Plan B Forum

I think Most likely he considered her racist because she wouldn’t give him her phone number, but that’s completely invalid. A girl, or anyone, for that matter, has an absolute right to choose who they want to date or interact with. No one has the right to question that choice, let alone attack them for it.



Sickening video shows NYC teen stomp on girl’s head— after she refused to give him her number

https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/us-news/s ... er-number/

I don't think it's a hate crime. He didn't attack her for being a woman or for being white. He attacked her for rejecting him.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 25, 2026 2:54 am

I don't think it's a hate crime. He didn't attack her for being a woman or for being white. He attacked her for rejecting him.

Well, I am not surprised. My prediction was pretty close. I thought it was possible that no one would respond, but if anyone did, it would be you, Joe, and maybe Big. Unlike some, you have the brass balls, not afraid to say what you think. I figured the others would be too afraid to be honest. And I think I can speak for two of them, Sue and Shit Head. I already know what they would say: She had it coming. She should not have been a racist. She was a racist because she rejected him.

And Joe, the only way to know whether he was motivated by racism is to look at how he treated others in the past. Has he ever done this to a Black girl who rejected him? If not, then It is reasonable to believe racism played a role. You can also tell it Was pre‑planned. They were filming it, and his partner kept saying “Do it,” which suggests he already knew what was going to happen.

In my analysis, it was meant as a warning to other white girls not to say no. That is a reasonable interpretation.

I don't know who you mean by shit head but if it is me, you are totally wrong by your guess. I think NOBODY has this coming.

"Hate Crime?" What is the point of asking?. My own understanding of human nature says this type of action does not happen without lots of hate festering within the individual who is so cruel.

And by the way, I have no objection to being called 'shithead.' When I was a supervisor of individuals doing repetitive labor, some of my favorite and best producing workers called me shithead.

snailgate.

The boy's mother....

lib wrote:

And I think I can speak for two of them, Sue and Shit Head. I already know what they would say: She had it coming. She should not have been a racist. She was a racist because she rejected him.

Sometimes you are beyond vile in your false statements about other people. Your post is a hate crime.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 25, 2026 4:49 pm

I don't know who you mean by shit head but if it is me, you are totally wrong by your guess. I think NOBODY has this coming.

"Hate Crime?" What is the point of asking?. My own understanding of human nature says this type of action does not happen without lots of hate festering within the individual who is so cruel.

And by the way, I have no objection to being called 'shithead.' When I was a supervisor of individuals doing repetitive labor, some of my favorite and best producing workers called me shithead.

snailgate.

No, that is not you. You are not a shithead, and that is not your name. You actually seem to be a pretty pleasant guy, the kind of person you can have a discussion with, disagree with, and not be enemies. I do not know why your employees or troops or whoever it was called you that, but “ a shit head” is the kind of person whose personality is so unpleasant that you want nothing to do with them, and that does not appear to be you.

I cannot see how SH or Sue, or anyone else in this country at least, would think that a woman or a girl does not have the unlimited, unquestionable right to say no. If a girl has to obey a man or a boy, then logically the next step is slavery; if these boys can punish girls for not obeying them, they can force them into things they don't want and treat them like property for fun and profit.

You probably do not remember it because it was only a regional story in Connecticut, but that is how Dennis Paris controlled the women he exploited. He used the same techniques: coercion, force, and punishment. So, it is a fair question to ask whether these boys had a long‑term plan in mind.

Now, I do not want to give the impression that I am totally opposed to prostitution. I am old enough now to understand that just because I do not like something does not mean it has no value. I have learned that I do not have all the answers.

However, after much thought, I have come to one moral conclusion that I feel sure of, and that is that pornography does more harm than good.

I cannot see how SH or Sue, or anyone else in this country at least, would think that a woman or a girl does not have the unlimited, unquestionable right to say no.

Unsurprisingly, lib doubles down on his hate crime.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 26, 2026 6:00 pm

I cannot see how SH or Sue, or anyone else in this country at least, would think that a woman or a girl does not have the unlimited, unquestionable right to say no.

Unsurprisingly, lib doubles down on his hate crime.

How is that hate? It seems fairly accurate to me, at least it matched my prediction.

I cannot see how SH or Sue, or anyone else in this country at least, would think that a woman or a girl does not have the unlimited, unquestionable right to say no.

It’s like you live with your head buried in sand and completely oblivious to the misogyny rampant in our society resulting in stalking, rape, domestic violence and femicide taking place every single day at alarming rates.

Yes, male violence against women is a hate crime - one which transcends all racial categories.

And please, let’s fuck off any whataboutisms re: female violence against men, which does happen and is nothing whatever the same in degree or commonality.

liberty wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 25, 2026 4:05 pm

And I think I can speak for two of them, Sue and Shit Head. I already know what they would say:

Literally your worst attribute (aside from your disgusting racism) is how you constantly imagine you "know" what others would think or say, whether it's "liberals" or "leftists" or Scooter or me.

I am not obligated to respond to everything or even anything you post, especially when it's obvious trolling, which you are terrible at to start with. I chose not to respond to the frank idiocy of your post because I simply have better things to do.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 26, 2026 8:50 pm

I cannot see how SH or Sue, or anyone else in this country at least, would think that a woman or a girl does not have the unlimited, unquestionable right to say no.

It’s like you live with your head buried in sand and completely oblivious to the misogyny rampant in our society resulting in stalking, rape, domestic violence and femicide taking place every single day at alarming rates.

Yes, male violence against women is a hate crime - one which transcends all racial categories.

And please, let’s fuck off any whataboutisms re: female violence against men, which does happen and is nothing whatever the same in degree or commonality.

I actually disagree with nothing you said, except the ‘what‑about‑isms.’ I’m not sure what that refers to, especially in this context. What we’re talking about here is culture, and the many subcultures in our country. I’m simply trying to make the point that in every subculture in this country, certain things should be totally unacceptable, and one of them is beating up women, or anyone for that matter, but especially women and girls.

I know there are a lot of male jerks out there who abuse women, and they need to be dealt with, but I wouldn’t go overboard. I have both boys and girls, grandchildren and great‑grandchildren, and I love them all, male and female. I don’t want my girls abused, and I don’t want my boys accused of something they didn’t do.

The answer is to teach our boys to respect women and to accept the fact that a girl has the right to say no, and she doesn’t need a reason. It will help emphasize to boys not to take it personally if a girl turns them down.

Sue U wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 26, 2026 11:51 pm

liberty wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 25, 2026 4:05 pm

And I think I can speak for two of them, Sue and Shit Head. I already know what they would say:

Literally your worst attribute (aside from your disgusting racism) is how you constantly imagine you "know" what others would think or say, whether it's "liberals" or "leftists" or Scooter or me.

I am not obligated to respond to everything or even anything you post, especially when it's obvious trolling, which you are terrible at to start with. I chose not to respond to the frank idiocy of your post because I simply have better things to do.

Is it my fault that you are predictable, especially on liberal hotspot subjects? For example, you will never see anything critical of a Black person, especially a Black man, with one important caveat: unless he is conservative. Then he’s open to criticism. To be fair, news stories about black men who behave badly generally don’t have a long half life. I’ll just mention R. Kelly, and that should be enough.

Now, why am I “racist ”? Could it be that I refuse to be colorblind? I see what I see. And furthermore, if I can see it, measure it, and make predictions from it, then it’s real. That is essentially the basis of science. People criticize conservatives for being anti science, but liberals can be as well.
I’ll mention one example: Derek Todd Lee. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a serial killer was murdering women in south Louisiana, mostly around Baton Rouge. The police relied on an FBI profile that identified the killer as a white male. They had several suspects but disregarded them because they didn’t fit that profile.

The founder of a DNA analysis company approached the police and said he could give them specific information about the killer based on DNA. Many people were hesitant and didn’t want to use the method. Eventually, the DNA was analyzed. The conclusion was that they were looking for the wrong man; they need to look for an African American and possibly with some American Indian appearance. The analysis also provided a likely description of his appearance.

That led investigators to Derek Todd Lee. His DNA was conclusively linked to samples taken from several crime scenes. So was his conviction racist because the investigation shifted based on appearance? If not for the DNA analysis, he might never have been caught. I remember activists at the time wanting the DNA evidence thrown out

Why are you a racist? Only you know WHY you are anything. You reveal in your posts that you are very 'predictable', tightly bound into accepting data that only confirms your existing opinions on what is reality.

snailgate.

The Village Idiot wrote: ↑

Sun May 03, 2026 1:55 am

I remember activists at the time wanting the DNA evidence thrown out

As usual, anything the village idiot "remembers" turns out to be blatantly false.

It wasn't Lee's DNA that people were seeking to throw out. There were thousands of innocent men whose DNA was collected during the investigation. Police planned to put it all into a database. The men in question objected, and sued to have it all destroyed. They succeeded.

When will the village idiot learn that the truth is always the opposite of what he "remembers".

liberty wrote: ↑

Sun May 03, 2026 1:55 am

.....Now, why am I “racist ”? Could it be that I refuse to be colorblind? I see what I see. And furthermore, if I can see it, measure it, and make predictions from it, then it’s real......

Is this the first time you've admitted here that you're a racist? I don't think I've read all of your comments, so I may have missed it.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Sun May 03, 2026 4:21 am

liberty wrote: ↑

Sun May 03, 2026 1:55 am

.....Now, why am I “racist ”? Could it be that I refuse to be colorblind? I see what I see. And furthermore, if I can see it, measure it, and make predictions from it, then it’s real......

Is this the first time you've admitted here that you're a racist? I don't think I've read all of your comments, so I may have missed it.

I left out a dash or two, but I did use a question mark in the sentence “Now, why am I ‘racist’?” A question mark makes it an interrogative sentence, not a declarative one, so I’m not admitting anything, I’m asking a question. It seems that, given your advanced education from an Ivy League institution, you should know that.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun May 03, 2026 2:17 am

Why are you a racist? Only you know WHY you are anything. You reveal in your posts that you are very 'predictable', tightly bound into accepting data that only confirms your existing opinions on what is reality.

snailgate.

I am not a racist, because I do not believe in racial inferiority or superiority; I believe all people of all races have potential and ability. What really limits people is culture more than anything else, and often even more than poverty. I know that people like to invent new definitions of racism, but I am sticking with the traditional one. You consider me a racist because I am not afraid to challenge things, and I have no taboos. Everything is open for investigation and discussion, and when people want to look the other way, I tend to examine a situation even more closely.

Do you remember the Michael Brown case, the Black man who was shot by a police officer in Ferguson? The officer was Darren Wilson. Many liberals wanted him charged with murder; however, several investigations using forensic evidence found conclusively that there were no grounds to charge him. All the evidence aligned with what the officer said, yet activists still wanted him charged with murder even though there was no supporting evidence, and some still refer to it as murder.

Is that not a form of racism, bias, or at least bigotry in the loose sense? He was treated as guilty simply because he was a white police officer.

Here’s the way I see the world, I am only concerned with what is objective, what is real. Other than God, whom I accept without proof, everything else in the world has to prove itself. I see what I see; if that offends someone’s sacred cow, that is unfortunate. That is not my intent to harm anyone, but I will not look away when I perceive something. My perception may be flawed, that is possible, but I am still going to comment on it, analyze it, and think about it.

You claim to be concerned with what is objective, but you post things claiming them to be fact because you "remember" them, when in fact those recollections are blatantly false. Everything else in the world has to prove itself to you, but you never provide any proof for what you "remember" and present as fact.