Black man harrassed by white neighbors for fishing in his own neighborhood.

[Father Heathen]

Interesting how the knee-jerk reactions of conservatives toward reports of racism, rape, bullying, etc. tend to be apologism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting how the knee-jerk reactions of conservatives toward reports of racism, rape, bullying, etc. tend to be apologism.

And how the liberals have the knee-jerk
reaction of presuming that whites are racist
because it confirms their prejudice.

There....now everyone is fairly dissed.

 

[Orbit]

And how the liberals have the knee-jerk
reaction of presuming that whites are racist
because it confirms their prejudice.

There....now everyone is fairly dissed.

And our cities burn every 25 years because of confirmation bias...

 

[Revoltingest]

And our cities burn every 25 years because of confirmation bias...

It seems more often than that.
The media love to whip people up into a frenzy, eh.

 

[Father Heathen]

And how the liberals have the knee-jerk
reaction of presuming that whites are racist
because it confirms their prejudice.

There....now everyone is fairly dissed.

Whites as in all whites? You believe this to be a common belief among liberals?

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Interesting how the knee-jerk reactions of conservatives toward reports of racism, rape, bullying, etc. tend to be apologism.

As well as deliberate refusal to look at the evidence supplied in this thread to make a case that there is a problem with the specific community of Springwater Plantation (I still can't believe that I had to waste time providing a video transcription which was never fully read anyway by one person who continued to apologize for the Springwater Plantation racist by claiming that he was merely defending his "property line".) Finding fault with the "good people" of Springwater Plantation is not the same as saying that there is a problem with all White people in general (yet nevertheless some in this thread make the presumption that there is a nefarious "liberal agenda" afoot).

 

[Revoltingest]

Whites as in all whites? You believe this to be a common belief among liberals?

I see what you're up to.
Think of it as a tendency for the group.

 

[Father Heathen]

I see what you're up to.
Think of it as a tendency for the group.

All that I'm "up to" is gleaning your meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

All that I'm "up to" is gleaning your meaning.

Right.
I gave it.

 

[Shaul]

Someone else provided the information. He moved in with his dad and apparently didn't update those.
Or do you think Tick Tock counts as a legal document?

Yet the OP article itself is linked to the same page. If it isn't accurate that means that the Claretta Belmany article is based on inaccurate sources.

Wait, didn't you even notice that I linked to the same source as the OP article? By attacking it you just undercut the OP article. Good job! But wait a minute, the article never says he moved in with his father. Therefore you have no basis for claiming that Ms. Bellamy used that for writing he did. So if Ms. Bellamy says he was a resident but the TikTok page she herself used says he lives in Columbus, Georgia, then either she 1) didn't notice the contradiction or 2) failed to explain the obvious discrepancy. In other words she is either incompetent or unprofessional, take your pick. In either case, she is a poor journalist and this article can be discounted as inaccurate and wrong.

Here is an article which says quite clearly that Mr. Gibson only visited his father as a guest and that he lives separately in Columbus, Georgia. White Georgia therapist FIRED for 'harassing' black man for fishing Quoting it, "Gibson, who lives in Columbus, Georgia, has been challenged multiple times by locals in the neighborhood, asking why he is there and saying the lake is for residents only."
AND
"DailyMail.com has discovered that online records show that Gibson's father is registered as a homeowner in the gated community where the incident took place. As per the community's rules, Gibson was permitted to fish in the lake without a license as the guest of a resident." The Daily Mail article states that he is both not a resident and that he used the lake as the guest of his father. Ergo, he did not move in with his father.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet the OP article itself is linked to the same page. If it isn't accurate that means that the Claretta Belmany article is based on inaccurate sources.
View attachment 80204

Wait, didn't you even notice that I linked to the same source as the OP article? By attacking it you just undercut the OP article. Good job! But wait a minute, the article never says he moved in with his father. Therefore you have no basis for claiming that Ms. Bellamy used that for writing he did. So if Ms. Bellamy says he was a resident but the TikTok page she herself used says he lives in Columbus, Georgia, then either she 1) didn't notice the contradiction or 2) failed to explain the obvious discrepancy. In other words she is either incompetent or unprofessional, take your pick. In either case, she is a poor journalist and this article can be discounted as inaccurate and wrong.

Here is an article which says quite clearly that Mr. Gibson only visited his father as a guest and that he lives separately in Columbus, Georgia. White Georgia therapist FIRED for 'harassing' black man for fishing Quoting it, "Gibson, who lives in Columbus, Georgia, has been challenged multiple times by locals in the neighborhood, asking why he is there and saying the lake is for residents only."
AND
"DailyMail.com has discovered that online records show that Gibson's father is registered as a homeowner in the gated community where the incident took place. As per the community's rules, Gibson was permitted to fish in the lake without a license as the guest of a resident." The Daily Mail article states that he is both not a resident and that he used the lake as the guest of his father. Ergo, he did not move in with his father.

Such a pain when someone puts you on ignore. I guess someone needs to remind him that even if what he claims is true that not only did the article in the OP say that the lake was open to anyone with a license or permit. one of his own sources confirmed that. The development could not afford to do the maintenance required by what is probably an artificial lake. His own source had one claim that it had been donated to the city.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet the OP article itself is linked to the same page. If it isn't accurate that means that the Claretta Belmany article is based on inaccurate sources.
View attachment 80204

Wait, didn't you even notice that I linked to the same source as the OP article? By attacking it you just undercut the OP article. Good job! But wait a minute, the article never says he moved in with his father. Therefore you have no basis for claiming that Ms. Bellamy used that for writing he did. So if Ms. Bellamy says he was a resident but the TikTok page she herself used says he lives in Columbus, Georgia, then either she 1) didn't notice the contradiction or 2) failed to explain the obvious discrepancy. In other words she is either incompetent or unprofessional, take your pick. In either case, she is a poor journalist and this article can be discounted as inaccurate and wrong.

Here is an article which says quite clearly that Mr. Gibson only visited his father as a guest and that he lives separately in Columbus, Georgia. White Georgia therapist FIRED for 'harassing' black man for fishing Quoting it, "Gibson, who lives in Columbus, Georgia, has been challenged multiple times by locals in the neighborhood, asking why he is there and saying the lake is for residents only."
AND
"DailyMail.com has discovered that online records show that Gibson's father is registered as a homeowner in the gated community where the incident took place. As per the community's rules, Gibson was permitted to fish in the lake without a license as the guest of a resident." The Daily Mail article states that he is both not a resident and that he used the lake as the guest of his father. Ergo, he did not move in with his father.

Honestly, I don't care. He has permission to be there. He was booted out over it or fined or anything, he was asked fo say it was all just a misunderstanding. You're the one who's clearly spent a considerable amount of time looking stuff up to prive it's not racism amd he'snot supposedto be there but you've not shown he's not supposed to be there. It's only been shown--from multiple angles--he has permission to be there.

 

[Shaul]

Honestly, I don't care. He has permission to be there. He was booted out over it or fined or anything, he was asked fo say it was all just a misunderstanding. You're the one who's clearly spent a considerable amount of time looking stuff up to prive it's not racism amd he'snot supposedto be there but you've not shown he's not supposed to be there. It's only been shown--from multiple angles--he has permission to be there.

Ah, but you are missing the most important points. In the end, as you express, Mr. Gibson and this story itself is not that important. What is important is how we have reacted to it. You chose to accept the story as present unquestioningly and furthermore once it was proven what you accepted was wrong you continued to accept it despite that. In other words you failed to learn anything in the end. I chose to examine the story and learned more about it and about how those that accept things uncritically think. Even now you presume to know what my motivations were, got them wrong, and continue in your misconceptions about Mr. Gibson and his motivations whether those are true or false. You ascribe to others motivations you patently can't know are correct and refuse to even acknowledge you could be wrong. And I can say with certainly that you are wrong in your statement about my motivations. So, there you go. Shalom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, but you are missing the most important points. In the end, as you express, Mr. Gibson and this story itself is not that important. What is important is how we have reacted to it. You chose to accept the story as present unquestioningly and furthermore once it was proven what you accepted was wrong you continued to accept it despite that. In other words you failed to learn anything in the end. I chose to examine the story and learned more about it and about how those that accept things uncritically think. Even now you presume to know what my motivations were, got them wrong, and continue in your misconceptions about Mr. Gibson and his motivations whether those are true or false. You ascribe to others motivations you patently can't know are correct and refuse to even acknowledge you could be wrong. And I can say with certainly that you are wrong in your statement about my motivations. So, there you go. Shalom.

I think that is a bit of projection on your part. People supporting him were not afraid to look into it.

Now you may be assuming that because you probably ignore the sources that others use that they will do the same to you. I do not do that. I very often check the sources of others. That is how so many of them can be refuted as you were. You barely read the headline of one of your sources. When one read the whole thing it was explained how it was no longer a private lake. Hoisted by your own petard.