[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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 ( ) - 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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 ( ) - 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 and I've been nodding with agreement reading your posts on this thread.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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

How long has this been going on?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

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/t...say-155103.htm

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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/t...say-155103.htm

Why have you cherry picked a couple of paragraphs from a random article? Very odd post

[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.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 ( ) - 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.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

Cause that happens a lot..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Really?

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

Cause that happens a lot..

oh fgs

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Really?

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

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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 - ...

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 - ...