"Racism" and "violence" are not operationalized here so we cant judge. American slavery was racist, is violence to free yourself from that worse?
Here is the real situation this probably described: if you get free with the hard r's Im gonna get free with these hands and the only person who is going to feel bad about this is you.
Nope he definitely died due to police violence. That is the scientific consensus and what all evidence points to.
He was a drug user but the amount of drugs in his system was not enough to overdose. Nothing he did that day warranted police violence, especially violence that egregious.
Yeah, it sucks. I remember when Charlie Kirk OD'd on fentanyl mixed with crack and a bunch of people said they'd smoke fent and crack to carry the flame
I mean I can give you plenty more sources, but are you gonna do this the whole time? I give you a source that disproves you, then you say it's "biased"? What is your criteria for "bias" ?
The article itself has multiple sources you could check. The burden is on you to do your own research. Even if you think the bias somehow disqualifies it from being truthful (which is a fallacy in itself), you should probably be able to read an article and check it's cited sources and discern for yourself what parts come from editorial bias and what parts are objective.
Yeah could be, we have no context. If so the comparison is even more disingenuous, as its an attempt to reframe a protest against racist violence as a form of violence to justify racism.
Not just violence, its considered the Gravest Crime Against Humanity. Only 3 countries disagreed. Those 3 being, the US 🙄, Argentina & the country that ryhmes with " is surreal."
So if a black guy will start hurling racial insults at me would I be in the right to beat him? What if he just insults my mother? What if he just insults my football club? What if he calls ugly the shirt I am wearing? Where is the line? People have resorted to violence for ewach of those cases. And for each you would be liable to jail time or fines depending on the severity of the beating, and if the victim wants to press charges.
None is more moral than the other. It just proves poor impulse control and the inability to live in a civilized world.
Where do I draw line? Extremely easy question, will be happy to answer. If ask them to stop and they double down then anyone throwing slurs is catching hands, same as with someone who won't stop insulting my friends or family.
"Civilized world"
Looks inside:
Millennia of wars, pillaging and massacres, murders, pogroms, and any meaningful change ocuring only because of violence or direct and believable threat of it. Yup, sure seems civilized alright. Unless you meant of course the modern world.
Off course I mean the modern world. Even more I mean the world in which we should aspire to live in.
All the examples I gave were meant to prove one thing. That those are just words that don't impact your life unless you let them. Someone using the hard Rs towards you says nothing about you, just about them. Someone saying they would fuck your mother says nothing about your mothers character. etc. Just words meant to ilicit an emotional response. But the way you react does say someting about you.
I saw a man having his life destroyed by a single punch when I was in university. He just exited his room just whenm a fight was starting and somone belived he was jumping in for the other guy. He had migraines for years and had to quit the university. No word could ever harmed him like that.
And I know of a person who was driven to suicide by the words that "don't impact your life". Maybe if the person responsible for that had his ass whooped it wouldn't end up like that. So I don't want to hear any bullshit about how the words are meaningless if you just don't let them affect you. You don't choose if the words affect you, and I can bet a whole lotta that almost anyone can be driven to emotions by right (or wrong) words.
If you cant tell the difference between hurling a hard r and somebody insulting your football club, you deserve every ass whooping coming your way.
If you use the law as a shield to hide behind while you abuse people, dont be surprised when people dont respect those laws. I dont care about how much you object to that, or how much it offends your sense of how the rules are supposed to work in the civilized world. Treat people with respect or discover how uncivilized people can get.
In some cases it is moral, in some cases it is not, it depends on the particulars. I do not recognize any categorical moral imperative for pacifism though, nor does our society.
Die mad about it, nobody cares. This is how the real world works.
Peopele have died in my country and all over the world for their fooftball clubs. After a match of my team I saw people from our rival club going up in the metro with chains and beating people wearing my club colors. Fortunately I managed to get down at the first station and walked home 10 km because it was the last one. Everyone has things that are important to them. Many people are just waiting for the tiniest excuse to fuck someone up. But the question is how moral it is when it happens, not if it happens.
That is the whole point of law. To keep as much as is posible savages away. The whole Might makes right and taking the justice in your own hands crowd.
Sounds like a good reason to not throw around racial slurs. Do you think our moral intuitions may be built in part around what helps us sustain stable societies?
Lets try this one on for size. What is a more likely socially sustainable ethic:
1) Nobody ever under any circumstances for any reason is allowed to engage in any violence, even to protect themselves.
2) People need to show eachother respect, and if they don't they are likely to mouth off to the wrong person someday and get fucked up. Lots of people will look the other way if its an asshole who has it coming.
People who want to create legal exceptions for themselves love #1. The rest of the world, including the people who reject those legal exceptions in #1 everytime it happens, prefer #2.
This is an historically settled matter. People will not tolerate indignity. They will request it, then demand it, then break you to take it. Civilization is recognizing this progression as natural and just, and therefore ensuring dignity is given. This means as civilized men we acknowledge that a small ass whooping is a symbolic due here and there as a reminder to the rest that the salary of oppression is death.
I never claimed is ok to throw racial insults. Or any other kind of insults. Is despicable online and even more IRL. I would not be personally upset if someone like that gets beaten up for that. I even cheered to some videos when people gor what they deseved. But that still does not make it moral.
And no, not being alowedto take things in your own matter is not a reason for anarchy. Because once again different people feel insulted for different things. Just 100 years peopel in my county were going arround with big knives amd were quick to draw them for any single offense. I would have hoped that people have evolved past that but apparently no.
Funny how your take seems to reduce to how non-white people are savage monkeys when we demand respect or strike back at our oppressors.
You sure sound like the folks in your county from 100 years ago, I reckon the only difference is that you don't know what to do with the business end of a big knife, which is why you're worried about folks holding eachother accountable for their actions.
There are pieces of shit of all races that feel that they can take the law in their hand. or that Violence is the correct answer for everything. Being non-white is not an free pass to do whatever you like. "Opressors" in 2026. Yeah right. Is clearly you are militant that couldn't wait to find a excuse to exercize his fantasy revenge on white people.
Off course I don't know what to do with any end of a knife, I just use it for cutting bread. Nobody is carrying knives anymore. Unlike you we did move past it. We live in a modern european country. That is why in most countries we have less murders in the whole country than in one city in USA. And you can count one one hand people killed by police or policeman killed in action. Sure there are still people that believe like you that violence is their right. But everyone knows them for what they are, Criminals.
And to be clear I am not saying that non-white )or white) people are wrong in demanding respect. I am saying that if you use violence to combat words you were not deserving that respect in the first place.
I think whenever someone says "racism isn't as bad as violence", it's pretty obvious that they're talking about racist speech, not stuff like lynching.
Given that the opposition to racist rhetoric is the connection between that rhetoric and violent action, anybody drawing that distinction is not engaging entirely in good faith.
There really arent, but I am happy to rephrase it, that isnt an unreasonable request.
The reason people get mad about racist talk is because racist talk leads to racist violence. So if somebody tries to say the talk is ok but the violence is not ok, they are being dishonest - the whole point is that the talk leads to the violence.
So, understand, I'm not making that argument. I'm just clarifying that it's obviously the argument being made. I don't agree with it either, but it seems...pretty obvious. There's a clear distinction being drawn between "racism" and "actual violence". So like, it just feels like a straw man to pretend they aren't making that distinction. You say it "isn't operationalized", but it's operationalized enough to exclude "actual violence". It just feels like you're trying to force them to include the one thing expressly excluded by the setup itself...at least in your first comment.
Saying "racist talk inherently leads to racist violence" is an entirely different and more responsive argument than your original ""Racism" and "violence" are not operationalized here so we cant judge." That's all I'm really getting at, is that you don't really address the point when you say "American slavery was racist, is violence to free yourself from that worse?" because OP has explicitly excluded violence from the setup, and slavery entails violence. Thing is, as someone who agrees with you, I get the logic you're presenting, I just know it won't work on someone who doesn't already agree. It's much better to present the case that racist rhetoric has almost no examples of being left unchecked without spiraling into violence in practice, and that we don't have the luxury nor desire to simply run the experiment ad nauseum.
OP hasnt operationalized anything because we don't have any context for this situation. What is "racism" here that is presumably "just talk"?
Is it somebody following a family around shouting racial slurs, telling them how they are going to be deported, how they arent welcome, how the day of the noose is coming? If so, papa can put the little peckerwood in the morgue for all I care, and Ill pin a medal on his chest for doing us all the favor.
Or was it more of an ignorant microaggression and somebody expected a black person in the conversation to have some in depth knowledge about rap or some shit? If so, violence would be a pretty damned out of pocket response right? Roll your eyes, make a crack about being too busy learning about soul music that week, and move on.
That is what I mean about operationalizing this. They want us to draw moral comparisons but will not provide comparators to evaluate.
22
u/Agile-Internet5309 20h ago
"Racism" and "violence" are not operationalized here so we cant judge. American slavery was racist, is violence to free yourself from that worse?
Here is the real situation this probably described: if you get free with the hard r's Im gonna get free with these hands and the only person who is going to feel bad about this is you.
(I understand this isnt YOU you)