(April 26, 2019 at 2:12 pm)Shell B Wrote: Oh, please. That is hardly "victim" blaming. Sometimes, a wrong is done, but there is no one who can rightfully be called a victim.

BRAVO!!!




Tell that to the guy who ends up in the hospital.

(April 26, 2019 at 1:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 12:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The point being, there are indeed groups of sounds that make for acceptable violence.  Agreeing to a boxing match, for instance. 

Which the person in the video emphatically did not agree to and, yet, got one against multiple opponents, as a "response".
An agreement of the kind you suggest presents the violence as a mutual understanding, a contract, instead of a response to the sounds.

(April 26, 2019 at 12:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But, more on topic, when someone is called a vile, hateful, despicable word which has been a symbol of oppression for centuries, and is still used by those who think black people are less than human, a violent response is to be expected (and I have no problem with punch-throwers being brought up on charges). 

That a violent response is to be expected, I don't doubt. Emotion runs high with such charged words.
But you then expect the violent party to be responsible for what they did... interesting.
So, if the violent one is responsible, then, when you're saying that (or agree with) the best way to avoid this violence is by not saying the charged words, you are essentially victim-blaming. Is that it?

I didn't say the violent person is responsible, I said that I had no problem with them being charged with assault.  Dunno how it is where you live, but here there's something in the law here called 'egregious provocation'.  The assaulter would need to demonstrate in court that the provocation which led to the assault was, well, egregious (to be fair, it is most often used in self defense cases, which this clearly wasn't).  Anyone who is assaulted, for any reason, should have the right to bring charges against the violent party.

I'm not sure how you make the case for victim blaming.  Could you be clearer?

Boru

(April 26, 2019 at 2:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 2:12 pm)Shell B Wrote: Oh, please. That is hardly "victim" blaming. Sometimes, a wrong is done, but there is no one who can rightfully be called a victim.

BRAVO!!!




Tell that to the guy who ends up in the hospital.

I'd never talk to that racist asshole.

(April 26, 2019 at 12:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 11:49 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: If anyone gets assaulted for calling someone the n-word, that's on them.

No.
There is no word, no group of sounds in any language that has physical violence as an acceptable response!
Never.

Not true.

"ABBA"

(April 26, 2019 at 12:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 11:49 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: If anyone gets assaulted for calling someone the n-word, that's on them.

No.
There is no word, no group of sounds in any language that has physical violence as an acceptable response!
Never.

Charge?

(April 26, 2019 at 10:50 am)Yonadav Wrote: Sorry, dude. Your little band of 'heroes' are just a group of young guys who beat up an old man.

Well he wasn't just "some old man". He was a drunken asshole and racist instigator.

Does that warrant the beat-down? No, not in my book. 
But it doesn't evoke any sympathy from me.
He was a drunk who drunkenly decided to insult an entire bar of potentially drunk patrons at the last moment and got roughed up for his trouble.
Racist element aside, this is definitely the sort of shit my brain would normally file under Drunk People Problems.

Am I reading this right? Is somehow physical violence justified by words?

(April 26, 2019 at 12:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 11:49 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: If anyone gets assaulted for calling someone the n-word, that's on them.

No.
There is no word, no group of sounds in any language that has physical violence as an acceptable response!
Never.

What about "Time to die, bitch!"?

(April 26, 2019 at 4:49 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 10:50 am)Yonadav Wrote: Sorry, dude. Your little band of 'heroes' are just a group of young guys who beat up an old man.

Well he wasn't just "some old man". He was a drunken asshole and racist instigator.

Does that warrant the beat-down? No, not in my book. 
But it doesn't evoke any sympathy from me.
He was a drunk who drunkenly decided to insult an entire bar of potentially drunk patrons at the last moment and got roughed up for his trouble.
Racist element aside, this is definitely the sort of shit my brain would normally file under Drunk People Problems.

Was he drunk? I don't know. Do you know that? He was angry. He was saying something about one of them nearly running him over.
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him either. His conduct was certainly disorderly. Racist instigator? I don't know. People use the most offensive words they can come up with when they are angry. That doesn't make them racist instigators. It just makes them angry people who are saying hurtful things. If he's a racist instigator, then so are a whole bunch of black people who say racist things about white people when they get angry. But I usually don't see them as racist instigators. I just see them as being angry people who are intentionally saying offensive things because they are angry.

(April 26, 2019 at 4:55 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(April 26, 2019 at 12:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: No.
There is no word, no group of sounds in any language that has physical violence as an acceptable response!
Never.

What about "Time to die, bitch!"?

"Your money or your life." Because if they get one they'll just want the other.