• 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.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
struggle sessionWP
Click to expand...

Finally you let the cat out of the bag. You're scared that your beloved country could become some communist hellhole. Why didn't you say so? :confused::rolleyes:

I'm just kidding but the question remains: Why use words from the Mao regime. Completely ridiculous.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm rolling up a response that is addressing several of your posts here. You say this doesn't seem newsworthy, and that this lady has no injury, essentially implying that it's no big deal, she's fine.

Yet... in the "punching people on the tube" thread, you seemed to take the stance that a single loudmouthed jerk making nasty comments to a few people was both newsworthy and was threatening enough to justify the target of his bad behavior taking physical action against him.

It seems like you feel one guy yelling at three guys is sufficient threat for those three guys to physically assault him... but you simultaneously feel that dozens of people yelling directly into the face of one lone woman and blocking her in is... no big deal?

How do you reconcile those views?
Click to expand...

I think you already know the answer.

I never claimed that the guy on the tube deserved to get domed for being loud. He deserved to get hit for trying to intimidate black passengers with white supremacy.

If these people had tried to make this woman feel inferior on the basis of race, I would feel fine with her defending herself with violence.

That didn't happen.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Suburban Turkey & RedStapler: Do you approve of the behavior of the protesters toward the woman in the pink shirt? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I think insisting on performative disavowals of white privilege is tedious and probably counterproductive. I generally agree with the sentiment "white silence is violence". We're a somewhat democratic society, and the cops brutalizing the public is at best the result of disinterest of the broad public in the routine violation of civil rights in poor and non-white communities. That being said, there are many more high priority targets deserving protester attention.

I think these protesters would be much better off causing a ruckus in front of the Mayor's mansion or the police chief's million dollar home rather than screwing with randos trying to eat a cafe.

All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. This is a non-event. It's a desperate attempt by reactionaries to drum up animus towards reform movements.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
Whereas getting heckled by a single drunk racist ******* is so major, it warrants violent retaliation.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think you already know the answer.

I never claimed that the guy on the tube deserved to get domed for being loud. He deserved to get hit for trying to intimidate black passengers with white supremacy.

If these people had tried to make this woman feel inferior on the basis of race, I would feel fine with her defending herself with violence.

That didn't happen.
Click to expand...

It comes across as though you think that saying racist things is de-facto intimidation, regardless of whether there is physical intimidation involved... but that actual physical intimidation is not sufficient for self defense if there's not a racism element to it?

Given the behavior of the large crowd of people around her, would you be in support of her acting in self defense and punching any of the people around her?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think insisting on performative disavowals of white privilege is tedious and probably counterproductive. I generally agree with the sentiment "white silence is violence". We're a somewhat democratic society, and the cops brutalizing the public is at best the result of disinterest of the broad public in the routine violation of civil rights in poor and non-white communities. That being said, there are many more high priority targets deserving protester attention.

I think these protesters would be much better off causing a ruckus in front of the Mayor's mansion or the police chief's million dollar home rather than screwing with randos trying to eat a cafe.

All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. This is a non-event. It's a desperate attempt by reactionaries to drum up animus towards reform movements.
Click to expand...

I think your framing of it as "heckling" is a bit... overly generous. It's also interesting that you didn't actually say "no, it's not acceptable" but rather approached as not being a "high priority target".

Also, you seem to have latched on to the word "reactionary" and keep using it. I'm not sure why.
 
Large crowd, physically intimidating a single person, blocking her in against a wall... not a big deal, it's heckling and just a minor slight.

One person saying very rude things to three people who have multiple ways to move away from him... massive problem that justifies "preemptive self-defense".
 
Like I said:

Right-wingers grab whatever they see trending on black twitter (in this case, "#CancelCosby", calling for the cancellation of Bill Cosby's comedy tour, imagine that!), graft the word "culture" to it, and completely fail to understand what was the discussion was about or come up with any sort of coherent definition, even when it's completely obvious.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It comes across as though you think that saying racist things is de-facto intimidation, regardless of whether there is physical intimidation involved... but that actual physical intimidation is not sufficient for self defense if there's not a racism element to it?

Given the behavior of the large crowd of people around her, would you be in support of her acting in self defense and punching any of the people around her?
Click to expand...

Someone saying "this is my country" or anything to that effect is an implicit threat of second class citizenship. I feel fine with such sentiments being met with a violent response.

Emily's Cat said:
Large crowd, physically intimidating a single person, blocking her in against a wall... not a big deal, it's heckling and just a minor slight.

One person saying very rude things to three people who have multiple ways to move away from him... massive problem that justifies "preemptive self-defense".
Click to expand...

What do you mean by unacceptable? It was certainly quite rude. I don't see anything criminal here.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Of course you don't.
Click to expand...
I don't either, at least not in the relevant jurisdiction. It remains perfectly legal to surround someone and shout abuse at them in D.C. and I'm looking fwd to more of that happening to elected officials rather than random civilians who've done nothing wrong.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Is ST missing something? Do tell.
Click to expand...

The crowd of people surrounding the lady appear to be a more credible threat with a clearer case of intentional intimidation than the guy on the train.

If we were to remove race from the situation, and look solely at the dynamics involved, I think almost anyone would feel that the lady surrounded by the crowd would likely feel more threatened than the three folks on the train would.

Racism is a definite problem, and it most certainly needs to be rectified. But at the end of the day, someone saying mean things is not a more credible threat than a person being surrounded by a crowd yelling at them for not doing what the crowd insists that she must do.

One person yelling at a few rich guys, calling them filthy capitalist pigs who has virtually raped all of their wage slaves is rude, and I could understand the target of such abuse being angry. But one rich guy being surrounded by a crowd yelling at him to give them his money is something else entirely.

One person yelling at a few women that they're evil sluts who belong in the kitchen is execrable, and the target of such language would rightly be offended and angry. One woman being surrounded by an angry crowd yelling at her to go make babies like she's supposed to is a very different situation.

Of course, neither of those analogies is really a great fit. But the dynamic remains. In the tube case, it's one guy saying very cruel racist things to three people, all of whom had room to move away from him and had the option to exit by a different door and avoid any confrontation. I completely understand them being angry, it seems appropriate that they should be angry. One of them, however, decided to knock the racist yeller out... and was lauded for it and had permanent brain damage wished upon him.

In this case, one woman is minding her own business when a crowd of protesters surrounds her, and insists that she raise her fist. Her lack of action leads an entire group of people to get in her face, in a clearly intimidating fashion, yell directly at her, and block her in. She has no escape. And this is brushed off as no big deal, just a slight inconvenience really.

The stark contrast in the perception of moral high ground between these two events is appalling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom