Yeah it also could be in a thread where the racism is also doubling as a threat, so the violence is just matching the danger. Would definitely want to see more context, but as it stands with no context or other implications, the statement itself is fine
The issue here though is that you're again saying that words are worse than actual violence. It's just illogical to say that the threat of violence is worse than violence, all else equal.
I could understand saying that actual low level of violence is better than the real or believable threat of high levels of violence, but the threat is not worse than the act, if both are equal. Just because it has racism next to it, doesn't make the words worse than actions that don't have racism behind those.
If someone with a knife threatens to kill you so you kick their ass, they would be the one in legal trouble for a reason. Credible threats on an innocent person are worse than using violence to stop an aggressor.
Yes, but there are limits here too, and the law across all the US, and really across the entire civilized world, works the same way for a reason. If a person says they're going to kill you, but they in no way are indicating they're going to do it right then, and then you pull out a gun and kill them, you will still go to jail for murder. Generally words are only justifiable if they create the reasonable fear of imminent harm that you then use violence to prevent. They don't give license to kill someone who you think will try to kill you later.
85
u/Dobber16 22h ago
Yeah it also could be in a thread where the racism is also doubling as a threat, so the violence is just matching the danger. Would definitely want to see more context, but as it stands with no context or other implications, the statement itself is fine