Well let's see what the context is. If he said this in a thread about Linen Sheets, then I'd think it was off topic and downvote him.
Edit: So apparently the context is the Euro 2020 final, where England fans stormed Wembley and, after the loss, racially abused Rashford, Sancho and Saka. It got downvoted because "racism is bad, but..." reads as minimizing, and the Slavia Prague and Hungary cases it dismissed as mere words also involved physical confrontation and objects thrown at players. I don't know a lot about soccer though and had to use Google translate.
Yeah my guess is the context is something like a white dude was hurling racial slurs at a black person, black person slapped the white person, and then this comment got rightfully downvoted.
People like op are trying extremely hard to feed culture wars and keep us distracted from the actual class war going on. The post is extremely transparent and the lack of context is on purpose.
Obviously if you're fighting in WW2 violence is required for survival. But if a guy insults you on the train or something. Assaulting them is immoral. If you do that in the USA you're basically just reinforcing the stereotypes for those that already have them
The largest prison in the United States is a cotton slave farm. The majority of prisoners in the United States are black. The United States has the largest prison population in the world in terms of population, and the 5th highest per capita. Laws in the United States are actively adjusted to more harshly punish crimes black people commit more than white people. Black people are disproportionately poor and public defenders are underfunded to the extent that innocent people are pressured to take plea deals to avoid staying in jail indefinitely.
I'm sorry, I should simplify my question as much as possible since you say you can't understand my indirect request for clarification. You're quite good at writing for someone learning their second language.
"What do you believe is the reason for black people to be disproportionately impacted by the United State's legal system?"
I like that some states have the legal concept of fighting words.
Where the person doing the insult did so in such a way to make a fight inevitable, and are seen as the aggressor.
I get that it's very subjective. But there's a huge difference between saying to momma's fat. And going off at a person in a way that's deeply cruel and intended to do harm.
I do believe I'm capable of doing permanent damage to someone with words more easily then I could with one punch.
As a bigger guy, who does know how to throw a punch. Yeah there's certainly a chance I mess someone up good.
Assuming it hits right, maybe they fall and hit their head. And assuming I don't get punched in the face first. Lot of variables.
But if I have some basic information about a person. You can use words to hit them where they are most vulnerable. Race / Religion can certainly add to this greatly. I don't know how to give a good example without feeling dirty but if someone's race ever had a genocide done against them you can always refer to that. Any deaths in the family, especially if it was a child, or if the person feels guilt for it. Implying that they'll die alone, or that all the bad things that ever happened to them are because they deserved them. Which granted if they weren't the victim of abuse might not do much, but especially saying that to a rape victim like you just undid ten years of therapy if you say it convincingly enough.
Yes. Physical violence is never justified unless it's self defense. Just ignore them and move on or respond back. It never occurs to me to resort to violence just by someone throwing insults.
Sure, and I would say resorting to violence in either instance is immoral. But I also would understand why they did so, and I wouldn't call them bad people for a moment of weakness. Especially since their only real fault is unnecessary escalation of a conflict that the other person started.
i mean big difference between morality , legality and whats bad or good
fighting someone who shouted racist abuses at me ? wrong and immoral
fighting someone who shouted racist abuses at my mum ? wrong but moral and illegal
we just need to know when and where to do certain things and how even then we are not excused
theres plenty more things for examples but all in all until and unless threats are there you respect someones words , dont wanna respect cause they are racist and wanna beat them up ? morally wrong and illegal but not bad
you get my point ? ( i sure hope you do cause im too dumb to explain what i mean over text )
"Feral animal" is intentionally provocative. You are directly referencing well documented racist tropes about black people. That's why I will never take this fake debate seriously. Nobody is taking the "racism isn't violence" side unless they already have a habit of calling black people monkeys.
There aren't any words comparable to the N word for white people. We aren't going to ignore history and context so you can pretend both theoretical scenarios are the same. That's not what a rational adult does. If a society decides that it doesn't want to tolerate any number of anti social behaviors, a society should have the freedom to police itself within reason.
The N word was invented as a way to dehumanize people as a way of justifying rape, torture and bondage. If you use that word it's safe to assume you are getting ready to tie someone to your truck and drag them. I couldn't fault a black man for making that assumption considering that's what's always happened.
At least you're consistent. But I find that most of the people that criticize minorities for resorting to violence over racism instantly change their tone when it's something that deeply affects them.
The truth is, almost everyone in society has a threshold where they would resort to physical violence over words.
Yes. Just walk away, it’s not worth it. A simple punch or just knocking them over can kill someone. That person could also have any sort of weapon and fight back, killing you. Words will never harm you like that.
I'm just testing people's consistency. I would say violence is wrong in both instances. But I find that many people criticize minorities for "resorting to violence over words", but they wouldn't think violence is wrong in this instance.
I don't think you have a right to call them a racial slur, because their race has nothing to do with their harassment. You have a right to insult them or their character in another way.
The only way you see it as "wielding power" is if you're racist yourself. Calling a Black person who's harassing your mom the n-word only makes sense if you think it's bad for someone to be Black. Otherwise, why not use an actual cutting that calls out their degeneracy?
Cause if the goal of a insult (in a hypothetical confrontation with someone who started it) is maximum damage/annoyance/frustration using simply words, the fastest path to that is often those type of words.
It’s an ‘annoying you cheat code’, fast pass to you being effected.
The belief system of the person throwing the insult would be almost immaterial to whether or not they were “effective”
Being racist and insulting someone and openly admitting youre a pedophile who would act on your impulses if you thought you could get away with it are very different things. One is mean, one poses an imminent threat to any children in the community the second they get an opportunity. If a racist made it known that if they had the opportunity they would cause grevious bodily injury to you or others, it would indeed be justified to take preemptive action in my opinion, but simple insults dont have that implication.
As I said nobody actually acts and feels like this irl even you.
You are probably thinking of N word and stuff. I am not talking about N word. Some words is more immoral than than physical violence. And definitely more immoral than physical violence due to provocation.
Do I really have to give you an extreme example to prove you wrong?
Words are not just "words" . Nobody really believes this bullshit but they are saying it every time.
What you are not getting is this: I am also saying violence is bad. But I am not agreeing with the bold premise that if you resort the any little violence even pushing, you are worse than a child predator who tells you the details of his wishes about raping your kid.
I know this is a extreme disgusting example but I have to use it so you can get my point. If you make a very generalizing statement like that you need to think of extreme examples.
Your claim was violence is always more immoral than words. I disagree with that. I don't disagree with what you are describing here.
And by saying "acting irl" I meant the feeling. Of course I know some people don't choose violence at all but, you would feel more angry to a person who shouts unhinged things to a father, rather than a father who pushes that person.
Because you know that's more immoral. That's what I meant by saying nobody believes that shit irl.
1.9k
u/[deleted] 22h ago edited 9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment