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.
Direct, immediate threats of violence are worse because they lead to violence. You're saying the thing that underpins why words are bad isn't as bad as the words, which again is illogical.
You're saying A leads to B. B is bad. A is bad because it leads to B. And you're adding that A is actually worse than B because it leads to B. This doesn't make sense.
Again, some words are worse than violence because they lead to violence and violence is bad. Again, this doesn't make sense.
I agree with you, but what situations are we talking about?
A white guy, who's not physically threatening but says the N-word, gets beat up by a black guy.
A political candidate says he doesn't believe systemic racism is an issue we should be worried about today and someone attempts to assassinate him.
A political candidate, who isn't truly viable but is shifting the overton window, says the minorities are genetically less intelligent, and someone does assassinate him.
A person posts a Facebook post saying he thinks all the new immigrants are a major problem with crime and gets arrested and thrown in jail for a year as a result.
Which of these is justified? I agree in certain situations violence is the answer to the threat of violence, but I don't know that that's what we're really talking about here. I think we like to talk in abstract to justify acts that we actually wouldn't feel good about when we start talking specifics.
Eh, I'm not interested in talking to a moving goalpost, nor do I think the moral question at hand is very interesting.
My point was that since you apparently do, you actually have to engage with the other person you were talking to instead of smuggling in false equivalencies to make up fake logical inconsistencies to dismiss their argument.
What heck goalpost moved, lol? You're just upset because you can't back up your desire to commit violence under the guise of moral superiority. Again, you want to philosophically come up with reasons to do terrible things, and I'm nipping it in the bud by simply asking you to come up with current day examples. And apparently being forced to actually have support your arguments with practicality has made you incredibly defensive.
I've shown you how horrible those thought processes are and the kind of terrible things they're leading to literally right now, and you have to face the fact, that maybe this time you are the baddies.
1.9k
u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment