Being a racist while having a soft skull

[theprestige]

We must be looking at the same posts through entirely different lenses, then. Plague doesn't seem to be supporting or condoning this violence. He's simply talking about it being a consequence.

It's no more a consequence than getting raped is a consequence of how the victim was dressed or how flirty they were. Which is to say, the person who actually chose to commit rape is 100% responsible.

But this could be cleared up in a heartbeat, by anyone who is celebrating the outcome of this violence. All they have to do is say, in so many words, that they believe violence in response to speech is wrong, and the death of the victim should not be celebrated for that reason.

 

[cullennz]

Following your reasoning - do you have any evidence for your claim that the old guy didn’t say anything that upset the murderer? Or for the other option to your reasoning - any evidence that this murderer randomly punched people in the face?

We only have the scumbag puncher's word for it that the old bloke used racist language, during their argument.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Who cares?

It is irrelevant, to trying to justify some younger dude punching a bloke about 50 years older in the face.

If the old bloke did use it is that supposed to be some sort of justification for the over the top, to the point of being scummy retaliation?

 

[Thermal]

Bit of an odd thing to seem to take some kind of pride over.

So you don't like.....you know...Take each case on it's own merits?

Or is it like "Hi guys. Which one is the black person? Ahh, cool thanks. They can't have done anything wrong, so I go with them?

Read it again. Where do you see that I didn't take each on its merits, and instead deferred by race?

I looked at each of the dead black guy stories. Weighed them out. Ended up on the side of the murdered guy. The next one I'll do the same way, and might be on the killers side. Depends.

But that poster bald faced lied, and says I'm always against the dead black guy. As it happens, my track record is 100% in favor so far.

 

[Belz...]

This is victim-blaming, pure and simple. And thus a tacit endorsement of the idea that racist speech justifies violent retaliation.

It does no such thing. You're being ridiculous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is it only words? Why do many African Americans get so angry when someone calls them a ******? Maybe they should “eat a spoonful of cement and harden up, princess”?

ETA: inexplicably the forum seems to censor the word ******.

Yes, it is only words.

Words can evoke emotions. Thus people can get sad or angry or happy as a result of words. What words do not do, however, is cause physical injury.

Physical assaults cause physical injury.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

...


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.

I know the damned history. And I get that they can hurt feelings. FFS, I've been called all kinds of things, and have been subjected to invective on the basis of my sex, as well as on the basis of my family being a mixed marriage. I know full well that racism is out there and that some words hurt feelings.

They hurt FEELINGS.

And no matter how much they hurt your feelings, they do NOT justify or excuse enacting physical violence in response to those words.

Jesus christ, we teach children this! Just because some other kid calls you a poopy head doesn't mean you're allowed to hit them. We do not hit in response to words.

All of these rhetorical arguments trying to normalize acts of violence in order to silence people are abhorrent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Yeah, I draw the line at what is legal for one thing. I also draw the line where it PREVENTS the use of violence to coerce or force people to bow to one's wishes. I draw the line where it PREVENTS adopting a stance of Might Makes Right.

If you're the biggest baddest ************ in the valley, yeah, you can beat the crap out of anyone who says or does something you don't like... and you'll get your way. Not because you're a good person, but because you're a ******* bully who uses intimidation and physical pain to force people to their will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I'm sure it's because they're "right"

 

[theprestige]

It does no such thing. You're being ridiculous.

It's definitely victim-blaming. I can understand a difference of opinion about whether it's also tacit approval of violence in response to speech, though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily tried to support that very claim earlier and failed.

I don't think I failed. But I do think that you are willing to play down the implications in this case, thus essentially brushing it away as "oh no, they didn't mean they are lauding the violence, they're just expressing joy that a racist is now dead, and sadness that the person who killed him needs to be punished for doing a good deed. They're not actually happy that words were met with violence, see, they even say "I'm not saying I'm advocating for violence, but... "

 

[Meadmaker]

NOTE:
If you try to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?
If anyone else tries to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?
If you call security guards or police to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?

I think I should state that words alone never justify extra-legal violence. Yes, having a person arrested or forcibly removed is violence, but the person in your scenario is breaking laws.

As I said to Darat, we could, and people have, tried to explore exactly how much violence and what kind might be justified in certain unusual situations. I don't want to go too deep into that, but in general terms, in the situation you described, it's ok to pursue legal remedies, including those that involve violence by those whom the state has authorized.

In other words, call the cops. Don't punch the guy out.

 

[cullennz]

If systemic discrimination justifies physical violence after be subjected to oppressive words, does that mean the non-binary person in the train thread should have just gone over and punched the announcer in the face?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then perhaps you should reconsider your rhetoric here. If people consistently lump you into that category you should try to find out why in a way that doesn't blame THEM. Right now that's what you're doing: accusing others of "lying" when they are simply drawing conclusions from a persistent behaviour of yours.

Nope, Belz, that's straight up ********. It just is. It's flimsy, shallow, thoughtless guilt by vague association.

I've gone through the wringer in the thread-that-shall-not-be-named, being called a transphobe and a TERF, being told I'm hysterical, and that I'm overreacting, and that when I note the rate of sexual assaults that females face, I'm really just being paranoid. I've been told over and over and over that I'm "making the same argument as racists make" and then had it repeatedly insinuated that all of my arguments are based on fear and disgust and hatred.

It's not an argument, it's a bullying tactic. So knock it off, you're better than that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, conceded. Slightly hyperbolic language on my part. The point stands that I am virtually the only poster who thought Arbery might not have been straight fearful, and might have maintained a brass set. Virtually everyone else asserted point blank that he was terrified etc

First off, the whole discussion here is dumb. You're not a racist, and the "oh Thermal is always arguing about what the black person could have done differently" brigade is full of selective reading and poor comprehension.

That said... I think you're wrong. I would imagine that Arbery was terrified. I think any normal human being would be terrified when being chased by people in automobiles for no apparent reason. That's a scary ******* thing to have happen. Being scared is an absolutely normal and reasonable response.

That said, however, flight and fight are part of the same response system. That Arbery switched to fight when flight was clearly a losing response is also a perfectly normal thing to do.

It's entirely possible to be terrified and fight at the same time.

 

[smartcooky]

This is victim-blaming, pure and simple.

Right, because Pujols was not a victim of anything.

Got it!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can’t think of a reasonable explanation for this being a political act

It's not an "act motivated by political ideology". It is, however, an "act of silencing other views", which is an action of politics.

I personally wouldn't frame it that way, I think it's an ineffective way to communicate the concept, but I get what theprestige is saying. I would be inclined to frame it as an act of ideology. It's "might makes right" in action, which has always been closely associated with both religion and politics, I just think it's more blatantly obvious in the crusades, the inquisition, the 100 years war, etc.

 

[Belz...]

It's definitely victim-blaming.

It really isn't. Stop using rape as a prop.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think I failed.

Only a single one of the quotes you provided could be interpreted as supporting your claim, and even that one could have been made in jest. I told you this already.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It does no such thing. You're being ridiculous.

Really?

Strange considering he was almost certainly the aggressor.

They started arguing in the drive through line and the racist parked his car and went charging into the lobby to continue his tirade, face to face.

Not saying there is necessarily enough evidence to justify a self defense claim, but let's not play dumb here. The racist guy, soon to get his dome cracked, escalated this situation. I'd say he did about 75% of the work in getting himself killed, and just happened to bully someone willing to help him with the remaining 25%

Strange considering that female was almost certainly the instigator.

They started flirting at the party, and the female was wearing a really scandalous outfit that practically showed everything, and then they just went on drinking till they were totally blasted.

Not saying there is necessarily enough evidence to dismiss that rape charge, but let's not play dumb here. That female human, soon to be forcibly penetrated, escalated the situation. I'd say that they did about 75% of the work of getting themself raped. It just happened that the male was willing to help them with the remaining 25%.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, Belz, that's straight up ********. It just is. It's flimsy, shallow, thoughtless guilt by vague association.

I've gone through the wringer in the thread-that-shall-not-be-named, being called a transphobe and a TERF, being told I'm hysterical, and that I'm overreacting, and that when I note the rate of sexual assaults that females face, I'm really just being paranoid. I've been told over and over and over that I'm "making the same argument as racists make" and then had it repeatedly insinuated that all of my arguments are based on fear and disgust and hatred.

It's not an argument, it's a bullying tactic. So knock it off, you're better than that.

Absolutely not, and I resent your accusation. It's a FACT that several posters have interpreted his behaviour in this way, and if he wants that interpretation to change he should change his behaviour.

What the **** does that have to do with bullying?