Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Thermal]

Another misuse of Occam's Razor....

"... a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

You claim "Pujols was a violent criminal" is the simplest explanation. IMO, it is "unknown phenomena", and if you disagree, then where is your evidence? Does he have a record of violence?

I get your argument, but you assume i mean a personality type. I don't. I mean that at this time and place, he chose to be both violent and a criminal. What provoked him requires further complexities and assumptions not in evidence, so I stop the inquiry at the most simple without projections on his worldview. Hell, we don't even quite know what was said.

If we say Pujol's battering was due to a racist provocation, we have to assume quite a bit about his outlook, views on revering/excusing the elderly, conduct in public, self control and other elements.

And no, I don't think Bobby O belongs here. Plague brought it up and I rolled with it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Dood, why do you keep saying this? No one has said Pujols killing the man is good. There's been some indifference, but no one has shown happiness that the man is dead. ST got close, but even so that wouldn't be "some posters".

It does suck for Pujols, I'm not sure why you seem hellbent on calling him names as usually a single incident doesn't make a person, but he earned that time by doing something stupid. That being said, sticking up for yourself and others when demeaned publicly isn't something that breaks my "he's a terrible person" o' meter. I'm not sure why you've had very little, if anything, negative to say about the man that trespassed in a store for no other reason than to berate and racially slur the staff of a Dunkin Donuts for whatever entitled ******** he thought went wrong. That's...weird.

Perhaps you hold the view that a single incident doesn't make a person, as do I... but I don't think that's a universally held belief. I think there are some people who will view that certain incidents DO make a person, albeit selectively applied. At a minimum, several people in this thread have assumed from a single instance of the old person using a racial slur, that this is representative of them being - in their entirety - a horrible racist whose death should be celebrated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's amazing to me is this weird expectation that people should have thoughts that are always nice, and that anything else is "bad".

I see no issue with wishing evil upon evil, or being glad when it happens. That does not necessarily translate into support for those who committed said evil.

Just out of curiosity... do you consider dementia or alzheimers to be "evil"? Aberrant behavior, including very out-of-character hatreds, are pretty common among those suffering from dementia or alzheimers. We don't have any information regarding this particular person, but given their age, it's certainly not implausible.

But many people in this thread have jumped straight to the assumption that this person was a chronic unrepentant racist... and therefore it's great that he's dead! No pause given to consider what other factors might have been at play.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Pujols is now a...whatever weird ass description cullennz used, after this one incident. I didn't see any contestations then. What's up with that?

cullennz got jumped on quickly enough that it caused an entire section of this thread to get split off. There were plenty of people contesting their characterization.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He was doing something evil at the time. You don't think racism is an evil?

(Evil as in: it does harm to others)

If "doing harm to others" is your litmus for evil, wouldn't Pujols also qualify as evil?

 

[plague311]

Perhaps you hold the view that a single incident doesn't make a person, as do I... but I don't think that's a universally held belief. I think there are some people who will view that certain incidents DO make a person, albeit selectively applied.

They can certainly have that belief. I can't imagine why, but to each their own. That being said, I don't change my behavior or give them more understanding because that's their view. I generally mock them because that's who I am.

cullennz got jumped on quickly enough that it caused an entire section of this thread to get split off. There were plenty of people contesting their characterization.

That's not what I was referring to with that comment. See below:

As apposed to the hooliganistic yob who is facing 20 odd years in jail.

 

[plague311]

If "doing harm to others" is your litmus for evil, wouldn't Pujols also qualify as evil?

That followed from a bit of a back and forth, but I don't think you'll see Belz... claiming Pujols was doing the Lord's work or anything.

Belz... can absolutely speak for himself but I believe the goal was that if we're going to demonize Pujols for what he did, how come those same posters don't seem to chastise or demonize the old man for his responsibility in every single action leading up to the punch in the mouth. The old man took every opportunity he could find to escalate the situation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nor confirmed. All these witnesses, and not one backing up the story? No one actually heard anything? Hm.

I just don't see that this is relevant. Whether the old person called Pujols a racial slur or not has pretty much no bearing on the legality of the situation.

If the old person DID use a racial slur, then shame on the old person. It doesn't justify or excuse Pujols punching them, and it does not make the old person's death a good outcome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not complicated. Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is that Pujols was a violent criminal, full stop. It doesn't matter what the old guy said (barring a credible threat of imminent harm) any more than what color socks they were wearing.

I'm struggling with this Thermal.

In the technical sense, sure... Pujols used violence in the commission of an illegal act. But you are surely aware that describing a person as a "violent criminal" is heavily weighted with the connotation of them being a habitual criminal who frequently uses violence. There's no indication of this being the case with Pujols, and I certainly don't see that Occam's Razor would suggest that as the simplest explanation.

While it is certainly not an excuse or a justification, normal humans lose their tempers and hit people every day. We, as a species, ought to object to such behavior, but it is still a relatively normal event. There's no reason to assume or imply that a person who loses their temper and acts inappropriately is a "violent criminal".

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, that is not at all what Occam's Razor would say. The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation is the one we have seen repeatedly.

[correction]

That's not what Occam's Razor means. It doesn't mean the simplest explanation is the best. Occam's Razor suggests that the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions and unknowns is more likely to be correct.[/quote]

[/correction]

 

[Emily's Cat]

A side note: I truly think droppjng the n-word on a black person should be viewed as more of a provocation than it is. Fighting Words should really be just short of excusing violent retaliation, if not actually excusing it. Literally asking for it and all. Just not against someone you so wildly outclass. A slap on the face would have been in the tolerable range for me, even though things could still turn south. But prob an argument for another thread.

I really really disagree.

People get called really offensive and hurtful things on a regular basis. Giving special dispensation for one specific group to engage in violence in retaliation is a bad idea. There will be other groups that view similar slights in the same way. Do you support allowing Jewish people to punch anyone who uses an anti-Semitic slur on the grounds that it's hurtful enough to qualify as fighting words? What about a Chinese person or a Japanese person subjected to a racial slur? What about a Hispanic person? What about a disabled person? What about females who get called nasty and hurtful things simply because they are female?

If that view were adopted, I think there would be a LOT more males getting stabbed by females who've had quite enough.

 

[Belz...]

Just out of curiosity... do you consider dementia or alzheimers to be "evil"?

Only in that they are an ill for the person afflicted with them.

You're right. Maybe the old guy had some form of dementia that made him blow his top. But we can speculate about any person who uses the n-word. Maybe they all have tourette's.

 

[Belz...]

If "doing harm to others" is your litmus for evil, wouldn't Pujols also qualify as evil?

In the broadest sense, and in that moment, sure.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They can certainly have that belief. I can't imagine why, but to each their own. That being said, I don't change my behavior or give them more understanding because that's their view. I generally mock them because that's who I am.

Sure, just voicing my own frustration.

That's not what I was referring to with that comment. See below:

Okay. I just think it's at this point a completely unnecessary thing for anyone to do. He already got jumped on... and that went horribly sideways. I'm guessing that most of us are content to avoid another spate of splits and AAH-ing.

 

[Thermal]

I'm struggling with this Thermal.

In the technical sense, sure... Pujols used violence in the commission of an illegal act. But you are surely aware that describing a person as a "violent criminal" is heavily weighted with the connotation of them being a habitual criminal who frequently uses violence. There's no indication of this being the case with Pujols, and I certainly don't see that Occam's Razor would suggest that as the simplest explanation.

While it is certainly not an excuse or a justification, normal humans lose their tempers and hit people every day. We, as a species, ought to object to such behavior, but it is still a relatively normal event. There's no reason to assume or imply that a person who loses their temper and acts inappropriately is a "violent criminal".

Ok, conceded. "Violent criminal" does carry the implication that it is a way of life, which was not what I meant. Consider that to have read "dude who elected at that time to react in a violent and criminal fashion".

 

[Emily's Cat]

That followed from a bit of a back and forth, but I don't think you'll see Belz... claiming Pujols was doing the Lord's work or anything.

Belz... can absolutely speak for himself but I believe the goal was that if we're going to demonize Pujols for what he did, how come those same posters don't seem to chastise or demonize the old man for his responsibility in every single action leading up to the punch in the mouth. The old man took every opportunity he could find to escalate the situation.

I'm pretty much with you on the "this was an unfortunate incident where nobody was in the right".

I'm just also of the opinion that lauding someone being killed because of using language that hurts someone's feelings is detrimental to society... and that lauding or celebrating this event is unacceptable in civil society.

 

[Thermal]

I really really disagree.

People get called really offensive and hurtful things on a regular basis. Giving special dispensation for one specific group to engage in violence in retaliation is a bad idea. There will be other groups that view similar slights in the same way. Do you support allowing Jewish people to punch anyone who uses an anti-Semitic slur on the grounds that it's hurtful enough to qualify as fighting words? What about a Chinese person or a Japanese person subjected to a racial slur? What about a Hispanic person? What about a disabled person? What about females who get called nasty and hurtful things simply because they are female?

If that view were adopted, I think there would be a LOT more males getting stabbed by females who've had quite enough.

I admittedly vascillate a little on this one.

It's not okay to attack. But if someone uses fighting words as a provocation to fight, I think it should be viewed as a mutual fight, not a provoked illegal assault by one party. In my State, that would translate to a petty disorderly persons charge.

If you say something so biting that it would constitute a first strike (and a clear invitation to throw down), then it should be treated as such. The recipient need not act, but if s/he does, s/he is not the sole aggressor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, conceded. "Violent criminal" does carry the implication that it is a way of life, which was not what I meant. Consider that to have read "dude who elected at that time to react in a violent and criminal fashion".

Thank you for saving me from having to lecture you on loaded language

 

[Thermal]

I just don't see that this is relevant. Whether the old person called Pujols a racial slur or not has pretty much no bearing on the legality of the situation.

If the old person DID use a racial slur, then shame on the old person. It doesn't justify or excuse Pujols punching them, and it does not make the old person's death a good outcome.

True, but the reason for this tale making headlines is the slur. Whether it was even actually used would be kind of important, no?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I admittedly vascillate a little on this one.

It's not okay to attack. But if someone uses fighting words as a provocation to fight, I think it should be viewed as a mutual fight, not a provoked illegal assault by one party. In my State, that would translate to a petty disorderly persons charge.

If you say something so biting that it would constitute a first strike (and a clear invitation to throw down), then it should be treated as such. The recipient need not act, but if s/he does, s/he is not the sole aggressor.

I generally don't think that "provocation" is an acceptable excuse. It just isn't. I think it was Meadmaker who made the excellent post in the sitcks-and-stones thread that really caught my sentiment. At the end of the day, creating a socially and legally acceptable practice of allowing the use of violence in response to speech will result in the biggest, strongest bullies being granted license to harass whomever they want, and nobody else has any recourse.

If a weak person uses "provocative" language, then a strong person can beat the crap out of them and feel justified in doing so. If a strong person uses "provocative" language, a weak person could hypothetically react violently... and get the crap beaten out of them and the strong person would feel justified in doing so. Basically, it results in the strong people being allowed to be as big a jerk as they want to be, without consequences... and feel justified about it.