Candie wrote: » Attacks on the disabled tend to make the news. Anyone who can't defend themselves (like a six foot odd footballer, say), like the elderly, children, the disabled - people (well, other people obv) tend to care about them and feel empathy for their relative vulnerability. Except for the odd few who don't see the problem because they're just too cool.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yeah, sure - she's hanging out with Gaga, Saoirse Ronan and Christine Lagarde, and she makes up stories about what happens on Marlborough St for 'attention' - have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?
weldoninhio wrote: » She alleges it happened on O’Connell Street.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » yeah that totally discredits the post you replied to. :rolleyes:
Your Face wrote: » I don't think we should overlook her story of being publicly belittled. I know it might be low on the list of hate crimes but we shouldnt look down on anyone.
Mitch Connor wrote: » Sure most of the posts in this thread are the same as what those kids did. Making fun of her, for the amusement of people on the internet in the hopes of getting some internet points.
weldoninhio wrote: » I was stating fact, not trying to discredit any other poster.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and completely ignoring the substance of the post. And i said you were trying to discredit the post not the poster.
weldoninhio wrote: » I said it to point out the fact that it allegedly happened on Ireland's busiest street, not Marlborough Street.
batgoat wrote: » You were also previously labelling such behaviour as harmless so you're moving from condoning to claiming it never happened.
weldoninhio wrote: » Did any harm come to her??
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes, it did "walked past me again with a frightening grin. I was furious and scared. " "I was crying, the kind of crying where you can’t catch your breath and speaking is difficult even though there is so much you need to say. People walked past. They saw my distress - but kept walking"
weldoninhio wrote: » So no harm done, just bruised feelings.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So mental health isn't an issue in your little world - gotcha.
weldoninhio wrote: » Careful, you might offend me. :rolleyes: Or hurt my feelings.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting that physical intimidation is fine if there is no physical contact?
AndrewJRenko wrote: Come back to me when you've had two lads twice your size jumping all over you
[Deleted User] wrote: » Again, not taking away from what happened to Sinead but your insistence for hyperbole is odd. One lad. not "all over" just over.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Come back to me when you've had two lads twice your size jumping all over you - but presumably you want to keep diverting attention from what actually happened and how it impacted Sinead. Are you seriously suggesting that physical intimidation is fine if there is no physical contact?
Deleted User wrote: » Again, not taking away from what happened to Sinead but your insistence for hyperbole is odd. One lad. not "all over" just over.
Blueshoe wrote: » He gets way too carried away
Hector Savage wrote: » I'm not saying there is not problem, and I agree with you here, attacks on people less able to defend themselves do make news more and are worse. My issue is calling it a "hate" crime. If I go out and beat up a guy wearing a man U shirt and it's supposed I did it cos I hate man U fans - is that a hate crime ?
Hector Savage wrote: » Or is it just a horrible ****ing crime full stop ? Assault - that's it. Now if the guy is black or a traveler is it a different sort of hate crime ? How many categories do we need ? one for every race, then others for gay/trans/short/star trek fan/ .... you see when you start with identity politics it just opens pandoras box.
weldoninhio wrote: » I’d imagine a 6’10” 15/16 year old would be pretty handy to track down.
AtomicHorror wrote: » This from the guy who cited the theory of ****ing evolution as a justification for not caring about people being victimised. Yeah you seem well-grounded. Only if Man U fans were born that way. I guess some people would say they are, but it is not comparable to race or disability and that should be obvious. Not really, it's quite simple - it's all the same crime. Excluding the Star Trek fan. Intimidation is obviously harmful. Even the folks quibbling over whether this is a hate crime seem to understand that. You're really clutching at straws. You meant that to be devastatingly clever, didn't you? But all you did was highlight your privilege in this context. You can't ever be intimidated in the manner that Sinead was, so that's all you need to dismiss it as harmless. That's as basic as it is for you. If it can't happen to you, you don't give a **** if it happens to someone else.
weldoninhio wrote: » Anyone can be intimidated you don’t have to be a small person for that to happen. Someone doing something, most likely as an immature dare, is far from a hate crime. It’s pathetic that it even gets mentioned in the same breath as what happened. Not everything that happens that you don’t like is a crime or worthy of having a breakdown over. No one died, no one even got hurt. Life goes on.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have any of the big lads with the little jokes been at the heart of major exhibitions at UK museums?https://twitter.com/TheSineadBurke/status/1129486417787334656?s=19 Nah, didn't think so.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)