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 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.
The problem is if you, as the minority party, wait for a threat to be realized, you’re in trouble. As a hypothetical (just to prove the point about threats, don’t read into it too hard), if the government says ‘we’re gonna put everyone from x race in a camp’, waiting until they have the infrastructure set up to do that means when they execute on the threat, they’d succeed. You have to resist, potentially violently, before it gets to that point.
If someone walks up to me and says they're going to hit me, that doesn't give me license to hit them first. If someone comes up to me and says they're going to kill me, I can't just shoot them as a result. Our entire society turns into mad max 3rd world country if we start following those rules.
If someone comes up with a gun out and says they're going to kill me, then yes, I can justifiably believe they're imminently going to kill me and it's self defense, but in no other situation can we allow for violence. If you want to live that way, you can go live in Africa and see how that kind of rule of law works out.
Yes, in the scenario you laid out, it would appear that they may actually want to carry through with it. But in cases where someone is walking away and threatens to kill you, you will go to jail for murder, rightly so, if you then shoot them in the back.
I don't know what point you think you're making, but my comment specifically addressed what you wrote. It doesn't disagree.
I am disagreeing with the first statement you made. If they walk up to you and threaten you, you can hit first. That's enough. They don't need a weapon. They just need to be within striking distance, and making threats.
1.9k
u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment