[QUOTE=Askia]
“Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Names Will Never Hurt Me” is either wishful childish thinking or a damnable lie adults stupidly tell kids. Words hurt. Sometimes much, much worse than a physical blow to the body.
[/QUOTE]
So how will this be fixed by engaging in physical violence?
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
This public perception that we have of saying “nigger” around a black person equalling a death sentence, this is tacit racism in itself.
[/QUOTE]
Tisn’t a death sentence, tisn’t wise, either – not sure if we can call it black racism, either, even though it involves a white provocateur, a black oppressor, the n-word and violence. But who’s making the overt claim of racial superiority emblemic of racism? Why can’t this just be a regular ol’ beat down of a bigot? Why can’t white reaction to this be that blacks will get mad and might get violent be a racial stereotype?
Linty Fresh. One, it’s not a given that I’d go to jail under these circumstances. Fightin’ words provide an interesting barometer for what people consider to be insults, namecalling and threats so egregious that no one blames the guy who adminsters the beat down/shooting/collateral damage of private property.
Two, I never said I’d pull a gun. Just that in Hilarity N. Suze’s hypothetical it I said it might be justified, and I used the example of a really big guy who looks at a woman funny and calls her a “Fucking bitch.” As the older brother of two sisters and a niece, I say shoot the bastard if he won’t back down. Pulling a gun to defend yourself, last I checked, was not in and of itself a crime.
:: Crosses [del]Linty Fresh’s[/del] name off prospective defense character witnesses.
{On PREVIEW} hmmm.
RickJay. It does next to nothing to address the underlying hatred. But it answers back the violence and hatred in the name of self-defense. Retaliating with physical violence to anyone screaming threats, slurs and expletives DOES make it clear that kind of vicious behavior is unacceptable and will help keep that little girl safe. Obviosuly you would not rather those National Guardsmen not be there and she faced that angry mob alone.
But because it’s a little girl facing an adult mob, so one reasonable would object if authorities used force to protect her. Here’s a better one, because the victim retaliated.
When the Little Rock Nine desegregated their high school, they faced verbal abuse everyday. In the lunch line, Minnijean Brown retaliated against being called a nigger repeatedly by some guy in line behind her by turning around and dumping a bowl of (presumably hot) chili on her tormentor’s head. The segregated luncneon staff – all black women – reportedly broke out in applause right in front of that stunned cafeteria of students. I can guarantee no one who was there that day forgot that incident or how Minnijean stood up for herself. It’s not a high-minded reaction but one she was well within her rights to do, even if it got her expelled, and even though it was against her nonviolence training.
I will say that other groups like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party who promised retaliatory violence for racist violence against them dealt with significantly fewer instances of overt hate crimes, threats and slurs in their presence. For all their faults, they got the bigots and racists to step back, and like minded adherents to toe trhe line, and moderates and liberals to step up and intervene progressively.
Well, that’s the funny thing about barometers, Askia. They’re not 100% reliable. Lots of things can influence barometers so that they give you unexpected results, just like lots of things in courtrooms can influence a jury one way or another. No, it’s not a given that you’d go to jail, but I wouldn’t want to take those chances.
And the actions of a high school girl has . . . what to do with your situation again? She got expelled. You will probably go to prison–and rightfully so. Remember that if you go to prison, life as you know it is essentially over. You will be haunted by your criminal record for the rest of your life.
As long as you pull your (licensed, not-banned) gun on a guy who has a weapon about to do you grevious bodily harm, you have a (sort-of) good chance of coming out OK. If you pull a gun against a guy who insulted you, that’s assault with a deadly weapon right there.
Fair enough, though, you never said you’d pull a gun. Which leaves us still waiting for the answer to:
[QUOTE=Askia]
RickJay. It does next to nothing to address the underlying hatred. But it answers back the violence and hatred in the name of self-defense.
[/QUOTE]
What proximate threat would you be defending yourself against? None at all, of course.
What little girl? We’re talking about you attacking someone, not some little girl. You’re not defending the Little Rock Nine, and don’t pretend otherwise. Minnijean’s reaction was (in addition to being less violent, and more an act of insult and humiliation, than your proposed solutions) vastly more understandable than your personal desire to go around punching people.
Retaliating with physical violence would technically make it clear that anything is “unacceptable.” It still doesn’t explain what would be solved. I would suggest that the belief that preemptive physical violence will make the world a more polite and less hate-filled place is… well, really fucking stupid, to be honest. You’re simply engaged in pure escalation.
Now, bear in mind the OP is purely about verbal insults - not defending against violence, which you’re trying to sneak into the discussion.
Linty. If I had a gun, and if I could not simply leave, and was sufficiently humiliated/fearful of my safety/angered by someone threatening me with threats of violence and slurs, and I was absolutely convinced this person wasn’t just mouthing off and intended me future harm, I would shoot the bastard; I might try and shoot the bastard dead; and in either outcome I would take my chances with the courts cops and police. I won’t get into any ideological ruminations about What will this solve? or How will that fix things? or Aren’t you against the death penalty? I’m a peaceable kind of guy until I have to defend me and mine.
That said, it’s probably a good thing I don’t own a gun.
Rick. If you fail to see the proximate threat in the circumstances of that picture, you may consider yourself struck from my character witness list, too. If you don’t get that, you don’t get me.
I reject the characterization that I have a personal desire to go around punching people. I just have a track record of trying my level best to cripple people who threaten me, insult me, or otherwise push me too far once too often if I can’t defuse the situation. Your specfic understanding would be appreciated if you empathized, but frankly, in no way bears any weight on what I would assess the seriousness of the situation to be and what I would likely plan to do to stop it.
That said, I can’t dismiss that I’m engaged in escalation. I’m a “Best defense being an implacable offense” kind of guy.
Please bear in mind the OP is about insults/ethnic slurs, not just simple verbal namecalling. I am not “sneaking violence” into the discussion: I am pointing out that some verbal insults, gestures and body language so aggressive as to constitute fighting words and that the courts recognize that certain terms and threats have a likely provocation that mitigates the punishment of whatever assault you may carry out in your defense. You can find fault with me if you wanna, but perhaps you should fault the law.
[QUOTE=Askia]
reject the characterization that I have a personal desire to go around punching people. I just have a track record of trying my level best to cripple people who threaten me, insult me, or otherwise push me too far once too often if I can’t defuse the situation. Your specfic understanding would be appreciated if you empathized,
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you could paint yourself as more of an Angry Black Man stereotype? I don’t think you’re laying it on thick enough.
Hate to tell you this but being black and indignant doesn’t give you a right to beat the crap out of folks who offend you.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Linty. If I had a gun, and if I could not simply leave, and was sufficiently humiliated/fearful of my safety/angered by someone threatening me with threats of violence and slurs, and I was absolutely convinced this person wasn’t just mouthing off and intended me future harm, I would shoot the bastard; I might try and shoot the bastard dead; and in either outcome I would take my chances with the courts cops and police.
[/QUOTE]
Good plan. There aren’t too many black folks in jail for violent crimes.
[QUOTE=msmith357]
Hate to tell you this but being black and indignant doesn’t give you a right to beat the crap out of folks who offend you.
[/quote]
I never claimed a right. But it gives me a somewhat Credible Defense against Goading Jackasses who deliberately try and Pick A Fight and Go Too Far Threatening Me.
At this point there seems to be a rush to judgement to presume my conviction. Last I checked, the courts still looked favorably upon non-violent people with no history of criminal behavior who exercise self-defense when they feared for their safety and have a reasonable expectation they may be grieviously injured. You won’t hear too many black people say this, but I’ll still shoot the bastard and take my chances in court.
I am not a Angry Black Man Stereotype. I haven’t called anyone a “racist motherfucker” once.
… d’oh!
[QUOTE=silenus]
But then again, any white guy who uses that term perjoratively to a black person deserves to get the snot beat out of him, if only for educational purposes. 
[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much my position.
I oppose the use of violence in cases like this, but if the violence actually occurred you wouldn’t find me crying too many tears for the person who got his ass kicked.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Linty. If I had a gun, and if I could not simply leave, and was sufficiently humiliated/fearful of my safety/angered by someone threatening me with threats of violence and slurs, and I was absolutely convinced this person wasn’t just mouthing off and intended me future harm, I would shoot the bastard; I might try and shoot the bastard dead; and in either outcome I would take my chances with the courts cops and police. I won’t get into any ideological ruminations about What will this solve? or How will that fix things? or Aren’t you against the death penalty? I’m a peaceable kind of guy until I have to defend me and mine.
That said, it’s probably a good thing I don’t own a gun.
[/quote]
That last sentence is cetainly one i’m not going to argue with.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Rick. If you fail to see the proximate threat in the circumstances of that picture, you may consider yourself struck from my character witness list, too. If you don’t get that, you don’t get me.
I reject the characterization that I have a personal desire to go around punching people. I just have a track record of trying my level best to cripple people who threaten me, insult me, or otherwise push me too far once too often if I can’t defuse the situation. Your specfic understanding would be appreciated if you empathized, but frankly, in no way bears any weight on what I would assess the seriousness of the situation to be and what I would likely plan to do to stop it.
[/quote]
You appear to place all possible verbal insults under a single umbrella, as if every one signified the same level of threat. Reacting violently if you are actually being threatened is understandable; acting violently if you are merely being insulted (however offensive the insult might be) is something else altogether.
Your use of the term “defuse the situation” is laughable, as you have made it quite clear in this thread that you don’t and won’t make an attempt to do any such thing. You’ve been very clear that the simple use of the word “nigger” will cause you to react with violence, without regard for whether there is any real threat involved.
Because, despite your blanket appeal to the issue of “fighting words,” courts DO and WILL draw a distinction based on the particular circumstances of the case.
If some guy gets in your face and starts yelling “What you gonna do about it nigger,” while pushing forward and making threatening gestures, then you’d probably be well within your rights to hit him, and i think few people here would criticize you for it.
But what if, for example, some guy that you had a difference of opinion with just turned away from the conversation in disgust and said “Whatever. Stupid nigger” and kept drinking his beer? Would you then feel justified in “stomping his throat”? Because if the witnesses to the incident told the court what happened, you can be pretty sure that the “fighting words” rulings wouldn’t help you very much.
Personally, i think anyone who uses that word in any pejorative sense is a vile, contemptible human being and, as i said above, the idea of that person taking a beating wouldn’t cause me to lose any sleep. But your apparent willingness to immediately resort to violence in any and all such circumstances does you little credit.
[QUOTE=Askia]
That said, I can’t dismiss that I’m engaged in escalation. I’m a “Best defense being an implacable offense” kind of guy.
Please bear in mind the OP is about insults/ethnic slurs, not just simple verbal namecalling. I am not “sneaking violence” into the discussion: I am pointing out that some verbal insults, gestures and body language so aggressive as to constitute fighting words and that the courts recognize that certain terms and threats have a likely provocation that mitigates the punishment of whatever assault you may carry out in your defense. You can find fault with me if you wanna, but perhaps you should fault the law.
[/QUOTE]
But, as i pointed out above, the law doesn’t just look at the words themselves and make an out-of-context determination. The court will look at the whole circumstances surrounding the incident, and will make a determination based not just on what words were spoken, but the attitudes and positions of the people who spoke them. If you believe that the “fighting words” rulings give you unfettered license to beat the crap out of anyone who uses the word “nigger” in your presence, might i suggest that you look more closely into these rulings. In that second scenario i described above, you’d be pretty unlikely to sustain a claim of self-defense.
[QUOTE=Askia]
I never claimed a right. But it gives me a somewhat Credible Defense against Goading Jackasses who deliberately try and Pick A Fight and Go Too Far Threatening Me…
…At this point there seems to be a rush to judgement to presume my conviction. Last I checked, the courts still looked favorably upon non-violent people with no history of criminal behavior who exercise self-defense when they feared for their safety and have a reasonable expectation they may be grieviously injured. You won’t hear too many black people say this, but I’ll still shoot the bastard and take my chances in court.
[/QUOTE]
I believe you misinterpret the law. Fighting words do not provide an excuse for violent retaliation and they certainly do not justify deadly force. They’re just not protected by the Constitution for the very reason that they can incite someone to violence.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Unless someone is physically threatening me and I’m reacting in self-defense, then there is no excuse for me to lash out violently. It might be understandable but not right.
[QUOTE=Askia]
Theoretically yes but in practice I tend to doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
Expand, please.
Seems to me the problem with all this tough talk is the likelihood of “fighting words” being heard heard out of context or just misunderstood. You can take back a tongue-lashing if it turns out the guy really said “knickers,” but not a punch or bullet.
[QUOTE=gytalf2000]
So what do you think? Should the utterance of a racial/ethnic slur automatically provoke a physical beating? Should the perpetrator of violence be absolved from blame if his race had been impugned? That attitude seems a bit bizarre to me, but I would like to hear your opinions on the subject
[/QUOTE]
In a word, no.
There is absolutely no excuse for physical violence as a response to verbal provocation. In your scenario, the black guy who did the beating should have been arrested and jailed for what he did.
This is another of the myriad instances of why “vigilante justice” is nearly always bad. Certainly, nearly all the time the attacked deserved to be physically punished, if not always beat up. But if we condone this even socially, if not legally, then we’d have people beating up people all the time and claim that “fighting words” were uttered. Even if they’re lying (of course, no one would lie about racial slurs, right? Right?)
Askia: What about this specifc example in the OP? Black guy #2 says that black guy #1 was being a jerk to the smaller white guy for a long time. What if the little white guy threw out the N-word because he was angry, and/or feeling threatened? Is it okay to beat up someone for using a racial epithet when you’re the one who started the mess in the first place?
I have to agree with you with the face: “Unless someone is physically threatening me and I’m reacting in self-defense, then there is no excuse for me to lash out violently. It might be understandable but not right.”
I haven’t noticed if anyone has addressed this part of the story:
[QUOTE=gytalf2000]
…At least one such altercation was witnessed by the other black guy at the table, who evidently had known him since childhood. He remarked that the beating was unjustifiable because black guy #1 had been acting like a jerk toward his white victim for a long time, and besides, the white guy was much smaller, and really should not have been beaten so badly…
[/QUOTE]
So, if being called by an offensive racist epithet is justification for a beating, is being chronically (presumably verbally) victimized a justification for hauling out said epithet in the first place?
In other words, if I persistently pick on some guy until he says, “Get off my case, you fucking chink!”, am I justified in unleashing my Stereotypical Asian Dude Kung Fu Powerz™ on him?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Unless someone is physically threatening me and I’m reacting in self-defense, then there is no excuse for me to lash out violently. It might be understandable but not right.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
The guy in the OP it seems also had a history of picking on the guy who used the N word. So he certainly wasn’t blameless, nor was it understandable.
Maybe I shouldn’t speak here, since I’m as white as white can get. But retaliating against some scumbag racist by beating the shit out of him or shooting him is only going to get YOUR ass in prison. And reinforce his racist ideas. Is it worth it?
Besides, for all you know, the guy’s a freaking black belt, and kicks the shit out of you. Or he has a gun of his own.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
shitkicker said, we’d better.
[/QUOTE]
alright m----r f----r, afterschool in the parking lot :mad:
or should that be at recess by the monkey bars
The thing that really bothered me about the first guy’s attitude was the fact that the second guy pointed out that he had bullied the white guy for a long time. The word that he actually used was “a–hole”, a word that is not in my regular vocabulary – “You had really been an a–hole to that guy for a long time!”
It just seemed like he felt he could treat white people (ones who were a lot smaller than him, anyway!) any way he wanted, but, man, if someone ever called him the “n-word”, they were really in for a beating! The fact that the white guy (who was about as big as both the black guys put together!) agreed with such thinking was very disturbing!
