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

[madog]

Yes violence is incorrect, but someone that purposefully uses speech in a manner that makes violence more likely shares in the resposibility .... There 

Now  ... You know I could probably go into any thread in this forum and turn the conversation into its never right to use violence ... Maybe another thread rather than sidelining a serious issue 'Hate speech' ?

[tackattack]

I think @pocaracas sold me on this point, I think it's put very well in these two quotes

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.

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?

So...empower that attitude?

It will encourage them in the short term, because the reason they use it is to get a reaction. They'll keep escalating to get the reaction because they're not being rational but reactionary. If you keep feeding them reactions I see it as the same as continuing to bend the rules for your kids. Give an inch it fuels their reason for doing it and proves they can get what they want if they push hard enough, also fortifying their belief that escalation is rational. The reasons should be what's addressed. The actions should be immediately curtailed and sources addressed.

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

I was about to commend you till I reached this ridiculousness, and I don't mean the unicorns. We never just deal  with anything as it is. Observing something changes it.  Everything we see and do is affected by us and affects us. You are either making it worse or better. Not doing anything is an action. You have to look at your own house  and see if you're really promoting what you believe will make things better or not.  Have you bullied? Do you bandy for irresponsible/hateful free speech? Do you promote emotionalism/irrationality that leads to violence? Not to say you do any of these things, because it's not my place to judge and frankly I'm too busy to do the research. They're just some questions, not just for you but for all.

[pocaracas]

Yes violence is incorrect, but someone that purposefully uses speech in a manner that makes violence more likely shares in the resposibility .... There 

Can I use the short skirt example again?
"someone that purposefully uses [short skirts] in a manner that makes [rape] more likely shares in the resposibility "

Victim blaming.

[madog]

Yes violence is incorrect, but someone that purposefully uses speech in a manner that makes violence more likely shares in the resposibility .... There 

Can I use the short skirt example again?
"someone that purposefully uses [short skirts] in a manner that makes [rape] more likely shares in the resposibility "

Victim blaming.

Apples and oranges  .... unless you think wearing a miniskirt is wrong?

Do you accept calling a black guy the N word makes him the victim?

If so your stance is ....  if a black guy beats up a white guy and the white guy responds by calling the attacker an N word, saying beating up the white guy is wrong is 'victim blaming'

Think about it ....

Big fucking difference when both parties are both attackers and victims ....

[Shell B]

Meh. It's cultural. Around here, it's expected that you'll get popped in the face if you run your mouth. It's a great deterrent. 100% peaceful folk disagree, but I'd like to see you shut someone up as fast as a Beantown tough guy can. Just sayin'.

I'm a much more peaceful person in my adulthood than I was in my youth. However, even in the scrappy old days, the world never ended when someone got hit, so relax.

[pocaracas]

Can I use the short skirt example again?
"someone that purposefully uses [short skirts] in a manner that makes [rape] more likely shares in the resposibility "

Victim blaming.

Apples and oranges  .... unless you think wearing a miniskirt is wrong?

It's about as wrong as saying a word, I guess... perhaps wronger, given that words are wind and have a very ephemeral permanence, while the sight of the lady's legs has more staying power.

Do you accept calling a black guy the N word makes him the victim?

What?! Why??
Do you think that me calling you any offensive word, like asshole, idiot, stupid, etc... makes you a victim? A victim of what?

If so your stance is ....  if a black guy beats up a white guy and the white guy responds by calling the attacker an N word, saying beating up the white guy is wrong is 'victim blaming'

Think about it ....

Big fucking difference when both parties are both attackers and victims ....

Huh?!
Are you sure you wrote what you wanted to say?
The guy who initiates violence is the one to blame. The one on the other end of that violence is the victim.

[madog]

Huh?!
Are you sure you wrote what you wanted to say?
The guy who initiates violence is the one to blame. The one on the other end of that violence is the victim.

Well if you don't accept that the recipient of the N word is a victim nothing I say will make sense 

---

Victim blaming.

forgot to add this .....

If there are two victims, the one initiating an attack may not have mitigating circumstances, the person attacked certainly does  .... 

Seems you have decided who the victim is ....

[Aegon]

I think this thread is due for a little split.

[Athene]

Yes violence is incorrect, but someone that purposefully uses speech in a manner that makes violence more likely shares in the resposibility .... There 

Can I use the short skirt example again?
"someone that purposefully uses [short skirts] in a manner that makes [rape] more likely shares in the resposibility "

Victim blaming.

No. Putting on a skirt is an apparel choice, not an abusive behavior.

Let's not forget that Just Some Bully's verbally abusive tirade was being ignored/dismissed to start with.
His response was to further escalate the situation by resorting to hate speech and attempting dehumanize and humiliate every person in that bar with black skin.

His behavior was clearly in breach of the peace, to my observation. In Virginia, he could have easily been charged with Curse and Abuse. 

If he didn't want violence, he shouldn't have engaged in vile and likely unlawful behavior to such a degree. 
Common sense.

You can call that victim-blaming if you like, but the truth is he chose to continue to aggressively infringe on rights of strangers to go about their lives and peacefully mind their business free from abuse; verbal or otherwise. Just Some Bully was not the sole victim in that scenario.

[pocaracas]

Can I use the short skirt example again?
"someone that purposefully uses [short skirts] in a manner that makes [rape] more likely shares in the resposibility "

Victim blaming.

No. Putting on a skirt is an apparel choice, not an abusive behavior.

I know that.
But that's the spin that people put on when they do victim blaming - The victim was at fault for their own "misfortune".

Let's not forget that Just Some Bully's verbally abusive tirade was being ignored/dismissed to start with.
His response was to further escalate the situation by resorting to hate speech and attempting dehumanize and humiliate every person in that bar with black skin.

And the appropriate behavior would have been to continue ignoring.

His behavior was clearly in breach of the peace, to my observation. In Virginia, he could have easily been charged with Curse and Abuse. 

And so, you think it's not too bad if those fine folk took the law (let's say that it was happening in Virginia) into their own hands, huh?
Most countries have a law against that sort of thing.

If he didn't want violence, he shouldn't have engaged in vile and likely unlawful behavior to such a degree. 
Common sense.

Victim blaming at its finest.

I'm not saying what the man did was right, it was insulting to a large degree and was wide open to be insulted back.
But it was just words. And one single word triggered everyone at once. That one word. Had it been the first word out of his mouth, he would have probably not been able to say any other. It's that one word that americans seem to have classed as "hate speech and attempting dehumanize and humiliate every person [...] with black skin", right?
One word, somehow magically does all that, right?
You know, I'm under the impression that practically ALL insults have some of those goals, if not all.

Here's an example:
"son of a bitch" - literally calling the guy a dog, an non-human animal that walks on 4 legs and eats its own poop AND is applicable to anyone, regardless of skin color. How does this insult not get the same or even worse visceral reactions on video?!
It ticks almost all the boxes: dehumanizing, check! humiliate, check!, hate speech, check! Applies to everyone, not just those with black skin, so it should even have a greater prevalence in the violence in exchange for words video catalog... does it?

But that one word has the magical power to be worse than this insult I presented, just because it... what?... while implying the same basic things, is targeted at people with at least a given level of skin shade??

Can you guys understand how I view the reaction we see in that video (and your acceptance of it) as excessive?

You can call that victim-blaming if you like, but the truth is he chose to continue to aggressively infringe on rights of strangers to go about their lives and peacefully mind their business free from abuse; verbal or otherwise. Just Some Bully was not the sole victim in that scenario.

In that case in particular, it seems like he was nearly run over by a car driven by those "strangers going about their lives and peacefully minding their own business"... and was understandably pissed about it and made it known... not by the smartest choice of words, but there you go.
Words as a response for a near miss like that is acceptable. Violence for words is not.

Physical assault due solely to verbal aggression is an excessive response in any case.
^this is what I've been saying all along.

And, if your society feels mostly ok with violence being an appropriate response to a few choice words, then I think this is a problem in your society that needs some attention.