Being a racist while having a soft skull

[arthwollipot]

There's been a lot of interest in Australia about "one punch" killings. With all the cartoon violence on TV and real violence in the street people seem to be unaware of how dangerous "one punch" can be. If the person hit falls and hits their head badly, then the odds are higher than you think it can be fatal.

Yes, it became a big enough problem that it got a lot of political and media attention, and at some point it got rebranded as the "coward punch".

 

[Mumbles]

On the other hand, in regards to the 77 year old victim, you can't be a racist and get to live to 77 without having used that kind of pejorative previously. I'd bet my very last dollar that Old Racist Guy has a history of using pejoratives against Blacks, he will almost certainly have called Black people ******* before... and this time, he picked the wrong victim to racially abuse.

Yup.

Back last summer, know what I did when I saw someone in the store with no mask on?

I left them the hell alone. Couldn't be me fighting some idiot, caught on a cell phone and uploaded to Twitter. Gave them 12 feet and kept it pushin.

Much as people want to talk about howe adults keep their hands to themselves - well, some adults are just violent, and some are just at the end of their rope. That's why a lot of us also learn how to shut the **** up.

"Well he's going to jail" yeah, and the other guy's dead. Sorry for his loved ones. Nothing I can do about it. Can't say I'm sad about it.

 

[smartcooky]

Your third-person hypothetical didn't come through clearly. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
Because... and I'd like to be very clear about this... It is only words.
At the very absolute outside worst, you could potentially hurt my feelings. That's it. Nothing more. The pen is mightier than the sword, only in that the pen can change people's minds through persuasion and reason. The sword coerces obedience through violence and the threat thereof. Words do not cause physical harm.

I'd like to be very clear about this... words have meanings. As an American (well, at least I think you're American) , I would have thought that you would at least be cognisant of your history.

America's history of racism against Blacks is about the worst in the world bar perhaps South Africa. If you truly understood your own history, and what it means to call a Black person the n-word, it might take you closer to some understanding of why its use is so harmful, and why it is a lot more that just a mean or bad word.

These Black people were forcibly kidnapped from their homes - torn from their families and tribes, jammed into boats like sardines in a tin can, Many did not survive the voyage. Those that did were, along with their descendants, condemned to a lifetime of slavery, a lifetime of inhuman and inhumane treatment. White Americans indoctrinated them into accepting their supposed status as subhuman.

Calling someone the n-word is directed abuse that calls back the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of profit and white superiority. Its use is a continuation of the what is known as internalized oppression, the psychological trauma caused when someone from an oppressed group of people believes the hateful things said about them.

Your Library of Congress contains a sort of oral history that was gathered by something called the Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration. This was a program that employed researchers from 1936 to 1938 to interview former enslaved people and to put in writing what their experiences were. The result was over 2,000 written narratives, and those narratives are available to read online.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/sla...s-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

If you want to truly understand where Blacks are coming from, and why they are so badly harmed when they get called the n-word; why they feel so terribly aggrieved and angered; why they cannot just brush it off like they've only been told they are an idiot or a dummy, then you should read some of those narratives. Many of them are harrowing, they do not make easy or comfortable reading, and you do not even have to be American to be impacted by that. They were uncomfortable for me because, as some forum members know, I have a slave trader in my ancestry. If you can truly put yourself in their positions, some of the narratives may bring tears to your eyes.

Hopefully, you will understand why these are not just words - they are a continual invocation of past atrocities, a direct, abusive reminder to every Black person who has to experience them, that the White Man still regards himself as superior over the Black Man, who in turn, is regarded as sub-human and fit for nothing other than being a slave.

 

[arthwollipot]

Quoted for truth, emphasis added by me:

I'd like to be very clear about this... words have meanings.

 

[cullennz]

There's been a lot of interest in Australia about "one punch" killings. With all the cartoon violence on TV and real violence in the street people seem to be unaware of how dangerous "one punch" can be. If the person hit falls and hits their head badly, then the odds are higher than you think it can be fatal.

Saw it happen here once outside a pub many years ago. Bloke's head hit the edge of a curb.

Should add I was not the puncher and though I knew the puncher in passing.

 

[Planigale]

I'd like to be very clear about this... words have meanings. As an American (well, at least I think you're American) , I would have thought that you would at least be cognisant of your history.

America's history of racism against Blacks is about the worst in the world bar perhaps South Africa. If you truly understood your own history, and what it means to call a Black person the n-word, it might take you closer to some understanding of why its use is so harmful, and why it is a lot more that just a mean or bad word.

These Black people were forcibly kidnapped from their homes - torn from their families and tribes, jammed into boats like sardines in a tin can, Many did not survive the voyage. Those that did were, along with their descendants, condemned to a lifetime of slavery, a lifetime of inhuman and inhumane treatment. White Americans indoctrinated them into accepting their supposed status as subhuman.

Calling someone the n-word is directed abuse that calls back the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of profit and white superiority. Its use is a continuation of the what is known as internalized oppression, the psychological trauma caused when someone from an oppressed group of people believes the hateful things said about them.

Your Library of Congress contains a sort of oral history that was gathered by something called the Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration. This was a program that employed researchers from 1936 to 1938 to interview former enslaved people and to put in writing what their experiences were. The result was over 2,000 written narratives, and those narratives are available to read online.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/sla...s-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

If you want to truly understand where Blacks are coming from, and why they are so badly harmed when they get called the n-word; why they feel so terribly aggrieved and angered; why they cannot just brush it off like they've only been told they are an idiot or a dummy, then you should read some of those narratives. Many of them are harrowing, they do not make easy or comfortable reading, and you do not even have to be American to be impacted by that. They were uncomfortable for me because, as some forum members know, I have a slave trader in my ancestry. If you can truly put yourself in their positions, some of the narratives may bring tears to your eyes.

Hopefully, you will understand why these are not just words - they are a continual invocation of past atrocities, a direct, abusive reminder to every Black person who has to experience them, that the White Man still regards himself as superior over the Black Man, who in turn, is regarded as sub-human and fit for nothing other than being a slave.

But not necessarily those that the hearer hears.

I seem to remember a Chinese speaking man being hit (but not being killed) for saying a word that sounded to the hearer, had meaning to the hearer, as implying this Chinese man was invoking those past atrocities that had not been inflicted on that particular black man and certainly not by that particular Chinese man nor any of his ancestors. Although the homophone meant something completely different to the speaker in Chinese.

It is interesting that speaking a word or something that the hearer believes is the word is now accepted as sufficient provocation to justify killing.

We do not know what was said. We only have the killer's word that what was said was believed by the killer to be rascist. We do know that mistakes have been made in the past in similar situations.

I am also surprised that so many victim blame, when the victim cannot defend himself. That some people are not only prepared to accept that this was justifiable homicide but are gladdened by the violent killing of an elderly man.

 

[Venom]

I think Venom's formulation is also racist claptrap, that denies black people their moral agency and responsibility as individuals who make choices.)

That....no.

But that's a broader topic for a different thread.

 

[smartcooky]

But not necessarily those that the hearer hears.

I seem to remember a Chinese speaking man being hit (but not being killed) for saying a word that sounded to the hearer, had meaning to the hearer, as implying this Chinese man was invoking those past atrocities that had not been inflicted on that particular black man and certainly not by that particular Chinese man nor any of his ancestors. Although the homophone meant something completely different to the speaker in Chinese.

It is interesting that speaking a word or something that the hearer believes is the word is now accepted as sufficient provocation to justify killing.

We do not know what was said. We only have the killer's word that what was said was believed by the killer to be racist. We do know that mistakes have been made in the past in similar situations.

I am also surprised that so many victim blame, when the victim cannot defend himself. That some people are not only prepared to accept that this was justifiable homicide but are gladdened by the violent killing of an elderly man.

Yeah, way to miss the point entirely!

I merely point out that words have meanings, and taking the position that "its only words, they don't do any real harm" is a standpoint ignorant of history. Words can be used as weapons, and the n-word is a particularly powerful one.

 

[Darat]

There's been a lot of interest in Australia about "one punch" killings. With all the cartoon violence on TV and real violence in the street people seem to be unaware of how dangerous "one punch" can be. If the person hit falls and hits their head badly, then the odds are higher than you think it can be fatal.

This is one area where I do blame the media. Fantasy fighting is one thing but time and time again I have seen totally unrealistic depictions of violence against another person in so called “real life” dramas.

By all means show violence but show it realistically.

 

[Venom]

None of this has anything to do with the fact that whenever there is a racial issue there's the same core group that magically, by pure coincidence, always wind up argumentatively on the side of the racist and then dig their heels in, defending a hill yet getting super-huffy when you point out the hill they are defending in equal measure.

Call it whatever you want. "Oh I just find this side more interesting to talk about." "Oh I'm not obligated to talk about everything I can talk about whatever I want to." "Oh I'm just here to make sure the race card doesn't get overplayed." "What? At the end of my 40 pages of pro-racism alternative fan fiction I agreed that black person was the victim!"

The line between "racist" and "always on the racist side" might be varying degrees of thick, but the line between "racist apologist" and "always on the racists side" is consistently razor thin.

There are posters who feel compassion for people generally or at least aren't content with chalking a tragic event like this to the "wages of sin". If it was a 19 year old punching a racist 19 year old in the face and the most that happened afterwards is the racist ending up in the hospital to get a brow stitching, there probably wouldn't be much more to talk about after a few pages. Men in that age group are at their most aggressive and hopefully the open racist thinks twice before opening his mouth next time.

In this instance an elderly man's life got ended. I think it's only natural to stop and think yeah he was a gigantic ******* but it isn't right and it isn't great that some people are celebrating the act instead of (at least) seeing it as a tragic confluence of circumstances.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, way to miss the point entirely!

I merely point out that words have meanings, and taking the position that "its only words, they don't do any real harm" is a standpoint ignorant of history. Words can be used as weapons, and the n-word is a particularly powerful one.

I agree and I think this is an example of why hate speech laws properly implemented and used actually serve an important purpose. In this case had there been proper hate speech laws

1. The punchee would probably have thought twice about using the term (for a multitude of reasons not least of all that he might get in trouble with the law)

2. The puncher may have considered that they had recourse to other ways of dealing with the issue - i.e. calling the police (although that ones maybe tougher when the police are racist) - instead of taking the matter into their own hands.

3. They contribute to an environment where people are less exposed to the daily grind of such epithets and therefore hopefully less at the point of 'the next person who says that is getting a punch in the face'

My thoughts on the specific case assuming the facts are more or less as set out here:

1. The old man was completely in the wrong to use a racist slur and, possibly deserved a punch in the face for it.

2. My reticence to say he did deserve it comes from the fact that he was an old man and it doesn't seem right that a presumably young fit person punches and old man in the face. Not from an assumption that punching someone in the face for saying bad things is always wrong.

3. I agree with the general principle that violence isn't the answer but also acknowledge that everyone probably has a breaking point and some combination of words that could make them react violently.

4. The puncher no doubt didn't intend to kill the guy but unfortunately that's the risk you take if you punch an old man in the face and in that respect is also completely in the wrong and now will need to face the legal consequences for what they did.

One of those messy real life situations where everyone was in the wrong and nobody wins.

 

[smartcooky]

There are posters who feel compassion for people generally or at least aren't content with chalking a tragic event like this to the "wages of sin". If it was a 19 year old punching a racist 19 year old in the face and the most that happened afterwards is the racist ending up in the hospital to get a brow stitching, there probably wouldn't be much more to talk about after a few pages. Men in that age group are at their most aggressive and hopefully the open racist thinks twice before opening his mouth next time.

In this instance an elderly man's life got ended. I think it's only natural to stop and think yeah he was a gigantic ******* but it isn't right and it isn't great that some people are celebrating the act instead of (at least) seeing it as a tragic confluence of circumstances.

Good analysis.

At the end of the day, a family have lost a dad, grandad, maybe a great-grandad, and a young man is probably going to spend the prime of is life in prison for a moment's loss of control. As Archie said, "everyone was in the wrong and nobody wins."

 

[Darat]

Yeah, way to miss the point entirely!

I merely point out that words have meanings, and taking the position that "its only words, they don't do any real harm" is a standpoint ignorant of history. Words can be used as weapons, and the n-word is a particularly powerful one.

I’ve commented before that people seem to think that speech is not an action and therefore can’t be assessed as an action.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There are posters who feel compassion for people generally or at least aren't content with chalking a tragic event like this to the "wages of sin". .

Horse ****. Absolute across the board ******* horse ****.

There are posters who feel compassion for people generally or at least aren't content with chalking a tragic event like this to the "wages of sin".... when the victim is white. When the victim is black they write a novel length alternative universe story about him still being the bad guy.

White racist gets punched for saying the N word = "Oh the poor racist."

Black guy gunned down in the street = "Why didn't he just run faster?" for 20 pages.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I’ve commented before that people seem to think that speech is not an action and therefore can’t be assessed as an action.

Hey Darat just pointing out that a ban notice in FMF is "Just words."

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd like to be very clear about this... words have meanings. ...

While I agree with you in this, and in the contents of the post from which it is snipped, I can't connect the dots from "Words have meanings" to "punch an old man in the face."

As hateful and offensive as speech might be, I think face punching is just a bad idea all around. People can get hurt. I think it is appropriate to prosecute those who do it, and if they kill someone in the process, I think a significant amount of time in prison is appropriate.

And I think that's the essence of the "it's just words" discussion. They might be very hateful words. People might become justifiably angry at those words. However, unless there is an implied threat of violence in those words, they can't be sent to jail for words, and the words are not a justification for violence. Take a cell phone video and publicly shame the speaker on Twitter if you feel strongly about it, but don't punch someone in the face.

Sadly, this chap let his anger get the better of him, and he will be paying a very high price for that mistake.

ETA: And, the above isn't meant to be specifically about SmartCooky. I think he probably wasn't intending to justify face-punching in his post. I just wanted to make a general statement that words never justify violence. At least, I can't think of a case offhand where they do, with the exception of the implied threat situations.

 

[Darat]

While I agree with you in this, and in the contents of the post from which it is snipped, I can't connect the dots from "Words have meanings" to "punch an old man in the face."

As hateful and offensive as speech might be, I think face punching is just a bad idea all around. People can get hurt. I think it is appropriate to prosecute those who do it, and if they kill someone in the process, I think a significant amount of time in prison is appropriate.

And I think that's the essence of the "it's just words" discussion. They might be very hateful words. People might become justifiably angry at those words. However, unless there is an implied threat of violence in those words, they can't be sent to jail for words, and the words are not a justification for violence. Take a cell phone video and publicly shame the speaker on Twitter if you feel strongly about it, but don't punch someone in the face.

Sadly, this chap let his anger get the better of him, and he will be paying a very high price for that mistake.

ETA: And, the above isn't meant to be specifically about SmartCooky. I think he probably wasn't intending to justify face-punching in his post. I just wanted to make a general statement that words never justify violence. At least, I can't think of a case offhand where they do, with the exception of the implied threat situations.

I don't particularly disagree with any parts of your post however you've only asserted the highlighted part.

Can you argue for it? A quite sincere question, wondering if you've ever challenged yourself as to a why you believe that, is it based on evidence, personal experience and so on.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And I think that's the essence of the "it's just words" discussion. They might be very hateful words. People might become justifiably angry at those words. However, unless there is an implied threat of violence in those words, they can't be sent to jail for words, and the words are not a justification for violence. Take a cell phone video and publicly shame the speaker on Twitter if you feel strongly about it, but don't punch someone in the face.

Threats of violence are just words too. It seems that you are in fact perfectly OK with the idea that some words earn you a punch in the mouth. You just draw the line somewhere else

ETA: And, the above isn't meant to be specifically about SmartCooky. I think he probably wasn't intending to justify face-punching in his post. I just wanted to make a general statement that words never justify violence. At least, I can't think of a case offhand where they do, with the exception of the implied threat situations.

I'm pretty sure there is a combination of content and frequency of words that could cause you to believe a punch in the gob was earned by the person dishing them out. I don't know what they are but I'm pretty sure they exist.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't particularly disagree with any parts of your post however you've only asserted the highlighted part.

Can you argue for it? A quite sincere question, wondering if you've ever challenged yourself as to a why you believe that, is it based on evidence, personal experience and so on.

I don't want to go too deep into philosophy here, but basically it rests on the concept of free speech. As a legal principle from the US Constitution, and as practiced in other places, that refers to government limitations on freedom sof speech, but underlying that principle is the general idea that people ought to be free to express opinions, even if those opinions are reprehensible.

And just as the government cannot inflict violence on someone, via arrest, incarceration, or sending the cops to rough someone up for exercising his right to free speech, neither can the government sit back and allow private citizens to inflict violence on other private citizens because of their speech. If the government refuses to prosecute someone for beating me up, they are, in effect, allowing or participating in the violence.

Now we could go on and on and on about finding the exact edges of where speech can be reasonably restricted, delving into both ethical and legal precedents, but the basic idea is pretty simple. People should have the right to say pretty much anything, even if it makes people very, very, angry. Neither the government nor private citizens should be allowed restrict speech.

(Some exceptions apply, and we could go on and on about those exceptions, and they have been explored in detail in threads and books and other media, but the core is pretty simple. You are free to make an ass of yourself with your speech, even if it makes people angry,)

 

[Thermal]

Why do I have the sinking feeling that those who defend punching someone else for talk they don't like feel that they are exempt from the same treatment?