, many people will see this and think the person is a racist and that is more than likely not true.




It does look like she was agreeing. That is what they took from it, no matter how incorrect that was.

only to someone that is trying to argue from a point that has been shown to be wrong time and time again, and to lazy children that just want to start sh@@.
anyone with a real interest in what she said would have clicked her post and seen what she was responding to at the time or while it was still available .








edit on 14-11-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-11-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: alphabetaone

So your saying Slothy_Loppy didn't provoke something?


Nope. I'm saying that she didn't beat on Slothy_Loppy, she beat on a girl who agreed with a completely separate post that everyone around her (and now that includes you) took it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which post she was agreeing with.

You're right now, being no better than those people who snap-judged then, subsequently sat around and did nothing while a Right to free speech was being trampled by some attacker who seems to simply be looking for a reason to beat someone up.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Not really. The point I was trying to make was that there was a reason for thinking that she had made a racist statement and that it wasn't just support of Trump.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join