Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Warp12]

I still don't see the point in this question.

I'll tell you what I wouldn't do though: Attend a white nationalist rally.

I think it could be enlightening, at minimum. But that is a different topic. Someone potentially attending a white nationalist rally in protest...has exactly what to do with this topic? Seems like another thinly veiled (if even?) personal attack, to me.

 

[johnny karate]

I think it could be enlightening, at minimum. But that is a different topic. Someone potentially attending a white nationalist rally in protest...has exactly what to do with this topic? Seems like another thinly veiled (if even?) personal attack, to me.

The point is that it's foolish to engage in high-horse theatrics, especially when they can so easily be turned back on us.

You would never, ever punch someone. Good for you!

But you are comfortable committing crimes. Hmm... not so great.

 

[Warp12]

The point is that it's foolish to engage in high-horse theatrics, especially when they can so easily be turned back on us.

You would never, ever punch someone. Good for you!

But you are comfortable committing crimes. Hmm... not so great.

I didn't say I would never, ever punch someone. I said that assaulting someone 50 years your senior, for calling you a name, is a more violent response than average. And you are apparently still disputing this, amazingly.

Once again, you are twisting things to suit your narrative. Somehow you have also made the jump from me having a misdemeanor conviction, to the blanket statement of me being "comfortable committing crimes". This sort of misrepresentation seems to be a theme with your commentary about those who disagree with you.

 

[plague311]

I didn't say I would never, ever punch someone. I said that assaulting someone 50 years your senior, for calling you a name, is a more violent response than average. And you are apparently still disputing this, amazingly.

Once again, you are twisting things to suit your narrative. Somehow you have also made the jump from me having a misdemeanor conviction, to the blanket statement of me being "comfortable committing crimes". This sort of misrepresentation seems to be a theme with your commentary about those who disagree with you.

 

[plague311]

Pujols didn't just go from 0 to "punch him in the face" in one fell swoop. The guy was in the drive-thru and the person working the DT couldn't understand what he was saying. Cook got belligerent and started yelling at the employee. The employee asked him to leave. Instead Cook parked his car and started walking in. Before the confrontation in the store even started Pujols asked another employee to call the cops. That's when Cook came in screaming, hollering, and ended up calling Pujols the N-word. Pujols told him not to say that word, and Cook said it again. That's when he got blasted in the lips.

It was a steady progression that was completely avoidable had Cook just not escalated that situation every opportunity that he got. Does this justify Pujols putting him in the dirt? No, of course not, but that wasn't Pujols's intent either. It just ended up that way.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't say I would never, ever punch someone. I said that assaulting someone 50 years your senior, for calling you a name, is a more violent response than average. And you are apparently still disputing this, amazingly.

Once again, you are twisting things to suit your narrative. Somehow you have also made the jump from me having a misdemeanor conviction, to the blanket statement of me being "comfortable committing crimes". This sort of misrepresentation seems to be a theme with your commentary about those who disagree with you.

That you characterize what Pujols did in the most damning way possible, but seem to want every consideration and benefit of the doubt in judging your criminal misdeeds is exactly my point.

It's a shame that you are so adamant in refusing to see it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Pujols didn't just go from 0 to "punch him in the face" in one fell swoop. The guy was in the drive-thru and the person working the DT couldn't understand what he was saying. Cook got belligerent and started yelling at the employee. The employee asked him to leave. Instead Cook parked his car and started walking in. Before the confrontation in the store even started Pujols asked another employee to call the cops. That's when Cook came in screaming, hollering, and ended up calling Pujols the N-word. Pujols told him not to say that word, and Cook said it again. That's when he got blasted in the lips.

It was a steady progression that was completely avoidable had Cook just not escalated that situation every opportunity that he got. Does this justify Pujols putting him in the dirt? No, of course not, but that wasn't Pujols's intent either. It just ended up that way.

While immediately disconnecting this guy's brainstem with a well placed punch is the funniest and most gratifying conclusion, I still contend that, for all the reasons you say, Pujols would have been fine to physically eject this guy.

Entering the store after being told to leave is an obvious escalation, and his dumb chest thumping insults was clearly an attempt to initiate a fight. Forcibly throwing him out the store, and beating him senseless if he resisted with violence, is probably the kind of thing that Florida wouldn't consider a criminal matter. Pujols would have been better advised to not skip these vital intermediary steps.

 

[johnny karate]

Pujols didn't just go from 0 to "punch him in the face" in one fell swoop. The guy was in the drive-thru and the person working the DT couldn't understand what he was saying. Cook got belligerent and started yelling at the employee. The employee asked him to leave. Instead Cook parked his car and started walking in. Before the confrontation in the store even started Pujols asked another employee to call the cops. That's when Cook came in screaming, hollering, and ended up calling Pujols the N-word. Pujols told him not to say that word, and Cook said it again. That's when he got blasted in the lips.

It was a steady progression that was completely avoidable had Cook just not escalated that situation every opportunity that he got. Does this justify Pujols putting him in the dirt? No, of course not, but that wasn't Pujols's intent either. It just ended up that way.

I'm sorry, but providing this kind of context has no place in this discussion.

Only knee-jerk virtue signaling is allowed.

 

[Warp12]

That you characterize what Pujols did in the most damning way possible, but seem to want every consideration and benefit of the doubt in judging your criminal misdeeds is exactly my point.

It's a shame that you are so adamant in refusing to see it.

He punched a 77-year-old man in the head, leading to his death. And he did this because he was called a name. It is pretty damning on its own, I'm afraid.

"Wanting every consideration and benefit of the doubt"? Once again, purposeful misrepresentation of the facts.

This ends our debate session for today, Johnny Karate.

 

[johnny karate]

He punched a 77-year-old man in the head, leading to his death. And he did this because he was called a name. It is pretty damning on it's own, I'm afraid.

That is a blatant over-simplification and leaves out a whole lot of context. But hey, when there's a racist agenda to be pushed...

"Wanting every consideration and benefit of the doubt"? Once again, purposeful misrepresentation of the facts.

Unlike your steadfast adherence to all the facts.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If there is one thing you can learn working in porn it is that context is meaningless. Just get to the fun stuff.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No **** So you're the same as literally every other person in this thread?



Again, no ****. That's what everyone thinks. I've asked, more than once, to find someone that is actually saying Pujol's actions were the right ones. So far, ******* crickets. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.

No one is saying he should have punched and killed the old racist bastard. Just not a lot of people are mad at it.

In exactly those words...? Nobody has literally said those words. But seriously, from page one of this thread there have been a few people arguing that punching the guy was justified and acceptable behavior, an appropriate response to a racial slur, and have heavily implied that they would think it justice if Pujols was NOT charged with a crime.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You hope that if you demonstrate a point clearly enough, people will pick up on it without you having to hold their hand in explaining it to them.

And yet here we are.

This is what we've learned about the "I would never do that!" moral high-horsers in this thread:

One is a convicted criminal.

One engages in violent activity as a hobby.

One would willingly attend a white nationalist rally.

I'm sure each of them would protest (and have) at having these contextless facts used against them to denigrate their moral character, and yet they all feel perfectly comfortable doing the same to someone else.

None of us were there when Pujols punched Cook. We don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the incident, only scant details we've seen in the media.

And we don't know anything about what kind of person Pujols is, only that he lost his cool in one fateful moment. A moment that he is now paying for. In a way, I might add, deemed by the criminal justice system as being fairly sympathetic toward him.

So I simply do not see the utility in engaging in this moral posturing circle-jerk in which we are regaled with fanciful tales about what certain people would or wouldn't do if it were them.

It comes across as disingenuous and stinks of an underlying agenda.

Your blatantly intentional mischaracterizations are not an argument, and they mostly make you look like a dishonest person not contributing anything worthwhile to this discussion.

Please stop lying about other posters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I still don't see the point in this question.

I'll tell you what I wouldn't do though: Attend a white nationalist rally.

So... continuing to dodge the question I see.

 

[johnny karate]

In exactly those words...? Nobody has literally said those words. But seriously, from page one of this thread there have been a few people arguing that punching the guy was justified and acceptable behavior, an appropriate response to a racial slur, and have heavily implied that they would think it justice if Pujols was NOT charged with a crime.

So no one actually said what you’re mad about people saying. Got it, thanks.

Good luck with your manufactured outrage over things that didn’t happen in reality.

 

[johnny karate]

Your blatantly intentional mischaracterizations are not an argument, and they mostly make you look like a dishonest person not contributing anything worthwhile to this discussion.

Please stop lying about other posters.

No lies were told. I have the receipts.

I’m also not in the habit of taking advice about honesty by people making up things to be mad about.

 

[johnny karate]

So... continuing to dodge the question I see.

If I was dodging the question, I wouldn’t address it all.

I’m not answering the question because it’s absolutely pointless and irrelevant.

Placing yourself in some hypothetical situation and making a definitive statement about what you would or wouldn’t do is mental masturbation designed to make you feel morally superior to other people.

 

[plague311]

In exactly those words...? Nobody has literally said those words. But seriously, from page one of this thread there have been a few people arguing that punching the guy was justified and acceptable behavior, an appropriate response to a racial slur, and have heavily implied that they would think it justice if Pujols was NOT charged with a crime.

Maybe we're talking past each other. You said that you didn't think the employee's actions were right, and that attacking the customer was wrong. I replied saying, "no ****" because that's pretty much what everyone here is saying. You reply with the above quoted part straight out saying that people have argued that it's justified and acceptable. I would like you to link me to those because the arguments I see aren't that it was justified, acceptable, or the appropriate response to being called a name. It's that no one is crying because this guy had his lights shut off. They are two separate things. Hopefully that helps clear things up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We are dealing with a state that the acceptable response to having popcorn thrown at you is to shoot back, and we are tying ourselves in knots over punching someone who was trespassing while shouting racial epithets?

 

[Dr. Keith]

We are dealing with a state that the acceptable response to having popcorn thrown at you is to shoot back, and we are tying ourselves in knots over punching someone who was trespassing while shouting racial epithets?

Yes. Would you like fries with that realization?