• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

plague311 said:
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.



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

I had to say Hooliganistic yob as I am not allowed to say thug.

I admit the two terms don't mean exactly the same thing, but it was all I could come up with similar.
 
cullennz said:
I had to say Hooliganistic yob as I am not allowed to say thug.

I admit the two terms don't mean exactly the same thing, but it was all I could come up with similar.
Click to expand...

I shall direct you to the mini-lecture that I recently provided to Thermal...
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: 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".
Click to expand...

Just substitute "hooliganistic yob" for "violent criminal", and that's what I'm saying to you right now.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I shall direct you to the mini-lecture that I recently provided to Thermal...


Just substitute "hooliganistic yob" for "violent criminal", and that's what I'm saying to you right now.
Click to expand...

My use of the term Thug and hoolaganistic yob have nothing to do with him being a criminal.

It is a personal moral objection to fit looking 27 year olds punching 77 year olds in the face for calling them names.

There is zero excuse for it under the ucumstances no matter how much of a racist piece of filth the old dude obviously was.

Even if the bloke had spat on him or slapped him I would still think this.

Unless the 77 is Arnie, a punch in the stomach or a knee to the nuts is better than hitting a 77 year old who poses little to no threat to you in the face.

It is just ugly.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, and I hear that. But I don't think every stronger person is looking to fight every few minutes, and being stronger or weaker is sometimes a close enough call that both will take a pounding. Its not all big streetfighters out there looking to crack heads, but theres a hell of a lot of people, strong and weak alike, who want to be verbally threatening with impunity. I think that if the law didn't entirely back (g)you up for throwing slurs and the like, we might see significantly less of it. Not every tiger wants to go home every night with broken paws.
 
cullennz said:
My use of the term Thug and hoolaganistic yob have nothing to do with him being a criminal.

It is a personal moral objection to fit looking 27 year olds punching 77 year olds in the face for calling them names.

There is zero excuse for it under the ucumstances no matter how much of a racist piece of filth the old dude obviously was.

Even if the bloke had spat on him or slapped him I would still think this.

Unless the 77 is Arnie, a punch in the stomach or a knee to the nuts is better than hitting a 77 year old who poses little to no threat to you in the face.

It is just ugly.
Click to expand...

I agree with the spirit of your objection.

My lecture is based on the implied assignation of an overall character flaw, rather than consideration that this was a one-time lapse in control or judgment.

Actually, it's almost exactly the same objection I have to all the people characterizing this old person as a hateful racist. In both that case and in yours, judgment is being passed on the whole person, with the implication that their actions in this encounter are representative of them as a whole. And in both cases, it carries the subtextual connotation that because the person being derided was an all-around bad person (as evidenced by them being a hateful racist or a hooliganistic yob), the behavior of the other person is excused.

So in the case of ST and others persistently characterizing the old person as a racist in a way that suggests racism was their everyday modus operandi, the implication is that Pujols is justifed in punching the old person - the old person got what they deserved for being such a racist POS. And in the case of your characterization of Pujols as a holliganistic yob, the implication is that the old person is a pure victim with no stain on their actions because, clearly, Pujols is just a bad person.

Either way, both sides of this argument are extending behavior in one instant, about two people that we know nothing else about, and projecting those singular behaviors as if they are fully representative of the person as a whole.
 
Thermal said:
Ok, and I hear that. But I don't think every stronger person is looking to fight every few minutes, and being stronger or weaker is sometimes a close enough call that both will take a pounding. Its not all big streetfighters out there looking to crack heads, but theres a hell of a lot of people, strong and weak alike, who want to be verbally threatening with impunity. I think that if the law didn't entirely back (g)you up for throwing slurs and the like, we might see significantly less of it. Not every tiger wants to go home every night with broken paws.
Click to expand...

Rather than socially embracing might-makes-right, I think it would be more appropriate to enforce existing laws against harassment to a larger degree. Thus, yelling slurs of provocative language in a person's face would should be an actionable offense.

And yes, that means that if two idiots get into a poo-flinging verbal match, they could both be subject to fines or other repercussions.
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...

:confused:

That should be Billy O!
 
Emily's Cat said:
I agree with the spirit of your objection.

My lecture is based on the implied assignation of an overall character flaw, rather than consideration that this was a one-time lapse in control or judgment.

Actually, it's almost exactly the same objection I have to all the people characterizing this old person as a hateful racist. In both that case and in yours, judgment is being passed on the whole person, with the implication that their actions in this encounter are representative of them as a whole. And in both cases, it carries the subtextual connotation that because the person being derided was an all-around bad person (as evidenced by them being a hateful racist or a hooliganistic yob), the behavior of the other person is excused.

So in the case of ST and others persistently characterizing the old person as a racist in a way that suggests racism was their everyday modus operandi, the implication is that Pujols is justifed in punching the old person - the old person got what they deserved for being such a racist POS. And in the case of your characterization of Pujols as a holliganistic yob, the implication is that the old person is a pure victim with no stain on their actions because, clearly, Pujols is just a bad person.

Either way, both sides of this argument are extending behavior in one instant, about two people that we know nothing else about, and projecting those singular behaviors as if they are fully representative of the person as a whole.
Click to expand...

Fair point I suppose.

And I probably should have said the act itself, rather than the dude.

I don't think some people on here realise just how dangerous someone that young and healthy hitting some one in the head that age is.

Even without the head hitting the concrete most of the time it is going to do some serious damage. it is bad enough when you are younger, but at least then you are still likely to not get permanent damage.
 
Yup, two wrongs didn't make a right once again.


I don't think the emotional reaction of punching the old goat was the correct answer to a racist verbal comment/attack. Take that as you will, but it wasn't meant to be a compliment or anything good on the racist part.

What's done is done, now we have to wait and see how this sorts out.

I for one hope the younger gent gets off the hook light. The other probably didn't deserve death but that type of behavior has to end. It wasn't nice, not the best response to a cup of coffee problem.

But just watching too many Karen type videos on YouTube lately it's clear many feel a need to put the other in his place.
At least the place that particular individual thinks it is for them.
Not many adjust for " what if this goes seriously wrong?" before going into stupid conflicts with others.

Our racist hero of this story certianly didn't think he wasn't going to be leaving before he bullied a store into whatever he wanted.

Honestly I kind of miss the days when stupidity begat stupid prizes and everyone had an opportunity to learn how/why to not do things. Growing up in a rough and tumble culture where instant karma could be around any corner and watching the change to everyone having a lawyer on speed dial is a big shift in culture.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Rather than socially embracing might-makes-right, I think it would be more appropriate to enforce existing laws against harassment to a larger degree. Thus, yelling slurs of provocative language in a person's face would should be an actionable offense.

And yes, that means that if two idiots get into a poo-flinging verbal match, they could both be subject to fines or other repercussions.
Click to expand...

I don't think this has to be seen as might makes right. I think it is more like 'pick a fight and the law is not on your side'.
 
Photos of random 77 year old men

https://www.google.com/search?q=77+...WSVs0KHRJFC0UQ_AUoAnoECAUQBA&biw=1376&bih=702


Not very physically intimidating. None of them. My Dad is 78. I can't imagine punching someone that old, it is against everything I believe in. I could hurt him bad. For me to punch anyone without self defense - no.

And I have thrown a few punches in self-defense. I've had to make these decisions in the past before as a manager of a strip club. Broke up fights, made people leave, sometimes physically. Never punched anyone except once in self defense. And I could have gotten away with it a lot.

And the customers I had deserved it a lot more than the 77 year old. Guys messing with the girls, guys fighting, some real world class a-holes. Never had to punch one.

But this guy, a donut store manager no less, who must have procedures for dealing with problem customers, punches a guy after a few words.

We do not know that a racial slur was used. It very well may have been and he also may be lying about it. Makes sense either way. Without further facts it's a coin toss in my opinion. Legally it should not make a difference. The crime is the same.

If some people are going to assume the old man was racist based on scant evidence (the suspect's word), then people who are calling for this young man's head or accusing him of being a thug are no worse or better than them. Or maybe they are better because he did assault a man and cause his death.

Many people are calling the man racist because he was attacked by a black man (must have been!). There is zero credible evidence that he was racist. The suspects word is not credible in my opinion.

If you can't keep yourself from punching someone in this situation it's your fault 100%.
 
Last edited:
Dead dude has been identified.

One sick ****** up piece of **** tbf, so no great loss from that side of things.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2021/05/25/victim-in-fatal-tampa-dunkin-punch-case-identified/

Edit:

...........Cook was arrested in 2006 after police raided his home at the time, on 19th Street near University Mall, and found surveillance cameras mounted around a bed, homemade videos and DVDs and boxes of photographs of nude young men and boys, according to news reports at the time.

Police said Cook enticed teen boys into his home with comic books, video games and candy. He then used the boys for his pornographic fantasies, including filming himself performing sex acts with a 16-year-old boy, police said. At the time of his arrest, Cook told reporters that he was not guilty, saying there was no evidence the photographs were child pornography..........
Click to expand...

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edit for rule 10.
Don't use abbreviations to evade the autocensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now this has come out, can I just drop in here as a new proviso (can't think of the proper word for if something happens I am allowed to change my opinion)

:)

If it turns out the Employee, a brother of, a best mate of, was one of the dead blokes victims, I no longer go with the thug thing.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Dead dude has been identified.

One sick f'd up piece of **** tbf, so no great loss from that side of things.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2021/05/25/victim-in-fatal-tampa-dunkin-punch-case-identified/

Edit:
Click to expand...

Also

Confirmed: This POS did use the n-word.

Revised: Pujold told him not to use that word again... this is a warning, and way different from challenging him to use that word again.

Opinion: The world is a better place without this disgusting old scumbag around. Good riddance!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom