(April 26, 2019 at 12:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(April 26, 2019 at 12:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You pay first.
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?
