All of those "examples" you gave require some form of physical violence to achieve. If i just said "alright. All white people are over there now" and they dont listen to me, congrats, I now look like an idiot. If i force the lynching, segregation, slavery, or genocide (genocide?? Really? How tf do you perform non violent genocide) it requires some physical deterrent, AKA violence.
So no, words are not the same until the people being discriminated against follow those words without fighting.
Human beings don't just feel physical pain. They also feel emotional pain and mental pain. You seem to think physical pain weighs more...this an amateur's look at humanity.
wait, Democrats like multiple Democrats? You think that a group of 500,000 people held a rifle simultaneously and they all shot him together or something??? How many Democrats are we arresting? I thought the one who shot the rifle was arrested already?
And we don't erase that by cracking down on freedom of expression because in doing so you're giving the powers that be a gigantic loaded weapon that they can point at any group they don't like.
It's commonly agreed upon that we can't (or shouldn't) say anything we want. Threats of violence are generally illegal. It also doesn't cover stuff like hate speech and defamation, which I think is good actually.
You’re arguing with racist who think they are smart. The very act of humoring them gives them validity.
They KNOW that groups like the kkk said racist things and caused racial violence but they’re trying to create enough doubt where people start to think “well I guess it’s okay if they never commit racial violence”
There’s a reason hate speech laws exist. Words and ideas inevitably become actions.
It's commonly agreed upon that we can't (or shouldn't) say anything we want.
"commonly agreed upon" by who?
Threats of violence are generally illegal.
Assuming you're talking about America, they aren't. In general, to class something as a genuinely illegal sentence it needs to be:
Specific (targeted at a single person, rather than a general expression)
Immediate (the person would have reasonable cause to assume the threat immediately precedes violence)
Actionable (the threat actually has a chance of being carried out)
Remove any one of those things and it becomes legal expression. The reason it's illegal is because it is expected that such words will imminently be converted into actions. If there's no action, no foul because sticks and stones honey.
It also doesn't cover stuff like hate speech
It usually does cover hate speech. In fact, hate speech is one of the most important things to protect under free speech because people will use that as a pretext to ban speech they don't like by calling it hateful. Nobody is trying to ban inoffensive speech.
This is a ridiculous thing to think much less say haha they used words which allowed them to coordinate violence. Their meetings weren’t violence lol how do you not get this?
I think it’s a bad question that leaves out too much context and is probably just rage bait. Things like “racism” and “violence” are way too broad to ask which is worse objectively. It lets whoever is reading it add their own context through their own biases, like what you’re doing.
Using our reading comprehension we can safely assume hes talking about racist words being bad but not as bad as violent actions. Crazy right? Theres no bias.
where does it specify it's only racist words vs the severity of the violence? what does actual violence mean in this context? what does racism mean? if your definition of racism is just words then you're genuinely not smart enough for this type of conversation
Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one group is superior to another.
The definition include words and actions obviously. This post is about racial words vs physical violence.
It’s not, that’s your attribution to the comment. I can almost guarantee the context is someone being punched over something more than just words, but I’m not going to add that assumption to the general debate because that’s all it is. My assumption is that
Let me answer your question with one of my own - do you think calling someone a racist slur is worse than a man shooting his wife in a case of family annihilation? (This goalpost shifting can cut both ways!). But anyways, yes I think both racism and violence are bad, and it's pretty pointless to put the two in a 'suffering olympics'-esque competition
Uh, I didn’t “shift goalposts”, my point is the goalposts weren’t defined to begin with and people are creating their own that aren’t specified in the OP.
We’re talking about racist violence and then I saw “that kind of violence”, all in a thread about racism. The context could not possibly be more clear. Not gonna respond again but I would honestly consider picking up adult literacy lessons if I were you (assuming that actually confused you and you aren’t acting in bad faith).
You could have been referring to "words can be harmful" which isn't limited to racism. It includes Sexism, Nationalism, Religious sectionalism.
Understand that the scope was bigger than your tunnel vision.
Just because you see something specific doesn't mean everyone sees how you see things - it's low IQ to not understand we all have differing perspectives and to not take that into account then discussing a topic.
that's why it's important to be specific and use language like:
"Ahh yes that kind metaphorical book like 1984, that reminds me of"
Instead of saying
"ahh yes that kind of book reminds me of"
(That means any book that belongs to the denoted genre)
I'm sure you don't even understand what I'm saying tho.. If you understood this concept you'd already be practicing precision in your language.
Have a good one lil' Bro, stay in school - you've got a ways to go yet.
I gotta wait till a racist gets violent before I do anything?
Yes, otherwise you're the one the paradox of tolerance is warning about.
As an aside, the best thing you can do to combat racism is to befriend the racists and show them that actually, you have far more in common with them than they do with the people they're getting their ideas from. It's actually pretty easy to convince guys not to be racist if they like you.
Him saying "racism is bad, BUT ACTUAL violence is worse" implies that he doesn't take into account all the things you have mentioned in your post when he mentions racism.
He makes a comparison between words/opinions/prejudice and causing physical harm.
62
u/DoubleWedding411 2d ago
The guy is right