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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't know exactly what transpired before the confrontation. The white guy is angry and says some stuff about one of them having apparently almost run him over with their car. As a person who walks or bicycles everywhere, I have had that sort of experience in which a motorist almost kills me, then parks nearby, and I follow them into the establishment and confront them about their careless driving that nearly cost me my life. Generally, all that I'm looking for is an apology, but the careless driver who almost killed me frequently is unapologetic. It gets nasty sometimes.

He called them a hurtful name. And yes, it was racist. But that didn't give them the right to assault him. It certainly didn't give them the right to assault him in numbers. It was pretty cowardly of them to attack one old guy with such numbers. 

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but name calling doesn't give anyone the right to assault people. Especially when it is several relatively young and strong men beating up some old guy. That's real brave, man!

I've had people call me a [sexual orientation slur redacted]. I've had people tell me that they fucked my mother last night. Angry people have said the most horrible things that they could think of to me. None of that has ever given me the right to assault anyone. The only time that I have ever assaulted anyone in an angry confrontation was when they initiated the assault-- they touched me threateningly, or spit on me, or did some other thing that was unambiguously an assault. Calling me names just doesn't give me the right to attack or counter attack. And if I lead a group of young strong guys in a group assault on one old man, I definitely belong in jail.

Sorry, dude. Your little band of 'heroes' are just a group of young guys who beat up an old man.

If anyone gets assaulted for calling someone the n-word, that's on them. There's a guaranteed way to avoid an assault for yelling the n-word, any guess as to what it is?

*raises hand frantically*  Ooo, I know, I know!!

Boru

[pocaracas]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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, 'I will give you $1000 to punch me in the face'?

Boru

[pocaracas]

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

What about, 'I will give you $1000 to punch me in the face'?

Boru

You pay first.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What about, 'I will give you $1000 to punch me in the face'?

Boru

You pay first.

The point being, there are indeed groups of sounds that make for acceptable violence.  Agreeing to a boxing match, for instance. 

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). 

Boru

[Silver]

Meanwhile, on Netflix:

---

---

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Meanwhile, on Netflix:

---

---

The New Negroes with Baron Vaughn & Open Mike Eagle is a socially aware stand-up and music series. Vaughn and Eagle took inspiration for the series and title from the term "New Negro," as popularized during the Harlem Renaissance, and it refers to black Americans speaking up, telling their own stories and affirming their various identities to dismantle outdated assumptions and beliefs.

Sounds OK.

Boru

[Shell B]

I think a few people here could benefit from giving it a watch.

[pocaracas]

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.

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?

[Shell B]

Oh, please. That is hardly "victim" blaming. Sometimes, a wrong is done, but there is no one who can rightfully be called a victim.