Dudley was set to start a new internship today at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Aguilar said, and had been looking forward to an upcoming wedding and friends visiting from out of town next week.
“He was so excited about being a part of that,” Aguilar said. “I know this man … there was no indication of this.”
Unfortunately, a lot of suicides seem to come out of nowhere. So, all I want to say here is that just because it was unexpected doesn’t provide evidence against suicide.
People probably don’t realize the degree to which other people put up fronts in public.
Man, sad to see a soul go
Unsurprisingly, the article is way more reasonable than the Facebook propaganda.
San Francisco seems like one of the least likely places for a gay lynching.
Or one of the most likely places for bigots from elsewhere to go in order to find gay people to lynch.
First, this is just a callous thing to say and undermines a very real fear for people all over. Perceived stereotypes should play no role in how likely a crime may have been.
Second, San Francisco, for all the reputation it has as being progressive and left leaning, may be those things on average, but individually has an extremely wide range of polarized views. Especially if you consider neighboring towns, the progressive aspects of the Bay quickly fall off into the very libertarian Silicon Valley and further into the extreme right as you reach central California. It’s a dense and politically diverse place.
Usually if it was a lynching there would be signs of struggle/other physical trauma. I don’t know all of the facts but am open to either possibility, but San Francisco seems like an unlikely place to cover it up. Sometimes suicidal thoughts come on very quickly. It has happened to me. Thankfully that was a very long time ago.
The article states the medical examiner declined to confirm the cause of death actually, so whether or not there were signs of struggle is still up in the air. Why might the examiner have declined to confirm? Is that a common?
They usually don’t confirm anything until they’ve completed their examination/investigation. That can take way longer than people think. There was a woman here who committed suicide and people were speculating that her ex actually killed her so the case was getting a ton of attention, and it took months for the coroner’s office to release their final results. Another woman definitely was murdered by her husband a couple years ago. Her remains were found last September and the results were just announced a couple weeks ago. It’s totally normal that they wouldn’t say anything in this case yet.
Yeah, hanging one’s self is a very common suicide method. This probably requires more evidence than just “it could have happened, therefore it did happen”
SF has taken a weird turn to Musk/Thiel style bullshit recently.
deleted by creator
I’m in the avenues and our school community is ocean beach. It’s a weird conservative fake libertarian vibe lately.
The post makes it seem like these 2 things are connected when they aren’t. These events are over 400 miles away from each other. If this was the wast coast they would be 2 states away from each other.
Besides if you ware a mob killing a queer man you don’t play that off like a suicide. It would be a slur tagged nearby to send a message.
Now would I believe a gay man would really create a scene for their suicide? Yes. 💯
It’s still sad, but far fetched to relate the 2 events.
I’m not denying that the media is controled by horrible powerful people, but to claim this was a lynching appears to be bullshit. I’m gonna ban this community. I like the agenda. But spreading disinformation makes you just as bas as msm.
Yeah it only takes a minute of reading to see this is ragebait
Fuck OP, fuck disinformation
The news is owned by billionaires.
And, as long as we keep voting for the two ruling parties, it’s going to stay that way.
It takes money to fight money the legal way. Unless you can somehow crowdsource enough from a class that’s mostly living paycheck to paycheck the only real alternative to meaningful change is through violence.
No. We can become organized. We have a right to assemble, we have a right to free speech, we have a right to bear arms, etc., of course the institutions that hold executive power will try and suppress those rights, but since you mentioned legality, we have the legal right to organize ourselves against oppression. The violence historically comes from the people who hold power, not the people who demand justice.
You certainly can try.
Better not vote then!
Edit: SARCASM ALERT!!!1
What they said was true. I understand that people who are committed to voting in this next election are getting abuse from people who are committed to not voting, who seem to either be under the influence of bad actors or are bad actors themselves. If you’ve received this kind of treatment then I can understand why you might be sensitive to those arguments, to the extent that certain arguments are almost always followed up by an appeal as to why voting is pointless. So arguments that claim that both political parties are the same, so don’t vote for either, is an example of this kind of hopelessness, often dressed up like something revolutionary.
Those types of arguments are successful because they sort people into opposing camps, who can only see their enemy at the expense of seeing the truth. Unified in their commitment to dehumanize and mischaracterize the other, and protect the political legitimacy of their camp. This leads to a tendency to delegitimize not only the arguments of the other, but any supporting arguments that they might use. The problem with this is that even if the other camp is full of bad actors who cynically lie to, for example, alter the outcome of an election, the best way to make their lies convincing is to use supporting arguments that are true, or partially true, or based in some truth. While making their lies sound convincing, it has the added benefit (for them) of making their opponents reject these apparent truths; which skews the effectiveness of their opponents own arguments while also making them appear to be liars or delusional themselves, which bad actors will use to illustrate why their own camp is the better one. And this goes back and forth, both sides using the same strategies to the same effect: a tenuous if not completely divorced relationship to truth and the experience of regular uncommitted parties who, upon witnessing this, is further alienated from the discourse, as the discourse has moved away from their own experiences of the real world. In this case, it likely has the effect of disenfranchising voters which is the aim of those bad actors in the first place. While a small group of passionate defenders of voting become more entrenched in their campist positions, they end up participating in and reproducing the conditions of disenfranchisement that our enemies want. We have to fight like hell not to get caught in this trap.
The two major political parties represent the monied interests of the very rich, which has differing ideas about how best to run the country. These groups can be largely defined as the conservative nationalist industrial class and the liberal international financial class. while their interests differ from each other, they represent one class of owner capitalists that rules over the workers, the marginally employed, the poor, and the destitute (which together makes up the working class). At any time, while they squabble with each other, historically they are united in their opposition to giving or sharing wealth or power to the working working class. This doesn’t mean “don’t vote.” It means vote for the one that allows us to continue to organize ourselves against the ruling classes by forming unions to protect the value of our work, and participating in local politics, community work, and political struggle and educate ourselves and each other as a protective measure against the propagandistic media which is owned by members of the above ruling classes. I will vote and I will advocate that others should as well, buy I’ll also advocate turning off cable news, silencing notifications on our phones and getting involved in community work and political organizing. Both can be true, that we live in a class society and that the political outcomes from elections can have drastic or disastrous consequences.
I agree with pretty much… if not everything… you say.
I should be more careful to add “/s” after comments like mine above.
I’ve read both the post title and the post itself.
I’ve haven’t the foggiest based on the information in either. Am I suppose to feel a way about this?
Riiiiight. Because people lynching someone leave a suicide note on graffiti on a bench with their name. Because angry mobs stop to figure out the person’s name and leave a note. Because they think about consequences
It’s not clear that the graffiti was left at the same time as the hanging. I’m not a suicide expert but “RIP Randy Leo Dudley, too good 4 this world” is not what I’d call a suicide note. My guess is a friend of theirs came later and left it to pay respects. The article mentions “Two of Dudley’s housemates said that he was found … near the mini-park’s slides,” so they knew where Dudley was found.
That said, I’m not convinced this was a lynching. I agree with his sister:
Chanell Dudley said the office had shared details about the manner of Dudley’s death, and that she was inclined to believe the preliminary ruling. She said she is still awaiting a full investigation from the medical examiner, however, and was hoping for “all the facts.”
So you’ve never heard of premeditated murder? Like honestly this is such a dumb argument.
Lynchings are generally not premeditated??
Who the hell said that?
Lynchings are exclusively premeditated.
yeah his roommates clearly wrote that note after his passing…
