[split] PSA: Hate Speech (discussion of video etc)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's totally understandable, it's not like you can refer to the actions in the video as senseless violence.   I don't think anyone is confused about the derogatory use of the N-words possibility of resulting in violence.

Just to make it clear for someone who asked this earlier... was it boru?

That's like saying that no one is confused about the provocative use of miniskirt's possibility of resulting in rape. (not sure about the grammatical correctness here, but I hope the point gets through)
It's not senseless rape... it's provoked, clearly!    

Right.  Consider the eerie similarities between miniskirts and the n-word:

-Miniskirt wearers were taken from their homes and sold into slavery.

-Miniskirt wearers were treated no better than farm animals for 400 years.

-Since brute force and lynchings are no longer acceptable, the miniskirt vote is repressed by gerrymandering and voter ID laws targeting people in miniskirt-heavy districts

-The term 'miniskirter' has such vile connotations that it is (almost) universally shunned as being unusually derogatory, defamatory and dehumanizing.

-The term 'miniskirter' (sorry to keep using the word without censoring) has bigots, racists and longskirters constructing long, convoluted, insane arguments as to why they should be allowed to use it.

-Secret and not-so-secret societies exist for the express purpose of denying civil rights to people in miniskirts.

-Miniskirt wearers are disproportionately imprisoned and given harsher sentences than longskirters.

Yeah.  They're the same.

Boru

[Shell B]

Are you saying there was only one victim?

In that video?... One ended in the hospital, the others heard a word at a decibel level that was not even uncomfortable. Totally similar outcomes, huh?

I'm easily one of this forum's biggest proponents for not treating words like they carry too much weight. Get called a twatwaffle? Suck it up, sugar tits. That kind of stuff is just nonsense. The n-word is linked to fucking centuries of slavery, abuse, dehumanization, disenfranchisement, engineered poverty and so fucking much more. You might argue that today's black people have never been slaves, and I would say that is correct, but remember that you can separate slavery from this generation by two long lifetimes. It's the kind of shit that sits in the collective memory. Black people are raised knowing that it wasn't long at all since some of the white population treated them worse than I treat my animals. Then, you have the deep racism we've fought to shake since then. This is a very weighty word, even to those of us who toss out offensive words like candy. Should saying it get you punched? Maybe not, but you're definitely being disingenuous when you say it's just a word at a comfortable decibel. You know it too.

[pocaracas]

Just to make it clear for someone who asked this earlier... was it boru?

That's like saying that no one is confused about the provocative use of miniskirt's possibility of resulting in rape. (not sure about the grammatical correctness here, but I hope the point gets through)
It's not senseless rape... it's provoked, clearly!    

Right.  Consider the eerie similarities between miniskirts and the n-word:

-Miniskirt wearers were taken from their homes and sold into slavery.

-Miniskirt wearers were treated no better than farm animals for 400 years.

-Since brute force and lynchings are no longer acceptable, the miniskirt vote is repressed by gerrymandering and voter ID laws targeting people in miniskirt-heavy districts

-The term 'miniskirter' has such vile connotations that it is (almost) universally shunned as being unusually derogatory, defamatory and dehumanizing.

-The term 'miniskirter' (sorry to keep using the word without censoring) has bigots, racists and longskirters constructing long, convoluted, insane arguments as to why they should be allowed to use it.

-Secret and not-so-secret societies exist for the express purpose of denying civil rights to people in miniskirts.

-Miniskirt wearers are disproportionately imprisoned and given harsher sentences than longskirters.

Yeah.  They're the same.

Boru

Clearly the shoe fits.

Just look at all the things you had to pull out to justify a visceral violent reaction to hearing a word.
As if any of those make it ok to use violence upon hearing a word.
As if it's the utterer of the word that is guilty and responsible for getting beat up when those who hear the word become violent.
Victim blaming is the name of that.

Wearers of miniskirts, aka women, were chattel for millennia, were less than human for millennia, were sold by their parents for millennia, were denied civil rights for millennia. So yeah, they're comparable.
Wearers of miniskirts have, however had some one hundred years to forget...
The others, however, are being conditioned to consider that word as worthy of a violent response... And society around them is accepting such a reaction as "natural".

I say you are endorsing violence through victim blaming, so shame on you!

I'm not saying it's ok to say the word, given the shitty past it represents and the far from ideal present. But I'm saying that accepting violence as a response to hearing the word is not the best attitude that society can take on its way to doing away with the racist intent with which it is often (but not always) used.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I say you are endorsing violence through victim blaming, so shame on you!

I'm not saying it's ok to say the word, given the shitty past it represents and the far from ideal present. But I'm saying that accepting violence as a response to hearing the word is not the best attitude that society can take on its way to doing away with the racist intent with which it is often (but not always) used.

You can say I'm endorsing violence all you like, it won't make it true.  You have either missed or chosen to ignore the bit where I said that I would have no problem if the young men in the video were brought up on charges (personally, I probably would have thrown a punch at 'punk-ass motherfucker', but that's just me).  If I were truly victim blaming, I would be contending that the young men who beat up that idiot did nothing wrong.  That's not the case.

I agree with the second paragraph above - it is definitely not the best way to deal with racism.  And I'm absolutely not accepting violence as a response, but anyone who uses that word in that manner should certainly expect violence.  Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair, but that's the world we live in.

Boru

[pocaracas]

I say you are endorsing violence through victim blaming, so shame on you!

I'm not saying it's ok to say the word, given the shitty past it represents and the far from ideal present. But I'm saying that accepting violence as a response to hearing the word is not the best attitude that society can take on its way to doing away with the racist intent with which it is often (but not always) used.

You can say I'm endorsing violence all you like, it won't make it true.  You have either missed or chosen to ignore the bit where I said that I would have no problem if the young men in the video were brought up on charges (personally, I probably would have thrown a punch at 'punk-ass motherfucker', but that's just me).  If I were truly victim blaming, I would be contending that the young men who beat up that idiot did nothing wrong.  That's not the case.

I agree with the second paragraph above - it is definitely not the best way to deal with racism.  And I'm absolutely not accepting violence as a response, but anyone who uses that word in that manner should certainly expect violence.  Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair, but that's the world we live in.

Boru

Well then, change the world you live in and stop teaching these guys that people understand (and almost feel compelled to turn a blind eye, judging by some things I've read here) if they react violently at the sound of this particular word.

Teach them that violence is never ok and, as always, the best way to deal with a bully whose power comes from spouting a word is to ignore him/her.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can say I'm endorsing violence all you like, it won't make it true.  You have either missed or chosen to ignore the bit where I said that I would have no problem if the young men in the video were brought up on charges (personally, I probably would have thrown a punch at 'punk-ass motherfucker', but that's just me).  If I were truly victim blaming, I would be contending that the young men who beat up that idiot did nothing wrong.  That's not the case.

I agree with the second paragraph above - it is definitely not the best way to deal with racism.  And I'm absolutely not accepting violence as a response, but anyone who uses that word in that manner should certainly expect violence.  Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair, but that's the world we live in.

Boru

Well then, change the world you live in and stop teaching these guys that people understand (and almost feel compelled to turn a blind eye, judging by some things I've read here) if they react violently at the sound of this particular word.

Teach them that violence is never ok and, as always, the best way to deal with a bully whose power comes from spouting a word is to ignore him/her.

Because I can understand the violence doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of it.

'Violence is never ok' is rather a stupid position to take, don't you think?

I can think of a lot better ways to deal with a bully than by ignoring him.

Boru

[pocaracas]

Well then, change the world you live in and stop teaching these guys that people understand (and almost feel compelled to turn a blind eye, judging by some things I've read here) if they react violently at the sound of this particular word.

Teach them that violence is never ok and, as always, the best way to deal with a bully whose power comes from spouting a word is to ignore him/her.

Because I can understand the violence doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of it.

---

A bit of on-topic off topic

Apply this to a god who allegedly understands everything and square that with the existence of a hell.

---

If you disapprove of it, then say so loudly.
As it is, it seems like you're saying that the justice system has something to do about the violent ones, but society is mostly saying "you did good in beating up that racist". This attitude will only increase the violence.
If we have video of it happening, then I imagine people are rising up violently over this particular word quite frequently. They're being led to believe by the society around them that it's an acceptable and even expected reaction and that not doing so is wrong or a show of weakness. Is this the society you want to live in?

'Violence is never ok' is rather a stupid position to take, don't you think?

No, I do not think it's a stupid position to take.
Call me an idealist, but I do believe that mankind can live in peace.
"Violence is ok" is a rather stupid position to take, don't you think?

I can think of a lot better ways to deal with a bully than by ignoring him.

If you are to change society, that is to change all bullies, ignoring them is one of the best ways to silence them forever.
Keep giving them the spotlight, keep reacting to their insults, keep applauding those who react to those insults, and you'll keep reinforcing the bully attitude.
Take the power away from the word, by ignoring it, and the bullies will stop using it.... maybe they'll come up with other insults or other bullying tactics - but those are to be dealt with when they come.

I'll reiterate, telling people "don't use this word or suffer the consequences" is victim blaming and far from the best way to deal with the situation.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you disapprove of it, then say so loudly.

I thought I was.  By saying the young men should be brought up on charges.  But I get it:  It isn't enough for me to disapprove of their behavior - I have to do so in a manner and at a volume acceptable to you.  I'll try and do better.

 

As it is, it seems like you're saying that the justice system has something to do about the violent ones, but society is mostly saying "you did good in beating up that racist".

I'm hardly accountable for what society says.  While beating up racists is not always a bad thing, it was in this instance.

This attitude will only increase the violence.

You may be right.

 

If we have video of it happening, then I imagine people are rising up violently over this particular word quite frequently. They're being led to believe by the society around them that it's an acceptable and even expected reaction and that not doing so is wrong or a show of weakness. Is this the society you want to live in?

I suspect you're putting too much emphasis on the likelihood of their actions being reasoned out. What happened was a visceral reaction, not a rational one.

No, I do not think it's a stupid position to take.
Call me an idealist, but I do believe that mankind can live in peace.
"Violence is ok" is a rather stupid position to take, don't you think?

If I had said 'violence is always ok', I'd agree with you.  But to claim violence is never ok doesn't hold up.  Would you commit a violent act to save someone else from injury or death?  There was a news story a few weeks ago about a woman on a train being repeated kicked by a man.  The other passengers leapt into action - they all got their phones out.

So I would probably agree with the statement, 'Violence is sometimes OK.'

If you are to change society, that is to change all bullies, ignoring them is one of the best ways to silence them forever.

Then again, it might just encourage them.  If they think they can use the word with impunity (which is what you're suggesting), might that not lead them to stronger language and stronger actions?

Keep giving them the spotlight, keep reacting to their insults, keep applauding those who react to those insults, and you'll keep reinforcing the bully attitude.

So...empower that attitude?

Take the power away from the word, by ignoring it, and the bullies will stop using it.... maybe they'll come up with other insults or other bullying tactics - but those are to be dealt with when they come.

Brilliant!  Bring back lynching and we'll worry about it when it happens.

I'll reiterate, telling people "don't use this word or suffer the consequences" is victim blaming and far from the best way to deal with the situation.

But I'm not telling anyone that.  I'm telling them, 'If you use this word, you can expect consequences, because people have visceral reactions to hate speech.'  But I'm also telling people who react violently, 'If you do, you deserved to be charged with assault and you may go to jail for your trouble.'

I would like nothing better to live in a violence-free world, where everyone is rational, whether there are no bullies, and hate speech is a shameful reminder of our forgotten past. 

Then again, I'd also like to live in a world where unicorns fart rainbows and puke leprechaun gold.  But until that happens, I'll deal with the world as it is.

Boru

[pocaracas]

If you disapprove of it, then say so loudly.

I thought I was.  By saying the young men should be brought up on charges.  But I get it:  It isn't enough for me to disapprove of their behavior - I have to do so in a manner and at a volume acceptable to you.  I'll try and do better.

There you go. All caps sometimes works.

As it is, it seems like you're saying that the justice system has something to do about the violent ones, but society is mostly saying "you did good in beating up that racist".

I'm hardly accountable for what society says.  While beating up racists is not always a bad thing, it was in this instance.

Que???
You are part of society. Yes, you are not the sole responsible for what society says, but you are a part of it. Be the part that aims at what you want, instead of the part that passively accepts it as it is.

And when is beating up someone not a bad thing?
As self defense? That's just because the other person just initiated the violence.

If we have video of it happening, then I imagine people are rising up violently over this particular word quite frequently. They're being led to believe by the society around them that it's an acceptable and even expected reaction and that not doing so is wrong or a show of weakness. Is this the society you want to live in?

I suspect you're putting too much emphasis on the likelihood of their actions being reasoned out. What happened was a visceral reaction, not a rational one.

True, it was visceral.
How many wife beaters or rapists have done so out of a visceral reaction?

No, I do not think it's a stupid position to take.
Call me an idealist, but I do believe that mankind can live in peace.
"Violence is ok" is a rather stupid position to take, don't you think?

If I had said 'violence is always ok', I'd agree with you.  But to claim violence is never ok doesn't hold up.  Would you commit a violent act to save someone else from injury or death?  There was a news story a few weeks ago about a woman on a train being repeated kicked by a man.  The other passengers leapt into action - they all got their phones out.

So I would probably agree with the statement, 'Violence is sometimes OK.'

sigh...
Violence as a means to quell a violent act is one thing.
We're talking here about initiating that violence. It is never ok to initiate violence. There... sorry for the initial imprecision.

If you are to change society, that is to change all bullies, ignoring them is one of the best ways to silence them forever.

Then again, it might just encourage them.  If they think they can use the word with impunity (which is what you're suggesting), might that not lead them to stronger language and stronger actions?

Stronger Language? What does that mean? more harsh words, none of them, it seems, are remotely as harsh as the n word? Wow, that must be something very traumatic to hear. A trauma comparable to a broken rib, at least, huh?!

Stronger actions? Then the blame is on the violence initiator.

Impunity... your wording denotes that you believe the use of such a word deserves some punishment.
Do you really believe that anyone is going to use a word that no one cares about? As long as society tells people that it's ok to have that visceral reaction, they will have it. As long as society tells people that the use of a word deserves to be punished, they will punish it. As long as society tells people that the word carries this and that baggage, people will use it and other people will feel attacked by it.

If you want a word to lose its baggage, ignore it.
If you want it to retain that baggage, people will keep having these visceral reactions... it's clearly been working out well, huh?

Keep giving them the spotlight, keep reacting to their insults, keep applauding those who react to those insults, and you'll keep reinforcing the bully attitude.

So...empower that attitude?

Ignoring idiots when they say stupid shit is hardly empowering them.

Take the power away from the word, by ignoring it, and the bullies will stop using it.... maybe they'll come up with other insults or other bullying tactics - but those are to be dealt with when they come.

Brilliant!  Bring back lynching and we'll worry about it when it happens.

Back to initiating violence.
Are you just wanting to go to absurd scenarios for the fun of it, or are you seriously interested in discussing the matter?

I'll reiterate, telling people "don't use this word or suffer the consequences" is victim blaming and far from the best way to deal with the situation.

But I'm not telling anyone that.  I'm telling them, 'If you use this word, you can expect consequences, because people have visceral reactions to hate speech.'  But I'm also telling people who react violently, 'If you do, you deserved to be charged with assault and you may go to jail for your trouble.'

I would like nothing better to live in a violence-free world, where everyone is rational, whether there are no bullies, and hate speech is a shameful reminder of our forgotten past. 

And why are people having those visceral reactions to it?
Why are youngsters on that video so full of hate that they need to act violently? What is society telling them?
In this case in particular, it seems that they were the origin of the disrespect, as it seems they nearly ran over a pedestrian with a car. The pedestrian complained and, pissed at them, said the word that triggered them. How does one word trigger people like that?

Then again, I'd also like to live in a world where unicorns fart rainbows and puke leprechaun gold.  But until that happens, I'll deal with the world as it is.

Deal with the world as it is and try to make it better, according to your view, of what better can be.
Maybe the unicorns and leprechauns area not possible, but getting people to stop reacting violently at the sound of a word might be possible. And you do that by talking to people and spreading, for example, the notion that violence is always worse than words and is never an acceptable reaction to hearing a word, any word, regardless of history, insulting scope or emotional charge.
Is it too much to ask for improvement?

[Angrboda]

Just to make it clear for someone who asked this earlier... was it boru?

That's like saying that no one is confused about the provocative use of miniskirt's possibility of resulting in rape. (not sure about the grammatical correctness here, but I hope the point gets through)
It's not senseless rape... it's provoked, clearly!    

Right.  Consider the eerie similarities between miniskirts and the n-word:

-Miniskirt wearers were taken from their homes and sold into slavery.

-Miniskirt wearers were treated no better than farm animals for 400 years.

-Since brute force and lynchings are no longer acceptable, the miniskirt vote is repressed by gerrymandering and voter ID laws targeting people in miniskirt-heavy districts

-The term 'miniskirter' has such vile connotations that it is (almost) universally shunned as being unusually derogatory, defamatory and dehumanizing.

-The term 'miniskirter' (sorry to keep using the word without censoring) has bigots, racists and longskirters constructing long, convoluted, insane arguments as to why they should be allowed to use it.

-Secret and not-so-secret societies exist for the express purpose of denying civil rights to people in miniskirts.

-Miniskirt wearers are disproportionately imprisoned and given harsher sentences than longskirters.

Yeah.  They're the same.

Boru

They don't have to be "the same" to be analogous. Whether the differences are relevant to the similarities and the claimed similarity matters in determining whether it is or is not a valid analogy.

---

I say you are endorsing violence through victim blaming, so shame on you!

I'm not saying it's ok to say the word, given the shitty past it represents and the far from ideal present. But I'm saying that accepting violence as a response to hearing the word is not the best attitude that society can take on its way to doing away with the racist intent with which it is often (but not always) used.

You can say I'm endorsing violence all you like, it won't make it true.  You have either missed or chosen to ignore the bit where I said that I would have no problem if the young men in the video were brought up on charges (personally, I probably would have thrown a punch at 'punk-ass motherfucker', but that's just me).  If I were truly victim blaming, I would be contending that the young men who beat up that idiot did nothing wrong.  That's not the case.

Victim blaming is about the assignment of responsibility to the victim. It doesn't matter if you also assign blame to the perpetrator as that's a non sequitur.