The pensioner retorts: 'F. off! Yes you're a monkey.'

[user104658]

I mean that’s great but he did ask for by throwing the first punch. His stupid racist arse violently escalated it.

The stance though is still that if someone "has it coming"/"deserves it"/"is asking for it" then the correct course of action, the morally right thing to do, is to give in to base violent urges and go ahead with throwing punches.

I'm literally never going to agree with that. Violence isn't the right choice, unless yourself or others are at immediate risk, you don't sink to the level of the person you want to attack, you find a better way. It's understandable that people aren't always perfect IN that situation and might lash out - and you can't always condemn those people, but you should never applaud them. It's that simple for me. It literally does not matter what the person has said or done.

Oliver's comparison was a terrible one but I'm going to offer one up that I think is, more or less, an EXACT comparison - but that I imagine people are still not going to like, fair warning.



The people on this thread who are saying that violent action against this racist old man is justified, right and acceptible are the SAME people who have been insisting - again and again, and again and again and again - RIGHTLY I might add - that in cases where black men have been subjected to battery, assault, injury and death by police officers - their past crimes do not matter and are irrelevant, and that excessive force and brutality is never justified.

Can someone please explain to me the double-think that allows you to insist that a man's past as a drug dealer, violent offender and domestic abuser does NOT justify excessive violence being used against him, but an old man saying racist things DOES justify excessive violence?

Again I will reiterate that I absolutely agree with the sentiments on those other threads - nothing justifies brutality, it DOESN'T matter who those men were or what they had done. But you have to apply that thinking across the board, or you are demonstrably a hypocrite, and when you say "what those men had done in the past doesn't matter" in other situations, you have no leg left to stand on. You're here, in this thread, insisting blue-in-the-face that it does matter. That doing bad things justifies unnecessary violent response. :shrug: Does it or doesn't it? At least make up your mind.

[GiRTh]

Can someone please explain to me the double-think that allows you to insist that a man's past as a drug dealer, violent offender and domestic abuser does NOT justify excessive violence being used against him, but an old man saying racist things DOES justify excessive violence?
Simply, the police officers in such situations are trained to deal with such situations and they actually attempt to justify the use of violence or excessive force. The people in this vid reacted to a belligerent and offensive individual. It is not even close to being the same.,

[Tom4784]

A police officer shooting people to death or paralysis without warning or due process is a world away from a racist private citizen abusing other citizens and attempting to hit them, only for them to retaliate. It should be exceedingly obvious why.

[thesheriff443]

Who on this forum would hit an old man for calling you. Nasty names ??

[arista]

Who on this forum would hit an old man for calling you. Nasty names ??


Yes it's sad
so many are
wanting to punch him.

[Ammi]

...honestly, I really can’t understand this thread at all and some of the things being levelled personally at posters...there is no double think at all so far as I can see...all I mostly see are extensions of thought in a not always black and not always white, type way...I guess as Jack has said earlier...’is.....etc, etc/insert here whatever...ever justified.‘...and that ‘justification’ isn’t and never will be a definitive thing...personally, I still feel that self defence could be in play and then it would be ‘reasonable force’....but I obviously can’t see on the vid clearly enough to feel more sure with that...but whatever the law would say in terms of any black and white...?...those people involved may have been racially abused in such a way again and again and again etc...even when they were children, who knows...it’s just for me all a grey area of ‘justification’ that’s being explored in this thread and sometimes concluded with by some...‘yes, I feel it is, personally I do’...and because it’s very rarely...one size fits all...those people can still look at other violence’s and feel those ones ‘unjustified’ because each thing being looked at the differences of and not just the similarities, type thing...not in a generalisation of anything and everything that involves violence...I just don’t get the thing of ‘ you have make up your mind’ because actually, you don’t ...as a judge in a court of law you might have to more ..?...but even then, I imagine that other considerations are at times, made as well...I also don’t get when police violence is used in the present and at the time it is being used etc...why any past crimes are always relevant in the way that they often are/just thrown in there anyway in media etc....again, maybe there are times when they’re directly relevant to certain actions...but again, not an ‘always’...such ‘power in never and always’ as I said earlier...with all of the events on the bus, they were all happening in the present and not the past...anyways, I just feel as though I’m repeating circles... and I feel as though there is manipulation being used and closing down of a discussion etc...which is never a healthy thing for a discussion topic that deserves much more...

[user104658]

Simply, the police officers in such situations are trained to deal with such situations and they actually attempt to justify the use of violence or excessive force. The people in this vid reacted to a belligerent and offensive individual. It is not even close to being the same.,Good reason to understand and empathise with why people who are not trained in how to respond to violence might lash out in retaliation. Not reason to applaud or suggest it as the right/correct course of action after the fact. I've already said that I understand why people might lash out in frustration and shouldn't be condemned for it: I entirely agree that police officers being (supposedly) trained professionals means that they should be condemned for resorting to unnecessary violence.

The reasons that the crimes of the "perpetrator" (in this case the old man) are irrelevant when looking at the use of violence are exactly the same. A police officer shooting people to death or paralysis without warning or due process is a world away from a racist private citizen abusing other citizens and attempting to hit them, only for them to retaliate. It should be exceedingly obvious why.I'm not talking about the ultra-extreme cases where people with their hands on their heads are gunned down, or cases where people who are not guilty of any crime are killed or injured. I'm talking about the use of excessive force against genuine perpetrators. If the police were called to a domestic violence situation and found that a 70 year old man had hit a family member... Had been hitting them regularly for years, even... and they rushed in and hit him in the face with a baton risking a brain bleed when he was no active threat... We would hopefully and rightly be horrified. In fact I know we would because there have been threads very recently where people have brought up the crimes and violent actions of victims of excessive retaliatory violence in the vein of "this guy had it coming", "I have no sympathy" and it has been firmly stated in response that "it doesn't matter - its still wrong".

It is wrong.

The suggestion that we should have higher expectations of police officers in "doing the right thing" than we do of non-officers is fine, I agree with that too. But the difference is in the expectation that they actually do the right thing... Not in what IS the right thing.

[user104658]

..I also don’t get when police violence is used in the present and at the time it is being used etc...why any past crimes are always relevant in the way that they often are/just thrown in there anyway in media etc....again, maybe there are times when they’re directly relevant to certain actions...but again, not an ‘always’...such ‘power in never and always’ as I said earlier...with all of the events on the bus, they were all happening in the present and not the past...

Because the conversation moved on from the suggestion that the men were justified because they were acting in self defence (because its ludicrous to suggest that a young adult man needs to defend himself with any real force against a 70 year old) to the idea that it doesn't matter what action was taken because the man is "a bad person", "had it coming", "was asking for it", "should have expected it because of his actions".

Comparing it specifically to, let's say, a domestic violence incident where we know that domestic violence has just occurred (bad person, had it coming) and the unarmed perpetrator (not a realistic threat) is approaching the police when he's been told to stop (should have expected it because of his actions) is then subject to multiple blows to the head from police and ends up in hospital.

Do we think any of those excuses are valid for what they did? Do we say he had it coming because he's a bad person who beat his wife? Do we say he brought it on himself by refusing to comply?

NO, we rightly say "wow there was no need to use that level of force, no matter what he did".

Unless it's an awful old man on a bus

Then we say "Quite right, shame it wasn't worse".

It is double-think and bias, there's no real way around it.

[Ammi]

...’one size fits all’ is not a ‘double think’ mindset..there’s very much an extension of view beyond that as well...things like this are not always all labelled and boxed up nicely ...that would make for no discussion points at all tbh and be the end of all of us discuss type people...


...with respect TS, I feel that the ‘comparisons’ that you use are very often much manipulated into your own mindset, with this...and you’re completely dismissing and excluding things from comparisons that others have expressed they feel are relevant.....with any ‘comparisons’, we look at relatable similarities but we have to offer the same thoughts to ‘differences’....

...anyways I can’t do this today and you have your thought processes and others have theirs...so I’ll just follow the thread as an observer today as much as I’m able to...

[Cherie]

If the old guy presses charges, the guy handy with his fists could end up with a criminal record which will may impact his future forever, the old guy could also be charged, but it wont affect him, he will still get his pension, and ride the bus to Arnos Grove in his suit, so apart from the immediate satisfaction the guy got for trying to knock seven bells out of him, the satisfaction could be short lived

[Liam-]

A police officer assaulting a suspect or a member of the public is a completely different scenario to a stranger starting a fight with someone in public after racially abusing them and you know it, what a bizarre comparison

[GiRTh]

Good reason to understand and empathise with why people who are not trained in how to respond to violence might lash out in retaliation. :conf:

Isnt that what I've been saying thru out the thread?


Not reason to applaud or suggest it as the right/correct course of action after the fact. When have I said that? Please point it out.

I've already said that I understand why people might lash out in frustration and shouldn't be condemned for it: I entirely agree that police officers being (supposedly) trained professionals means that they should be condemned for resorting to unnecessary violence.

The reasons that the crimes of the "perpetrator" (in this case the old man) are irrelevant when looking at the use of violence are exactly the same. I'm not talking about the ultra-extreme cases where people with their hands on their heads are gunned down, or cases where people who are not guilty of any crime are killed or injured. I'm talking about the use of excessive force against genuine perpetrators. If the police were called to a domestic violence situation and found that a 70 year old man had hit a family member... Had been hitting them regularly for years, even... and they rushed in and hit him in the face with a baton risking a brain bleed when he was no active threat... We would hopefully and rightly be horrified. In fact I know we would because there have been threads very recently where people have brought up the crimes and violent actions of victims of excessive retaliatory violence in the vein of "this guy had it coming", "I have no sympathy" and it has been firmly stated in response that "it doesn't matter - its still wrong".

It is wrong.

The suggestion that we should have higher expectations of police officers in "doing the right thing" than we do of non-officers is fine, I agree with that too. But the difference is in the expectation that they actually do the right thing... Not in what IS the right thing.This is hot air. You seem to talk alot without saying anything. Please point out where your views differ from mine.

[Niamh.]

Okay I take that comment back, it was too extreme of a comparative example, and stupid.

But it's still victim blaming to suggest the old man deserved or was asking for the violence he received.

I wouldn't say it was Victim blaming when he started the aggression/incident. I'm not saying I agree that those two men were justified as such but it was a reaction to something that old guy started.

[Ammi]

...also a consideration of there being two victims with this as well if you like...so not an equivalent from the off..?...

[user104658]

:conf:



Isnt that what I've been saying thru out the thread?





When have I said that? Please point it out.



This is hot air. You seem to talk alot without saying anything. Please point out where your views differ from mine.The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".

[thesheriff443]

Look you can dress it up any way you please to try and justify your opinion.

Young fit men should not be beating the sh1t out of old men for being called names no matter how nasty those names.

I’ve experienced extreme violence confrontations and will probably experience more, violence is not the answer and should only be used in protecting yourself and others from violence.

[Parmy]

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.

[GiRTh]

The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.:conf:

When you reply to me I assume you are quoting me. Maybe try to address that in the future. :thumbs:

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".Agreed.

[Niamh.]

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.

It really doesn't matter what the lead up to it is, if you call a black person a monkey, you're racist

[GiRTh]

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.:laugh:

I forgot that one. We dont know what was said before. I'lll ad that to the list of excuses. We've had - he had mental health issues - but yet to have - Maybe it was an error of judgement and he was mortified afterwards. Who gonna offer up that excuse? :shrug:

[GiRTh]

We havent had - He was high or drunk - yet. Whos gonna offer up that excuse?

[Parmy]

It really doesn't matter what the lead up to it is, if you call a black person a monkey, you're racist



What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

[GiRTh]

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?The both sides argument.

[Niamh.]

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

The both sides argument.

.

[Parmy]

The both sides argument.

Isnt that the fairest way.:shrug:

Considering none of us know very much about this clip.

[user104658]

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

They weren't berating or attacking him for being white though nor did they make any reference to him being white in the video, they were berating and attacking him for being racist. Even if there is more to the disagreement before the start of the video (e.g. the initial argument was about something else before it descended into the racist slurs) you can't really get away from the fact that he did start using racist slurs which isn't excusable for any reason.

Again though since I'm not sure if I've been clear about this on the thread ( :hehe: ) - while I think it's fine for them to verbally berate him I don't believe that the physical retaliation is justified, and certainly not laudable.

[Tom4784]

The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".

Who is encouraging them? My whole point throughout the thread is that you can't provoke a situation, turn it violent and then blame your victims if they respond in kind. I've said very little to nothing about whether the people were in the right or not, just that the old man was responsible for this incident even being a thing.

You get what you put out into the world, if you're gonna abuse someone and take a swing at them, sometimes people will swing back.

[jet]

They weren't berating or attacking him for being white though nor did they make any reference to him being white in the video, they were berating and attacking him for being racist. Even if there is more to the disagreement before the start of the video (e.g. the initial argument was about something else before it descended into the racist slurs) you can't really get away from the fact that he did start using racist slurs which isn't excusable for any reason.

Again though since I'm not sure if I've been clear about this on the thread ( :hehe: ) - while I think it's fine for them to verbally berate him I don't believe that the physical retaliation is justified, and certainly not laudable.

You've been perfectly clear TS :hee: and I've been nodding with agreement reading your posts on this thread.

[user104658]

Who is encouraging them? My whole point throughout the thread is that you can't provoke a situation, turn it violent and then blame your victims if they respond in kind. I've said very little to nothing about whether the people were in the right or not, just that the old man was responsible for this incident even being a thing.



There have been several posts on the thread encouraging and applauding violent retaliation and if you haven't seen them, then you can't have read the whole thread. I don't disagree that he was responsible both for starting and for escalating the confrontation and I've said multiple times that it's not about blaming them for snapping in retaliation - I'm not judging them for it, I just think it's unfortunate that they did, for multiple reasons, and don't think it should be excused as a good response even by those who can see that it's in many ways an understandable response.

You get what you put out into the world, if you're gonna abuse someone and take a swing at them, sometimes people will swing back.

Again I just don't see how this functionally is any different to arguments about disproportionate response to criminals; it's the argument you see all the time. "If you're gonna commit crimes and you end up in hospital in a coma (or even dead) then that's on you and oh well, you shouldn't have been doing crime".

I understand that it's a contentious parallel especially given the circumstances but it's the most frequent, and most recent, set of example I can think of on this forum where most people have stated or argued that they (IMO rightly) understand that a violent action should be assessed purely on the basis of necessity and the incident itself, and not on how "morally upstanding" the person involved is. Yes he's a racist old arsehole, yes he provoked the situation, yes it was all of his own making... but no, the two men were not at any realistic physical risk and so violent response wasn't necessary. They lost their tempers, which to state again, is understandable and should be taken into account, but should never be lauded as appropriate or necessary.

[thesheriff443]

Got to say I’m in ts, corner in this thread.

[Oliver_W]

We havent had - He was high or drunk - yet. Whos gonna offer up that excuse?

Has anyone been trying to excuse the racist's actions? Nope! There's a difference between "he shouldn't have been punched" and "his words were justified,"

[The Slim Reaper]

Got to say I’m in ts, corner in this thread.

How long has this been going on?

[GiRTh]

Has anyone been trying to excuse the racist's actions? Nope! There's a difference between "he shouldn't have been punched" and "his words were justified,"Exhibit A

And when we find out the old aged pensioner has altzheimers or another mental health disability which caused his outburst

Then what?2nd bit of your post make no sense.

[Crimson Dynamo]

the truth is that many of our elders grew up in much less diverse communities than we have today. For example, in the Great Plains area where I grew up, most people were of Scandinavian or Germanic extraction, so it was largely a “white bread” society. My feeling is that most elders aren’t racists; they simply aren’t used to interacting with people from different backgrounds. To make matters worse, dementia can cause an elder to lose their filter and become fearful, angry or agitated when confronted by a person or situation they are not completely comfortable with. This is the perfect storm for a derogatory quip and hurt feelings.

Now, elders are bound to interact with people who are Native American, Hispanic, and African American, and new immigrants from any number of countries, especially in a diversely staffed elder care setting. I was fortunate that both my parents greeted all their caregivers with open arms. However, I saw and heard many elders using racially charged language that was very disrespectful, to say the least. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean these people were racist, although, of course, some are. Many have simply lost their short-term memory and whatever inhibitions they may have once had. So, when they see someone who is different from them, they blurt out names or stereotypes that they heard as youths, thus embarrassing everyone involved.

https://www.agingcare.com/articles/things-people-with-dementia-say-155103.htm

[Kizzy]

The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".

Your view is very black and white... pun intended.

I can see your point and I expressed the same feeling in my first post, however your explanation that these men should've 'been the better person' is unfair. You can't quantify the actions of another when you have no concept of their life or experiences. It just come's across as patronising.

[GiRTh]

the truth is that many of our elders grew up in much less diverse communities than we have today. For example, in the Great Plains area where I grew up, most people were of Scandinavian or Germanic extraction, so it was largely a “white bread” society. My feeling is that most elders aren’t racists; they simply aren’t used to interacting with people from different backgrounds. To make matters worse, dementia can cause an elder to lose their filter and become fearful, angry or agitated when confronted by a person or situation they are not completely comfortable with. This is the perfect storm for a derogatory quip and hurt feelings.

Now, elders are bound to interact with people who are Native American, Hispanic, and African American, and new immigrants from any number of countries, especially in a diversely staffed elder care setting. I was fortunate that both my parents greeted all their caregivers with open arms. However, I saw and heard many elders using racially charged language that was very disrespectful, to say the least. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean these people were racist, although, of course, some are. Many have simply lost their short-term memory and whatever inhibitions they may have once had. So, when they see someone who is different from them, they blurt out names or stereotypes that they heard as youths, thus embarrassing everyone involved.

https://www.agingcare.com/articles/things-people-with-dementia-say-155103.htmWhy have you cherry picked a couple of paragraphs from a random article? Very odd post :conf:

[GiRTh]

So we're going with he's mentally ill. Out of curiosity, why go with that one? I'd have thought - he was drunk - would have been more appropriate. I've got my checklist here and I'm just ticking the excuses off as they come up. Still waiting for - Its was just a mistake and he regretted it straight away.

[Parmy]

They weren't berating or attacking him for being white though nor did they make any reference to him being white in the video, they were berating and attacking him for being racist. Even if there is more to the disagreement before the start of the video (e.g. the initial argument was about something else before it descended into the racist slurs) you can't really get away from the fact that he did start using racist slurs which isn't excusable for any reason.

Again though since I'm not sure if I've been clear about this on the thread ( :hehe: ) - while I think it's fine for them to verbally berate him I don't believe that the physical retaliation is justified, and certainly not laudable.


You say they wernt attacking him for being white, but would they have attacked an elderly black gentleman if he had said the same?

[Niamh.]

You say they wernt attacking him for being white, but would they have attacked an elderly black gentleman if he had said the same?

that's just not a very realistic situation..is it?

[Tom4784]

There have been several posts on the thread encouraging and applauding violent retaliation and if you haven't seen them, then you can't have read the whole thread. I don't disagree that he was responsible both for starting and for escalating the confrontation and I've said multiple times that it's not about blaming them for snapping in retaliation - I'm not judging them for it, I just think it's unfortunate that they did, for multiple reasons, and don't think it should be excused as a good response even by those who can see that it's in many ways an understandable response.



Again I just don't see how this functionally is any different to arguments about disproportionate response to criminals; it's the argument you see all the time. "If you're gonna commit crimes and you end up in hospital in a coma (or even dead) then that's on you and oh well, you shouldn't have been doing crime".

I understand that it's a contentious parallel especially given the circumstances but it's the most frequent, and most recent, set of example I can think of on this forum where most people have stated or argued that they (IMO rightly) understand that a violent action should be assessed purely on the basis of necessity and the incident itself, and not on how "morally upstanding" the person involved is. Yes he's a racist old arsehole, yes he provoked the situation, yes it was all of his own making... but no, the two men were not at any realistic physical risk and so violent response wasn't necessary. They lost their tempers, which to state again, is understandable and should be taken into account, but should never be lauded as appropriate or necessary.

As Girth said earlier, you're writing paragraphs that are actually saying very little. Trying to tie this into the response people have towards the police is just silly beyond compare, as the brutality that's taking place is not something that is provoked, it's committed against people who have looked to the police for help, who have gone about their lives peacefully. Trying to make out that people are hypocritical by using the police example is just fatally flawed for similar reasons Oliver's infamous earlier comparison was.

Do I think the guys were in the right? Nope, but given the circumstances, I don't care enough to be enraged about it and I think a lot of people acting like some sweet old man got jumped would be singing a different tune if the races were reversed but I wouldn't. It's not right but if you provoke a situation and escalate it to violence, you're gonna get hurt. Common sense, really. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Parmy]

that's just not a very realistic situation..is it?

Really?

You have obviously never heard a black man call another black man the n word then.:shrug:

Cause that happens a lot..

[Niamh.]

Really?

You have obviously never heard a black man call another black man the n word then.:shrug:

Cause that happens a lot..

oh fgs

[The Slim Reaper]

Really?

You have obviously never heard a black man call another black man the n word then.:shrug:

Cause that happens a lot..

Do you think black people should be able to refer to each other using that word?

Do you feel like you're missing out?

It's none of your business.

[user104658]

As Girth said earlier, you're writing paragraphs that are actually saying very little. Trying to tie this into the response people have towards the police is just silly beyond compare, as the brutality that's taking place is not something that is provoked, it's committed against people who have looked to the police for help, who have gone about their lives peacefully. Trying to make out that people are hypocritical by using the police example is just fatally flawed for similar reasons Oliver's infamous earlier comparison was.

Do I think the guys were in the right? Nope, but given the circumstances, I don't care enough to be enraged about it and I think a lot of people acting like some sweet old man got jumped would be singing a different tune if the races were reversed but I wouldn't. It's not right but if you provoke a situation and escalate it to violence, you're gonna get hurt. Common sense, really. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It's a strange ad hominem but it's not any more effective with you repeating it than it was when he said it the first time; I write well and I'm comfortable with my writing style.

I'm not "saying very little" - what I am doing is constantly retreading the same ground and repeating things I've already said in the thread. Mostly because, as above, people are continually arguing against things I haven't actually said and I (naively) thought that might be because I wasn't expressing it clearly enough. I think I'm going to have to accept that it's a willful misrepresentation.

I'm not tying it to "people's response to violence committed against people who have looked to the police for help" - I've been quite clear that I'm talking about disproportionate response to actual criminal situations.

I don't "care enough to be enraged about it" - I've repeatedly stated that their actions are understandable and that my dislike of the violent response has nothing to do with Poor Old Racist Joe or having sympathy for him.

I haven't at any point disagreed that being racist and attacking people is likely to end up in getting hurt, nor that it isn't common sense to know that.

Apparently these things are unclear, despite me having said all of them clearly and repeatedly.



I can only try one more time to boil it down to as little as possible:

The guy was being a racist arsehole. Finding himself on the recieving end of a violent response was likely, understandable, even unavoidable if it's something he's doing often. They didn't respond in self defense, because they weren't realistically at physical risk - they responded in anger. That is understandable, especially in the current political climate. Responding with violence is still the wrong choice, and shouldn't be applauded, as violent responses shouldn't be encouraged.

It's not really a complicated stance but I keep getting responses that I feel sorry for the guy, or that I'm blaming the guys who punched him, or that I'm not sympathetic to the issues, or that - actually - no one has applauded it when the posts are still right there to be read.

[GiRTh]

It's a strange ad hominem but it's not any more effective with you repeating it than it was when he said it the first time; I write well and I'm comfortable with my writing style.

I'm not "saying very little" - what I am doing is constantly retreading the same ground and repeating things I've already said in the thread. Mostly because, as above, people are continually arguing against things I haven't actually said and I (naively) thought that might be because I wasn't expressing it clearly enough. I think I'm going to have to accept that it's a willful misrepresentation.

I'm not tying it to "people's response to violence committed against people who have looked to the police for help" - I've been quite clear that I'm talking about disproportionate response to actual criminal situations.

I don't "care enough to be enraged about it" - I've repeatedly stated that their actions are understandable and that my dislike of the violent response has nothing to do with Poor Old Racist Joe or having sympathy for him.

I haven't at any point disagreed that being racist and attacking people is likely to end up in getting hurt, nor that it isn't common sense to know that.

Apparently these things are unclear, despite me having said all of them clearly and repeatedly.



I can only try one more time to boil it down to as little as possible:

The guy was being a racist arsehole. Finding himself on the recieving end of a violent response was likely, understandable, even unavoidable if it's something he's doing often. They didn't respond in self defense, because they weren't realistically at physical risk - they responded in anger. That is understandable, especially in the current political climate. Responding with violence is still the wrong choice, and shouldn't be applauded, as violent responses shouldn't be encouraged.

It's not really a complicated stance but I keep getting responses that I feel sorry for the guy, or that I'm blaming the guys who punched him, or that I'm not sympathetic to the issues, or that - actually - no one has applauded it when the posts are still right there to be read.Another meandering response.

Two things, your first post to me was quite rude, so I decided to match your rudeness. Thanks for knocking that on the head. :thumbs:

Socondly, and this where I repeat my self like you are in this thread. If you quote me make sure you're actually quoting me. You've posted a general summary but quoted my post. Dunno why you did that perhaps you can explain?

[user104658]

Another meandering response.

:rolleyes:

Two things, your first post to me was quite rude, so I decided to match your rudeness. Thanks for knocking that on the head. :thumbs:

Socondly, and this where I repeat my self like you are in this thread. If you quote me make sure you're actually quoting me. You've posted a general summary but quoted my post. Dunno why you did that perhaps you can explain?

:think: I quoted Dezzy's post. Unless you're still talking about the post from earlier, where I quoted you with a short response to what you had said, and then separately quoted Dezzy and responded to that... and then you responded to the whole thing including the part where I was responding to Dezzy asking how it differed to what you had been saying.

Are you secretly Dezzy?

[Tom4784]

The guy was being a racist arsehole. Finding himself on the recieving end of a violent response was likely, understandable, even unavoidable if it's something he's doing often. They didn't respond in self defense, because they weren't realistically at physical risk - they responded in anger. That is understandable, especially in the current political climate. Responding with violence is still the wrong choice, and shouldn't be applauded, as violent responses shouldn't be encouraged.

It's not really a complicated stance but I keep getting responses that I feel sorry for the guy, or that I'm blaming the guys who punched him, or that I'm not sympathetic to the issues, or that - actually - no one has applauded it when the posts are still right there to be read.

I decided to chop out all the Ben Shapiro-ness from your post and the fact that you keep speaking down to me.

You're arguing against something I didn't do (applaud them for responding to the man in kind) while making out that I'm accusing you in particular of defending the racist when, to the best of my knowledge, I have not. If I wanted to say you were doing so, I'd simply do so. I spoke in general terms.

Being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian will rarely work out well.

[GiRTh]

One more thing, dont invoke MLK. You pretty much embarrassed yourself with that one.

[user104658]

I decided to chop out all the Ben Shapiro-ness from your post and the fact that you keep speaking down to me.

being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian will rarely work out well.

One more thing, dont invoke MLK. You pretty much embarrassed yourself with that one.

Rolls you eyes all you want but its sometimes difficult to pick anything out of your posts. If you're comfortable with your style then thats fine but when you write six lines and five of them say nothing - like you have many times in this thread - ...:shrug:

Yes I'm very embarrassed. I have better things to do than... this... so I will take my meandering posts elsewhere. It's going in circles and I have little to no interest in whatever this is.

[GiRTh]

:rolleyes:



:think: I quoted Dezzy's post. Unless you're still talking about the post from earlier, where I quoted you with a short response to what you had said, and then separately quoted Dezzy and responded to that... and then you responded to the whole thing including the part where I was responding to Dezzy asking how it differed to what you had been saying.

Are you secretly Dezzy?Rolls you eyes all you want but its sometimes difficult to pick anything out of your posts. If you're comfortable with your style then thats fine but when you write six lines and five of them say nothing - like you have many times in this thread - ...:shrug:

[GiRTh]

Yes I'm very embarrassed. I have better things to do than... this... so I will take my meandering posts elsewhere. It's going in circles and I have little to no interest in whatever this is.Dont go we love you really.

Just dont talk about MLK if you dont know much about his life or the civil rights movement in general. You invoked him to make a really weak point. Yeah you should be embarrased but I doubt you are.:shrug:

[Marsh.]

the truth is that many of our elders grew up in much less diverse communities than we have today. For example, in the Great Plains area where I grew up, most people were of Scandinavian or Germanic extraction, so it was largely a “white bread” society. My feeling is that most elders aren’t racists; they simply aren’t used to interacting with people from different backgrounds. To make matters worse, dementia can cause an elder to lose their filter and become fearful, angry or agitated when confronted by a person or situation they are not completely comfortable with. This is the perfect storm for a derogatory quip and hurt feelings.

Now, elders are bound to interact with people who are Native American, Hispanic, and African American, and new immigrants from any number of countries, especially in a diversely staffed elder care setting. I was fortunate that both my parents greeted all their caregivers with open arms. However, I saw and heard many elders using racially charged language that was very disrespectful, to say the least. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean these people were racist, although, of course, some are. Many have simply lost their short-term memory and whatever inhibitions they may have once had. So, when they see someone who is different from them, they blurt out names or stereotypes that they heard as youths, thus embarrassing everyone involved.

https://www.agingcare.com/articles/things-people-with-dementia-say-155103.htm

What relevance does this have?

This isn't a situation where a man "doesn't know how to communicate with people from different backgrounds" but chooses to be intentionally racist and hateful towards people of a different skin colour.

Coming out with bullsh*t excuses because he happens to be an older man is just ridiculous.

[Marsh.]

Wow, this thread makes mine and Kizzy's last disagreement fade into obscurity. :joker:

Phew!!

[Oliver_W]

the truth is that many of our elders grew up in much less diverse communities than we have today. For example, in the Great Plains area where I grew up, most people were of Scandinavian or Germanic extraction, so it was largely a “white bread” society. My feeling is that most elders aren’t racists; they simply aren’t used to interacting with people from different backgrounds. To make matters worse, dementia can cause an elder to lose their filter and become fearful, angry or agitated when confronted by a person or situation they are not completely comfortable with. This is the perfect storm for a derogatory quip and hurt feelings.

Now, elders are bound to interact with people who are Native American, Hispanic, and African American, and new immigrants from any number of countries, especially in a diversely staffed elder care setting. I was fortunate that both my parents greeted all their caregivers with open arms. However, I saw and heard many elders using racially charged language that was very disrespectful, to say the least. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean these people were racist, although, of course, some are. Many have simply lost their short-term memory and whatever inhibitions they may have once had. So, when they see someone who is different from them, they blurt out names or stereotypes that they heard as youths, thus embarrassing everyone involved.

https://www.agingcare.com/articles/things-people-with-dementia-say-155103.htm

There's no need to make excuses for the old man, he shouldn't have said the things he did :shrug:

But then, people are making excuses for violence toward a feeble person, which is worse than offensive language, so blehh whatever.

[Tom4784]

The man wasn't so 'feeble' when he was racially abusing people and taking a swing at them. I'm also not making excuses for the two for retaliating but, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If you're going to start a fight with someone, you can't expect the other side to not fight back.

[Oliver_W]

The man wasn't so 'feeble' when he was racially abusing people and taking a swing at them. I'm also not making excuses for the two for retaliating but, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If you're going to start a fight with someone, you can't expect the other side to not fight back.

His swing wasn't equal to their swing, he was no danger to them.

[Parmy]

Do you think black people should be able to refer to each other using that word?

Do you feel like you're missing out?

It's none of your business.

Yeah, really missing out cause I love shouting racial obscenities at people.. get a grip!!

I can also make anything I want my business thanks..

And fgs what niahm?

[user104658]

Dont go we love you really.

Just dont talk about MLK if you dont know much about his life or the civil rights movement in general. You invoked him to make a really weak point. Yeah you should be embarrased but I doubt you are.:shrug:

I would be embarrassed to have brought MLK into the thread, but I didn't bring MLK into the thread, I was the third person to enter that part of the discussion, mainly to refute something that I had misunderstood in the first place. I didn't invoke him to make any sort of point - it was Mr Trumpet, who was responded to by Slim, who I then responded to thinking he was making a point that he clarified he wasn't making. Maybe you mistakenly thought I made that first post?

[Tom4784]

His swing wasn't equal to their swing, he was no danger to them.

He escalated things. If you swing at someone first, you cannot complain if they swing back, whether or not their force matches yours. If someone doesn't want to turn things violent then they shouldn't commit violent acts and then try to act like a victim when there's blowback.

Stupid games, stupid prizes.

[Parmy]

He might have been calling them cheeky monkeys to begin with..the clip is just not good enough to judge the situation correctly.

[Crimson Dynamo]

There's no need to make excuses for the old man, he shouldn't have said the things he did :shrug:

But then, people are making excuses for violence toward a feeble person, which is worse than offensive language, so blehh whatever.

Its not an excuse but its a possibility. I have had a lot of experience of Alzheimers that most member have not. I just put it out there as things like this are never as they are portrayed by one fuzzy video.

[user104658]

If you're going to start a fight with someone, you can't expect the other side to not fight back.

I think you really can and should expect physically fit young men not to fight elderly people, mainly because there's a not-insignificant risk that they'll accidentally kill or cause permanent injury, but that's a whole separate debate in many ways.

[Tom4784]

The sheer display of mental gymnastics to defend this grotty racist is truly something.

[GiRTh]

I would be embarrassed to have brought MLK into the thread, but I didn't bring MLK into the thread, I was the third person to enter that part of the discussion, mainly to refute something that I had misunderstood in the first place. I didn't invoke him to make any sort of point - it was Mr Trumpet, who was responded to by Slim, who I then responded to thinking he was making a point that he clarified he wasn't making. Maybe you mistakenly thought I made that first post?
The person who bought MLK into the thread knew exactly what they were doing so I didnt bother replying to him. No point. You on the other hand invoked that great mans name inorder to make a quite stupid point. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong :shrug:

[user104658]

He might have been calling them cheeky monkeys to begin with..the clip is just not good enough to judge the situation correctly.

I find that highly unlikely but in an ideal world yes I think we'd be better able to judge the situation if the video was longer. You can only go on what's actually there though, making assumptions either way about how it started is pointless.

[Tom4784]

I think you really can and should expect physically fit young men not to fight elderly people, mainly because there's a not-insignificant risk that they'll accidentally kill or cause permanent injury, but that's a whole separate debate in many ways.

He shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't win. This situation begins and ends with his decision to racially abuse someone and elevate that situation to the point of violence.

Stupid games, stupid prizes.

[Oliver_W]

The sheer display of mental gymnastics to defend this grotty racist is truly something.

There's a difference between defending his actions (which no-one is doing) and saying he shouldn't have been punched. There's no mental gymnastics involved in saying both people were in the wrong, but using unnecessary physical force is the more wrong.

[Parmy]

I find that highly unlikely but in an ideal world yes I think we'd be better able to judge the situation if the video was longer. You can only go on what's actually there though, making assumptions either way about how it started is pointless.


What is there?

What I see is a bloke lashing out because he was feeling harassed, his temper got the better of him, but I'm like you, the 2 young punks overstepped the mark by assaulting the elderly gentleman..

[GiRTh]

What is there?

What I see is a bloke lashing out because he was feeling harassed, his temper got the better of him, but I'm like you, the 2 young punks overstepped the mark by assaulting the elderly gentleman..Him throwing the first punch was self defence? :conf:

[Tom4784]

There's a difference between defending his actions (which no-one is doing) and saying he shouldn't have been punched. There's no mental gymnastics involved in saying both people were in the wrong, but using unnecessary physical force is the more wrong.

Well, there were posts above you that were literally making out that he could have Alzeimers or that he called them 'cheeky monkeys' and that was just interpreted as racism so...

[user104658]

The person who bought MLK into the thread knew exactly what they were doing so I didnt bother replying to him. No point. You on the other hand invoked that great mans name inorder to make a quite stupid point. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong :shrug:

I incorrectly thought that Slim was inferring that MLK would have advocated for a more violent form of activism if he had had forewarning about things that would happen later, when from what I do know about the Civil Rights Movement I'm very much under the impression that he was well aware of how things were likely to go and made specific choices when it came to the rights and wrongs of violent retaliation, and the effects it would have.

I accept that that wasn't actually what Slim was saying and I misconstrued his post... but if I'm wrong in the above thinking then also let me know? I can admit that I don't know vast amounts about it.

[Tom4784]

Him throwing the first punch was self defence? :conf:

His racially abusing people on a bus was actually him being harassed? The hoops people will jump through....

[Parmy]

Him throwing the first punch was self defence? :conf:

It could be argued that they had left the bus, but then came back on the bus so he felt he had to defend himself :shrug:

[user104658]

There's a difference between defending his actions (which no-one is doing) and saying he shouldn't have been punched. There's no mental gymnastics involved in saying both people were in the wrong, but using unnecessary physical force is the more wrong.

Well now we're just all over the place because I don't actually think the unnecessary physical response is "more" wrong than the racism... more that it was a wrong cherry plopped on top of the already very wrong pie. A garnish of bad decision making in the heat of the moment.

[GiRTh]

It could be argued that they had left the bus, but then came back on the bus so he felt he had to defend himself :shrug:Let me add that to my list of excuses.

He threw the first punch but was defending himself. I cant get that one to work in my head.

[Oliver_W]

Let me add that to my list of excuses.

He threw the first punch but was defending himself. I cant get that one to work in my head.

Would he have thrown the first punch if they didn't come back and walk up to him?

[Parmy]

Let me add that to my list of excuses.

He threw the first punch but was defending himself. I cant get that one to work in my head.

You will get there eventually.

[Liam-]

Would he have thrown the first punch if they didn't come back and walk up to him?

He swung at them twice, once while one of them was getting off and then once at the other guy that swung back

[GiRTh]

I incorrectly thought that Slim was inferring that MLK would have advocated for a more violent form of activism if he had had forewarning about things that would happen later, when from what I do know about the Civil Rights Movement I'm very much under the impression that he was well aware of how things were likely to go and made specific choices when it came to the rights and wrongs of violent retaliation, and the effects it would have.

I accept that that wasn't actually what Slim was saying and I misconstrued his post... but if I'm wrong in the above thinking then also let me know? I can admit that I don't know vast amounts about it.You also implied his non violent approach was why he is respected as a great. It seemed a quite bizarre point to make because its absolute nonsense. You dont need to tell me you dont know much about it, I can tell.

We can go a few rounds more on this if you want and we'll see exactly how much you dont know. Not nice being talked down to is it?

[Oliver_W]

MLK would have experienced a lot worse than an old nutter raving on a bus, and he still supported a nonviolent approach!

[GiRTh]

Would he have thrown the first punch if they didn't come back and walk up to him?I'd like to know how you think girls in short skirts are 'provoking' but we'll stick to this. We'll never know if he'd have thrown that punch but he did throw it and that all that matters.

[user104658]

You also implied his non violent approach was why he is respected as a great. It seemed a quite bizarre point to make because its absolute nonsense. You dont need to tell me you dont know much about it, I can tell.



We can go a few rounds more on this if you want and we'll see exactly how much you dont know. Not nice being talked down to is it?

Given that I just amicably admitted that I don't know huge amounts about it and expressed an interest in hearing more about it, I'm not sure why you chose to continue giving me a "revenge talking down to". Is it not nice? I'm not that bothered by it because I'm not taking it very seriously to be frank. You chose to continue being a huffy little boy about it and continue with the pointed (and failing) attempt to "give me a taste of my own medicine or something"... So no... I don't think we will "go a few more rounds of this". I will however read up on it elsewhere, from people who can discuss it without getting upset and trying to score points. I concede that you know more about it than me; but evidence suggests that you don't know anywhere near enough about it to actually learn anything about it from you, or perhaps, you don't have a genuine goal of teaching anyone about it. Either way I'm not interested in what you're selling, but your point has been taken.

[GiRTh]

Given that I just amicably admitted that I don't know huge amounts about it and expressed an interest in hearing more about it, I'm not sure why you chose to continue giving me a "revenge talking down to". Is it not nice? I'm not that bothered by it because I'm not taking it very seriously to be frank. You chose to continue being a huffy little boy about it and continue with the pointed (and failing) attempt to "give me a taste of my own medicine or something"... So no... I don't think we will "go a few more rounds of this". I will however read up on it elsewhere, from people who can discuss it without getting upset and trying to score points. I concede that you know more about it than me; but evidence suggests that you don't know anywhere near enough about it to actually learn anything about it from you, or perhaps, you don't have a genuine goal of teaching anyone about it. Either way I'm not interested in what you're selling, but your point has been taken.Huffy? Your first few posts to me set the tone. You really need to work on that, especially when you dont know much on a subject. There is no 'take down' per se. You, like the geezer in the vid, started acting like a ...well lets not finish that thought...and I dont know where you thought it would get you. Perhaps you'd like to enlgihten us all as to why you take this tone on here

As for teaching. What are you saying, that I must teach you? Why cant find things out on your own? As it happens I dont mind having a discussion with anyone on this subject. I've been having them for decades. I've had these discussion with skinheads and BNP members. Please stop rating yourself and your opinions so highly. :thumbs:

[Parmy]

We all rate our opinions highly..some are just better at versing those opinions, but the feelings are the same with every post we all make.

It's never nice to see 2 intelligent posters fall out a wee bit.

[user104658]

Huffy? Your first few posts to me set the tone. You really need to work on that, especially when you dont know much on a subject. There is no 'take down' per se. You, like the geezer in the vid, started acting like a ...well lets not finish that thought...and I dont know where you thought it would get you. Perhaps you'd like to enlgihten us all as to why you take this tone on here

As for teaching. What are you saying, that I must teach you? Why cant find things out on your own? As it happens I dont mind having a discussion with anyone on this subject. I've been having them for decades. I've had these discussion with skinheads and BNP members. Please stop rating yourself and your opinions so highly. :thumbs:

No, it is a "take down attempt" and you've demonstrated that again with your last sentence there. I do rate myself and my opinions highly, I do stand by everything I've said about the incident in the OP and I feel that I engaged with the thread thoughtfully and respectfully until people who weren't fans of what I had to say decided it was time to "take me down a peg". What I am embarrassed about is, firstly, engaging with it at all... And secondly, being drawn back in for more.

Enjoy the rest of your evening, Girth.

[GiRTh]

I will have a good evening after one more reply. I apolgise if you feel this was an attempted take down, it abolsutely wasnt and if you choose to not believe that then you further confirm much of what I said when I was being narky. I dont want to take you down . Please believe me and if you dont then you have some issues to address. Good day to you sir !!!

[Parmy]

Can I ask a question?


What is a takedown? Where does it originate from?

[Kizzy]

Given that I just amicably admitted that I don't know huge amounts about it and expressed an interest in hearing more about it, I'm not sure why you chose to continue giving me a "revenge talking down to". Is it not nice? I'm not that bothered by it because I'm not taking it very seriously to be frank. You chose to continue being a huffy little boy about it and continue with the pointed (and failing) attempt to "give me a taste of my own medicine or something"... So no... I don't think we will "go a few more rounds of this". I will however read up on it elsewhere, from people who can discuss it without getting upset and trying to score points. I concede that you know more about it than me; but evidence suggests that you don't know anywhere near enough about it to actually learn anything about it from you, or perhaps, you don't have a genuine goal of teaching anyone about it. Either way I'm not interested in what you're selling, but your point has been taken.
Look how salty you get when someone challenges your intellect...now go back to the beginning of the thread and read your comments to Liam.

[Parmy]

Telling people what to do is an ugly look, that's why everyone in the video is in the wrong in a certain way.

You have the old bloke, whose obviously very frustrated about something and feeling picked on and perhaps scared for his life if he reads the papers and is realistic and wise enough to know that he is in London and black youths carry knives..perhaps in his head it was like a custard last stand...obviously in his head, and mine ihe is trying to get 2 rowdy passengers off the bus, hence his idiotic mouthy outburst and flailing swing.

Then the youths standing thier moral ground, because of what he said, but overstepping the mark by double teaming an old man after trying to tell him to get off the bus.

[Niamh.]

Telling people what to do is an ugly look, that's why everyone in the video is in the wrong in a certain way.

You have the old bloke, whose obviously very frustrated about something and feeling picked on and perhaps scared for his life if he reads the papers and is realistic and wise enough to know that he is in London and black youths carry knives..perhaps in his head it was like a custard last stand...obviously in his head, and mine ihe is trying to get 2 rowdy passengers off the bus, hence his idiotic mouthy outburst and flailing swing.

Then the youths standing thier moral ground, because of what he said, but overstepping the mark by double teaming an old man after trying to tell him to get off the bus.So its the black guys faults the were racially abused because they're black and should expect it? Wow

[user104658]

Look how salty you get when someone challenges your intellect...now go back to the beginning of the thread and read your comments to Liam.I'm allowed to stand my ground Kizzy, as is Liam, which I'm sure he's perfectly capable of doing if he chooses to. I'm not interested in engaging with you as a proxy :think:.

[Marsh.]

is realistic and wise enough to know that he is in London and black youths carry knives..

No, it's not wise to be racist, no matter how much you want it to be.

[user104658]

I can buy that he's fearful of them but only because an absolute tonne of racism is rooted in fear that's been fostered by xenophobic rhetoric (peer and press)... But it being literal xenophobia doesn't make him not racist. That is just an aspect of what being racist is.

[Oliver_W]

that he is in London and black youths carry knives..perhaps in his head it was like a custard last stand..
:joker:

Yeah, big cities are the last place you'd ever see a minority. Maybe he watched all ten seasons of Friends and assumed there wouldn't be any!

[Glenn.]

Telling people what to do is an ugly look, that's why everyone in the video is in the wrong in a certain way.

You have the old bloke, whose obviously very frustrated about something and feeling picked on and perhaps scared for his life if he reads the papers and is realistic and wise enough to know that he is in London and black youths carry knives..perhaps in his head it was like a custard last stand...obviously in his head, and mine ihe is trying to get 2 rowdy passengers off the bus, hence his idiotic mouthy outburst and flailing swing.

Then the youths standing thier moral ground, because of what he said, but overstepping the mark by double teaming an old man after trying to tell him to get off the bus.

White youths carry knives too you know, it’s not just a thing black youths do.

[Ammi]

...I do think that this discussion has been such a lengthy and often quite heightened in emotion one etc...because it isn’t so black and white and there is much ‘grey’ with it..ideally, there would be no physical violence, obviously...but ideally also, there would be no such hateful prejudice still felt and voiced in 70 something years of life and life learning in someone in 2020...I also read in some reports that before the older guy had racially abused and called them monkeys and the N word, which can never be diminished or reduced with the label of ‘name calling’...that the younger guys had their hands/...or one of them had their hand on the holding pole to steady them as they ‘were standing room only‘ as it were...and the older guy had pushed the hand/hands off, which was the very first beginning of the leading up to../...incident...and the first ‘laying of hands on’, if it’s being reported correctly...I can’t imagine how it feels to ever be treated like that/to ever be treated in such a superior way as if you’re nothing at all...as if it was unpleasant in some way to physically be around you....on the whole, I don’t feel that violence is a ‘good answer’, but I do feel that sadly in some cases, it will become closer to an ‘inevitable’ or a likelihood and in the present day, much in society sadly seems to be getting closer and closer, rather than further and further as most of us would hope, from this type of abuse...and if and when that abuse happens, as with this incident... we have to consider in ‘judging’...well, we don’t have to but I personally do.. ...but then also what is the answer because I doubt there would ever be ‘the answer’ with someone who had lived so many years of life and still displayed such hatefulness...and in the judging of ‘applauding’ as it were...violence is never something that I personally would applaud but I think it is also a reaction to something quite hateful that sadly will be an inevitable or likelihood as well...


...as I’ve already said, I think...there is also very much ‘human’ to consider as well in judgement...and the psychology of human in reaction with this incident and in those moments...would possibly encompass also that what was provoking/abusing and physically pursuing right in front of them and what they were looking at etc...wasn’t an older man so much..it was hate...’pure hate attacking them verbally and possibly physically as well’...

[Parmy]

White youths carry knives too you know, it’s not just a thing black youths do.

I am aware of that, but was the old man:shrug:

[Parmy]

So its the black guys faults the were racially abused because they're black and should expect it? Wow

Whatever ya say naihm.:rolleyes:

[Kizzy]

I'm allowed to stand my ground Kizzy, as is Liam, which I'm sure he's perfectly capable of doing if he chooses to. I'm not interested in engaging with you as a proxy :think:.

:think:

We have already engaged about it several times earlier in the thread when you suggested his youth was preventing him from holding a reasoned opinion on the topic remember?

He did indeed stand his ground, you however have been stomping around the thread attempting to discredit his opinion and those of others. I notice you made a point of saying you rate yourself and your opinions highly.

You are coming across as sanctimonious here.

[Kizzy]

I can buy that he's fearful of them but only because an absolute tonne of racism is rooted in fear that's been fostered by xenophobic rhetoric (peer and press)... But it being literal xenophobia doesn't make him not racist. That is just an aspect of what being racist is.

Right... now imagine you've been the victim of that xenophobic rhetoric. Do you think that would or wouldn't impact on your responses as opposed to say...your responses?

[Glenn.]

I am aware of that, but was the old man:shrug:

It has no bearing on anything whether he knew or not

[Josy]

Stick to discussing the topic and NOT other members thanks!

[Tom4784]

Nothing that man did was wise, racism is not wise, it's a stupid mindset for people too dumb to function properly.

People can jump through all the hoops they want to make out that the racist old **** was somehow in the right but the truth of the matter is this. He caused this situation, he abused people and escalated the situation to violence. The fault for this situation even being a situation is his alone.

[bots]

i don't remember anyone saying that what the old man did was right, but people are creating a cause and effect and trying to justify that. When it gets to court, assault on the old man will be an issue. In any conflict that involves violence, the key point is reasonable force, and actions on both sides will need to be justified.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Id imagine the fact there were 2 of the attackers, there were girls present and the fact that the man posed no threat were the driving forces in the violence that ensued.

[thesheriff443]

Nothing that man did was wise, racism is not wise, it's a stupid mindset for people too dumb to function properly.

People can jump through all the hoops they want to make out that the racist old **** was somehow in the right but the truth of the matter is this. He caused this situation, he abused people and escalated the situation to violence. The fault for this situation even being a situation is his alone.

Any trival thing can escalate into violence depending on who’s involved in the situation.

We have seen people beaten to death because the person thought the other person was looking at them in a certain way.

You feel so strongly against the death sentence but you are more than happy to excuse violence because some one was racially abused.

Being black does not give you any one more rights to use violence because they have abused for being black.

[user104658]

Any trival thing can escalate into violence depending on who’s involved in the situation.



We have seen people beaten to death because the person thought the other person was looking at them in a certain way.



You feel so strongly against the death sentence but you are more than happy to excuse violence because some one was racially abused.



Being black does not give you any one more rights to use violence because they have abused for being black.

I actually agree, suffering racist (or any other) abuse doesn't excuse violent response and I think that's what we're being asked to accept; that it changes the game, that it makes it something that should be accepted, because of exceptional circumstances.

I can appreciate that it explains the violent response, and with a little prompting from Kizzy I can even appreciate that it explains why some people are quicker to want to accept/excuse/applaud the use of violence...

But when you boil it right down, no one has the "right" to retaliate with violence, it is not and will never be the right or excusable choice (even if you can empathise and offer understanding for it) and it should never be applauded or encouraged. Even if you can understand why some people might be tempted to encourage and applaud it, people shouldn't feel "shoved out" of the ability to say that that too is the wrong choice and not the right way forward.

The response that "privileged people can't tell others that applauding violence isn't the way" is nonsensical and dangerous.

[rusticgal]

Well that was some debate....

I know a young lad that was hit across the head by a classmate for doing very little the retaliation of a punch resulted in a broken jaw...guess who ended up with the criminal record..reacting to violence with violence is wrong unless you under severe attack.

This old man was racist and totally out of order. Despite lashing out he was no threat to anyone. The two victims who retaliated could have ended up with a manslaughter charge had this elderly man suffered a fall or stroke/heart attack as a result of being hit... We need to deal with racism but this wasn't the way to do it....you don't hit women and you don't hit the elderly unless they are coming at you with a dangerous weapon...
The bus driver would probably not have kicked the elderly bloke off his bus either because of his age...so the best thing to have done was call the police and let them reprimand the old git...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Any trival thing can escalate into violence depending on who’s involved in the situation.

We have seen people beaten to death because the person thought the other person was looking at them in a certain way.

You feel so strongly against the death sentence but you are more than happy to excuse violence because some one was racially abused.

Being black does not give you any one more rights to use violence because they have abused for being black.

:clap1:

[rusticgal]

Any trival thing can escalate into violence depending on who’s involved in the situation.

We have seen people beaten to death because the person thought the other person was looking at them in a certain way.

You feel so strongly against the death sentence but you are more than happy to excuse violence because some one was racially abused.

Being black does not give you any one more rights to use violence because they have abused for being black.


Well said Sheriff...

[Kizzy]

I actually agree, suffering racist (or any other) abuse doesn't excuse violent response and I think that's what we're being asked to accept; that it changes the game, that it makes it something that should be accepted, because of exceptional circumstances.

I can appreciate that it explains the violent response, and with a little prompting from Kizzy I can even appreciate that it explains why some people are quicker to want to accept/excuse/applaud the use of violence...

But when you boil it right down, no one has the "right" to retaliate with violence, it is not and will never be the right or excusable choice (even if you can empathise and offer understanding for it) and it should never be applauded or encouraged. Even if you can understand why some people might be tempted to encourage and applaud it, people shouldn't feel "shoved out" of the ability to say that that too is the wrong choice and not the right way forward.

The response that "privileged people can't tell others that applauding violence isn't the way" is nonsensical and dangerous

And you were doing so well ..it's OK to suggest applauding violence isn't the way, however your problem was to attempt to presume why they thought that way.. and worse, what they should do in those circumstances instead.

[user104658]

And you were doing so well ..it's OK to suggest applauding violence isn't the way, however your problem was to attempt to presume why they thought that way.. and worse, what they should do in those circumstances instead.Where have I said what people should do instead of applauding violence, other than "not applauding violence"?

Unless the suggestion is that if we can appreciate and understand why someone takes an action that we think is wrong... We should just "say nothing"?

"Oh I think that's a problematic and damaging message to be putting out into the world but I can understand why they feel that way - so I'll just not counter it in any way."

What a bleak future.

[Parmy]

We live in a violent society, us unlucky enough to witness it can vouch for that. I've been smashed square in the face walking through London simply for being Scottish.

I dont hold grudges though. I laugh about it now...like these young guys these days I can imagine, laughing about the time they both smashed a 70yr old racist on a bus.

[GiRTh]

I think if there was a little bit of pushing and shoving most people would be OK with that outcome but punches were thrown and we need look at who threw the first punch. People can stand eyeball to eyeball shouting insults for ages but as soon as it gets physical then that is an invite for the other person to become physical. Its not right but its a flight or fight reaction that people arent trained to deal with.

I agree this altercation should have been handled differently but the geezer needs to keep his hands to himself. As soon as it becomes physical then all bets are off and you cant tell an untrained person that they should have done this or should have done that.

[Parmy]

So if some old alky tramp walks up and swings at 2 youths, thier first reaction shouldn't be to avoid and walk away? It should be to jump at the same time and viciously attack.

[Parmy]

And the video...wernt the two youths being thrown off the bus to begin with? Or have I got that wrong as well.

[GiRTh]

So if some old alky tramp walks up and swings at 2 youths, thier first reaction shouldn't be to avoid and walk away? It should be to jump at the same time and viciously attack.IT should have been handled differently but when it gets physical we cant predict what people will do. :shrug:

[Parmy]

"You banged now Ike, you banged now. Leave it now!

Not the words of peaceful people.

[user104658]

I think if there was a little bit of pushing and shoving most people would be OK with that outcome but punches were thrown and we need look at who threw the first punch. People can stand eyeball to eyeball shouting insults for ages but as soon as it gets physical then that is an invite for the other person to become physical. Its not right but its a flight or fight reaction that people arent trained to deal with.



I agree this altercation should have been handled differently but the geezer needs to keep his hands to himself. As soon as it becomes physical then all bets are off and you cant tell an untrained person that they should have done this or should have done that.

That rests on the idea that a 70 year old (a quite flimsy looking one) and a prime-aged adult man "throwing punches" is an equal level of violence with equal potential outcome when it just isn't.

[Parmy]

IT should have been handled differently but when it gets physical we cant predict what people will do. :shrug:

They should have put him down with sarcasm if they had half a brain..

[GiRTh]

That rests on the idea that a 70 year old (a quite flimsy looking one) and a prime-aged adult man "throwing punches" is an equal level of violence with equal potential outcome when it just isn't.Thats all very subjective and we need to be in that situation to truly know how we'd react.

Its about making that aggressive physical move and when that happens we cant predict what people will do. The fact that there were two bolsters your argument but, you put your hand on me, I put my hand on you. Its not right its how it goes.

[Parmy]

Thats all very subjective and we need to be in that situation to truly know how we'd react.

Its about making that aggressive physical move and when that happens we cant predict what people will do. The fact that there were two bolsters your argument but, you put your hand on me, I put my hand and you. Its not right its how it goes.



That can be the wrong way to act in so so many situations though..and it's not the right way to think.

[GiRTh]

That can be the wrong way to act in so so many situations though..and it's not the right way to think.Then people need to keep their hands to themselves.

[Parmy]

Then people need to keep their hands to themselves.

The old bloke probably was until they got on the bus..

That's my guess anyway.due to life experience going to work everyday on the 200 now that schools are back again.

I've had a good 6 months of peace n quiet each morning..but now the noise is back, the total disrespect for others..I dont like large noisy groups.

Thankfully for me it's only 2 stops until they all pile off snorting and spitting as soon as they lift the masks outside the bus.

I feel like video it all and sending it to the school but I would be persecuted for something other due to the colour of the large group...so I wont.


But i know them all now cause for 4 years before covid I've watched them grow up daily on that bus, cause I always go upstairs to sit in front them and I reckon I could judge the future of a few of them.

I'm going to mention the spitting though to the three that do it, they are 4th years now and should know better.:nono:

[user104658]

Thats all very subjective and we need to be in that situation to truly know how we'd react.

Its about making that aggressive physical move and when that happens we cant predict what people will do. The fact that there were two bolsters your argument but, you put your hand on me, I put my hand on you. Its not right its how it goes.While it may sound like an extremely odd flex - I've been in more aggressive physical encounters with bigoted 70+ year olds than I can even count, and I would say around 5 or 6 that involved a shove, clothing being grabbed, a vague swing being taken and while I was never actually punched, the worst incident did involve tables being flipped & chairs thrown.

I will I suppose add that there was obviously no race element, and also that I was working at the time (although I don't think that part is relevant in terms of talking about people losing their temper - I certainly didn't have any sort of conflict training).

But I can say with absolute certainty that I have never and would never take a swing at an old man, because the likelihood of serious harm is just too high. Being really blunt... In those situations they seem pathetic, a bit sad, and you're mainly worried that if they don't calm down they're going to end up hurting themself.

[Parmy]

But you were being persecuted as well toy soldier...simply for either being the bookie or working for one, so it's exactly the same thing...but you held your cool, because you aint naturally violent in nature, unike your customers and these three violent people in this video..

[user104658]

But you were being persecuted as well toy soldier...simply for either being the bookie or working for one, so it's exactly the same thing...but you held your cool, because you aint naturally violent in nature, unike your customers and these three violent people in this video..

I wouldn't go that far Parmy - I don't think bookies have much of a moral high-ground and there's a reason (many reasons but it did boil down to morality in the end) that I took a different path. I do also think the reasons that some people are more predisposed to violence than others can be very complex. My point really was that in my actual experience of facing off with some very aggressive older people is that it just doesn't feel like a physically threatening situation at all so I can't buy into this idea that it was physical self defence or that they genuinely felt physically threatened. Some big blokes can be physically intimidating well into their 50's and 60's, certainly, but 70+? And also we can see this guy in the video, he just isn't intimidating at all. I don't understand how someone can see a sad, bitter old character like that and not just think "Wow, what a miserable mindset", maybe have a few words for them, but taking that step to take a full on swing at a brittle old head? Mind-boggling. I don't think it IS much different to a large grown man taking a swing at a kid, or a much smaller woman.

[Kizzy]

Where have I said what people should do instead of applauding violence, other than "not applauding violence"?

Unless the suggestion is that if we can appreciate and understand why someone takes an action that we think is wrong... We should just "say nothing"?

"Oh I think that's a problematic and damaging message to be putting out into the world but I can understand why they feel that way - so I'll just not counter it in any way."

What a bleak future.
It was a reply to girth, read back it went along the lines of 'rise above it' or some such tosh.

Walk a mile in another man's shoes.

[user104658]

read back it went along the lines of 'rise above it' or some such tosh.

It's a 16 page thread, I can only be honest and say that's not going to happen :laugh:

[GiRTh]

While it may sound like an extremely odd flex - [B]agree, violence in and I would say around 5 or 6 that involved a shove, clothing being grabbed, a vague swing being taken and while I was never actually punched, the worst incident did involve tables being flipped & chairs thrown.

I will I suppose add that there was obviously no race element, and also that I was working at the time (although I don't think that part is relevant in terms of talking about people losing their temper - I certainly didn't have any sort of conflict training).

But I can say with absolute certainty that I have never and would never take a swing at an old man, because the likelihood of serious harm is just too high. Being really blunt... In those situations they seem pathetic, a bit sad, and you're mainly worried that if they don't calm down they're going to end up hurting themself.Is that when you worked in the gambling industry?. :laugh:

I see what you're saying and I agree. Violence is never the answer but theres more than that.

[Parmy]

I'm all for the violent reaction to a younger guy spouting the monkey word though..so I dknt agree with violence never being an option.. just one sided violence dont sit right with me...

[Liam-]

Then people need to keep their hands to themselves.

That’s the crux of it

[Ammi]

...obviously there is still much to be confirmed/clarified with this ...but I think what has been a vein throughout this thread is that ..‘violence’ is never the answer’ type thing can’t always be applied ...in that violence won’t solve etc but there are situations that it could become a ‘probable’ in reaction to something.../..a chain of events and provocations, type thing...there are just too many grey areas...

...we teach our children not to use violence but that’s a whole ‘big lesson’ as well when we teach them...it’s not just a ..well, don’t do it, it’s never the answer../type black and white thing...because we also ...(...not just in regarding to violence...)..teach them consequences of words and actions when those words and actions become extreme ...’well if you take a swing at someone..(..as reported here...)...then that person might just take a swing back and you might be the one who is more hurt...because you’ve just lost control/you’ve ‘invited something’....so that’s a whole big thing as well ...the older guy felt that physically laying his hands on..(...if that’s true as has been said...)...was ‘the answer‘ when hands were pushed off the holding bar on the bus..then ‘his answer’ was racial abuse...then he changed his answer to taking a swing at...he had many answers it seems, but he didn’t consider a possible reply to his own answers....

...I personally would never applaud any violence in any way because I abhor it...(...except in a movie type situation ....when a bully or abusive person/racist person..)...’gets a slap/ a comeuppance..’../...type thing and I know that I shouldn’t but I do sometimes ‘applaud’ and say yayyyyyyy...but it’s sometimes easy to see what that can happen as well...

...it’s just sad that it would feel that the older guy didn’t have that ‘violence is never the answer’ chat with his parents when a swing was apparently taken..../...and the prejudice isn’t the answer chat...and the verbally abusing people isn’t the answer chat and etc...and etc...it’s good to get the chats done long before becoming an older person...

[Mystic Mock]

I wouldn't be jumping around celebrating that an old guy got punched however it's hard to have sympathy either when he's got such a vile mouth on him

Same here tbh.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm all for the violent reaction to a younger guy spouting the monkey word though..so I dknt agree with violence never being an option.. just one sided violence dont sit right with me...

It's very easy to say that though when you aren't the one being targeted.

To me whilst what happened to the old man is clearly wrong morally, it's also a natural Human reaction imo to lash out if you're being verbally/racially abused by a stranger.