Yes! I like the way you think.
Originally Posted by rocketsocks
I don't think ANYONE said the cameraman was at FAULT. The simple question was what provoked the incident.
So if you're going to draw a comparison with your example, then the black man provoked the lynching (even if not intentionally) by saying good morning to a white woman in front of a group of bigots.
There is a HUGE difference between 'provoked' and 'fault'.
The problem is that this is the question that folks ask first and by doing so removes the onus off of the perpetrators. It is the same as asking what a rape victim was wearing. The very nature of this type of question implies that the victim was responsible for the crime. It implies that perpetrators aren't necessarily responsible depending on what the victim said or did (or wore). There is no excuse for the hatred spewed by the perpetrators here and it doesn't matter what the victim did.
There is nothing malicious about wanting to know what happened prior to the two knuckleheads going off like that or using the term provoked in that manner. Inquiring minds want to know! Some people need to work on their semantics.
If I may. Let’s review. What do we know? A man was accosted by two individuals and according to a statement given by the victim, was struck. And that’s all we know. The evidence is damning and likely won’t go to trail, the two will enter a plea and serve some time...at least one will. At sentencing the judge will take into account the nature of the crime and what was said and rule accordingly, he will not ask the victim what he did to provoke, what he was wearing or even what his role was, he’s not on trial, he gets to pass go collect $200 dollars and skippy on down the trail. Next case!
Cool
Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk
Damascus is one of my favorite trail towns. It is so sad to see two people acting this way. Like others have said, it can happen anywhere. I will be back in Damascus on Thursday to ride the Creeper, hopefully I don't run into these two creeps.
There are so many miles and so many mountains between here and there that it is hardly worth thinking about
as long as you keep your nose clean it’s not likely, they’re in the pokey.
Your argument is still flawed on several levels. Provoke. Take a good look at the word, and take a look at your original post, and how you used it. Provoke has a negative connotation, in that it uses anger or unwelcome emotions as a method of achieving change.
"In modern society, bigotry doesn't raise to the level of physical violence unless the bigot is provoked." These are your words. Bigots start crap all the time, with, or without provocation. I had the misfortune to drive my elderly father and his racist wife across the country last week. She was spewing unprovoked bigotry and hatred non stop for the entire week. Fortunately for me, she'd wait to get back into the car before making her opinions known, because she's also a coward.
I try hard not to be a bigot myself. There is no provocation that could make me lash out in anger with against the Jewish race, against a Jew, that could make me rant into a tirade about burning in the ovens like your ancestors. Zero. Someone could kick my puppy, punch me in the berries, insult my mother, assault my daughter, and I still wouldn't think to respond to them with hate speech about their ethnicity. This is because I'm not a racist bigot. I'd still react unpleasantly, maybe even violently, I'd certainly get upset if these things happened.
There is zero provocation that can make someone respond in a bigoted manner, unless they are a bigot to start with. Hate speech and hate crime has it's own category as awful, simply because there is nothing the victim can or should do to avoid it. They can't change the color of their skin, they can't change their facial features, they can't change their culture.
You can't turn off your Jewishness before going to buy a taco, you can't turn off your Jewishness before walking down the street at night, you can't even turn off your Jewishness before committing a minor crime, like speeding, or attempting to buy a bit of weed.
OK to debate word choice.
I misunderstood HooKooDooku at first, so was heartened to read his follow up.
That's why my post was so long, because even accounting for poor word choice (which I've totally done myself) there's really no substitute word that can make his initial statement correct. There is no cause and effect where a reasonable non bigot just goes into bigot mode because of something that happened, or didn't happen. There can be any number of triggers, innocent or intentional, where a bigot goes into bigot mode.
Hate Speech is Free Speech that is racially motivated. As well, Hate Crime Is a Crime, but is directed towards a particular class or group of people and or racially motivated.
Blackheart
Did they arrest and charge the doper with anything? Or is this a case for the thought police only?
Arrested for getting punched? Why would they do that?
Did you see the video? Did you hear what those two were yelling?
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
So it is illegal to solicit for purchase of illegal drugs. I guess the whole TV series "COPS" was a lie.
Could you also help me out with what was said. Was it the verbs or the nouns that were illegal? Are verbs or nouns worse?
[QUOTE=GaryM;2177271]So it is illegal to solicit for purchase of illegal drugs. I guess the whole TV series "COPS" was a lie.
He saw it on TV so it must be true! ROFLMAO!
People offended by words in this supersensitive world. Freedom to say what you want when you want has gone and it will never return. The day when the people really need a voice....there will be hushed silence because the laws will protect the system/govt again critical language. Freedom of speech - Dead.
Without Freedom of speech, there is no freedom of expression; not the full spectrum of a discussion or debate. Instead we tippy-toe around not wanting to offend some over-sensitive soul.
People use words, the use of which now have to be protected by laws, to protect people from being offended! People can choose NOT to be offended by the words used by others because we can turn the other cheek and ignore the offending individual.
Apologies that my opinion may differ from others, Best to all.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." This is a philosophy for children, when the adults don't feel like dealing with them.
In practice however, words are very much used to inflame crowds into violence, to discriminate against groups, and other such real life concerns that are detrimental in an everyday meaningful way that very much affects real live people. Words are used to dehumanize groups of people so that the speaker can feel justified in taking away their rights and freedoms.
You can't yell fire in a movie theater, you can't incite a riot, you can't intimidate people into not voting, you can't threaten people with violence. The law is clear on this, and it has been for a long time. When you speak and act so against a vulnerable group, it's even worse.
Why would you choose not to be offended, when someone is actively trying to take away your humanity, your rights, and your freedom? Turn the other cheek is a stupid religious concept and has no validity to the law.
If someone incites a riot, libel's someone, threatens to assault someone, I get it, call the cops. But there are separate laws for these offences - some offences do incorporate words during their commission but the words are the means to the end or objective.
I think that it is very unfair to deliberately offend someone, but to restrict what a fellow human being wants to say, in my book, is a travesty of real Freedom. Can people NOT ignore others who choose to use words that offend them? Yes they can, its a simple choice between Fear and Love. Really simple.
The famous American Philosopher, George Carlin better describes the use of language in his observations titled 'Euphemisms'. He nails it!
Best.
It's not a simple choice between fear and love. There's nothing simple about it.
It's lovely that you feel confident in your environment. Good for you. You feel confident that the police will take your side, you feel confident that the law will protect you, again, how nice it must be to be you. You have the option to ignore mean words, because you know they won't impact your life, you don't have to worry about the police profiling you based on your skin color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation you don't have to worry about people accusing you of a crime because of how you look.
The US has some excellent freedoms of speech, but it's also had long held court rulings and laws restricting abuse of those freedoms of speech. Nothing has changed, no one is trying to be the thought police. These two clowns could have peacefully spread anti-Jewish pro-holocaust sentiments all day. However, they chose to take it to an unacceptable level when they threatened violence on the street based on their hateful rhetoric.
Edit: grammar
Last edited by Puddlefish; 10-28-2017 at 12:12.
Posting Permissions
