|
Wasn't there a recent effort to paint Stonewall as something else?
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
To be clear, we are not saying violence is an understandable and response to being insulted. We are saying it's an understandable response to a person of social power trying to dehumanize you to your face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Comparing dehumanization to schoolyard taunts seems deeply tone deaf Have you heard the poo poo kids say to each other? It's like a verbal abbatoir on those playgrounds Up to about age six or so kids are all little psychopaths incapable of empathy
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Have you heard the poo poo kids say to each other? Cruel and dehumanizing are not synonymous
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Cruel and dehumanizing are not synonymous No, but for purposes of justifying physical violence, they're equally insufficient. You seem to be using "understandable" as a synonym for "justifiable", and it isn't. We can all understand the desire to rip that rear end in a top hat's head off, but that doesn't mean violence was actually justified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
One things for sure, the Breitbarters are very angry about what happened  
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
What if Shapiro put his hands on her neck, and told her that "keep talking about CIS men like that and you go home in an ambulance?" Would people be defending it then, saying it wasn't actually that violent? I understand the social privilege of words and status, but we still don't threaten people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, but for purposes of justifying physical violence, they're equally insufficient. You seem to be using "understandable" as a synonym for "justifiable", and it isn't. We can all understand the desire to rip that rear end in a top hat's head off, but that doesn't mean violence was actually justified. There is plenty of justifiable violence. Especially if the violence is placing your hand on a subhuman trash person and telling him that he's going to get his rear end kicked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, but for purposes of justifying physical violence, they're equally insufficient. You seem to be using "understandable" as a synonym for "justifiable", and it isn't. We can all understand the desire to rip that rear end in a top hat's head off, but that doesn't mean violence was actually justified. Frankly I waiver on whether or not to call it justified. I cannot condone it, if only because those of social power have more tools of violence at their disposal. But at the same time, I cannot find a meaningful reason to condemn the use of force or fear of force to assert your humanity against someone trying to rob you of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What if Shapiro put his hands on her neck, and told her that "keep talking about CIS men like that and you go home in an ambulance?" Oh this is an easy one: He would have had no justification in doing that to her because Cis white men aren't a disenfranchised/threatened minority. Who initiates the action matters a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Wasn't there a recent effort to paint Stonewall as something else? You may be thinking of how some people try to portray it as being all gay, and mostly white, dudes, when the actual event was mostly trans people and people of minority races?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What if Shapiro put his hands on her neck, and told her that "keep talking about CIS men like that and you go home in an ambulance?" Around the throat, on her neck, or on the back of her neck like she's a teenager trying to steal candy from a convenience store in a movie set in the 80's?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What if Shapiro put his hands on her neck, and told her that "keep talking about CIS men like that and you go home in an ambulance?" To me this looks like a case of team-affilliation thinking. Someone "on our side" does something clearly unjustifiable, for reasons we can all sympathize with. There is a natural inclination to rationalize the behavior as excuseable, justifiable, desirable. But that doesn't mean it actually is. Sometimes the "good guys" gently caress up. This was one of those times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:No, all you're defending is legal action against her. Which, considering the state of America's legal system, will at the very least drain her pockets on lawyer expenses, drag her even further through stressful public scrutiny (someone who's part of a minority that has a hard time dealing with stress, no less!) and will most likely lead to either high fines or jailtime. Totally reasonable! Yes, that is what will happen. No one will come to her aid, and Ben Shapiro will not publicly discredit himself and his gutless, bitchboy ideology about what makes men, men. My Facebook newsfeed is dead quiet about Shapiro pressing charges. That tells me the conservative hivemind isn't at all impressed by his decision to take legal action. This is a losing prospect for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To me this looks like a case of team-affilliation thinking. Someone "on our side" does something clearly unjustifiable, for reasons we can all sympathize with. There is a natural inclination to rationalize the behavior as excuseable, justifiable, desirable. But that doesn't mean it actually is. Sometimes the "good guys" gently caress up. This was one of those times White straight male and trans woman are not at even slightly comparable levels of social actualization. There are different expectations of behavior and for good reason. Edit: it's also genuinely offensive to treat this as a "team" argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
If a left winger insulted a right winger who was transsexual by using transphobic language you bet I would support the hell out of the right winger threatening him
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To me this looks like a case of team-affilliation thinking. Someone "on our side" does something clearly unjustifiable, for reasons we can all sympathize with. There is a natural inclination to rationalize the behavior as excuseable, justifiable, desirable. But that doesn't mean it actually is. Sometimes the "good guys" gently caress up. This was one of those times. But also, reducing it down to teams and sides can make things seem like a much more level playing field than they actually are. This wasn't two adults on an equal playing field. This was a bigot openly trying to humiliate a person who belongs to a group that is frequently humiliated and/or outright denied their rights and sometimes even attacked violently. It doesn't make Zoe legally in the right, but it certainly makes her actions far more understandable, and to some, possibly even justifiable (but maybe not legally.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
The lesson here is don't leave a guy breathing so he can sue you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If a left winger insulted a right winger who was transsexual by using transphobic language you bet I would support the hell out of the right winger threatening him That still makes this a team argument; just that the team in your case is decided by gender rather than ideology, hth. You're still trying to justify unacceptable behaviour because the person conducting such behaviour was on your 'team'. You can condemn Shapiro as a hateful bigot while still saying Zoe escalating the situation to threats and aggressive physical contact was also wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:That still makes this a team argument; just that the team in your case is decided by gender rather than ideology, hth. You're still trying to justify unacceptable behaviour because the person conducting such behaviour was on your 'team'. And what team is that exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:White straight male and trans woman are not at even slightly comparable levels of social actualization. There are different expectations of behavior and for good reason. Are you actually arguing that the law should be changed here? That it should be legally allowable for members of oppressed minorities to initiate physical violence when sufficiently provoked by purely verbal intimidation? You're starting to sound like a Fox News stereotype strawman of a modern leftist. Regardless of class, race, gender, etc., "don't initiate physical aggression in response to words" is a bright line we can't really cross without societal breakdown. You can make edge case arguments -- performative utterances, situations where societal breakdown is desirable -- but none of those apply here, in a controlled, professional debate setting. No matter how punchable the guy was acting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
This is a lot of ado about something that (criminally) is likely to result in, at worst, court costs and MAYBE probation and (civilly) likely to result in nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Are you actually arguing that the law should be changed here? That it should be legally allowable for members of oppressed minorities to initiate physical violence when sufficiently provoked by purely verbal intimidation? You're starting to sound like a Fox News stereotype strawman of a modern leftist. I guess the fundamental impasse we have is seeing what Ben Shapiro was doing as "just words"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
I'd laugh pretty hard if the judge or whatever rules that the neccesary punishment shall be a $1 fine or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And what team is that exactly? The LGBT (and allies) team. You can support LGBT causes (and denounce bigots like Shapiro) without trying to justify someone crossing a line the way Zoe did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:The LGBT (and allies) team. You can support LGBT causes (and denounce bigots like Shapiro) without trying to justify someone crossing a line the way Zoe did. I am not team LGBT. If we have to tediously reduce this to "teams" I am team "do not attack a minority group with their minority status"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I guess the fundamental impasse we have is seeing what Ben Shapiro was doing as "just words" Possibly. For the record, I'd be making the same argument if a gay man punched Fred Phelps, or if an African-American punched someone who was just chanting "friend of the family". I *might* have a different answer in different settings where the words could be construed as a threat of imminent violence, but I'm having a hard time thinking of an appropriate hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'd laugh pretty hard if the judge or whatever rules that the neccesary punishment shall be a $1 fine or something. Yeah, that would probably be the appropriate ruling here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
The appropriate ruling would be for the judge to dismiss the entire case and tell Ben to go gently caress himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Possibly. For the record, I'd be making the same argument if a gay man punched Fred Phelps, or if an African-American punched someone who was just chanting "friend of the family". I think one of the problems is that I do not see this as just this moment. This is not a response to this guy saying this thing, this is a response to the constant experience transsexual people face ever day of their lives. They are under assault by this kind of dehumanization almost constantly, and to expect them to suck it up as "just words" is ridiculous. If you go onto a debate show, you expect a certain level of basic human respect and if you are being dehumanized by some rear end in a top hat it seems perfectly understandable to me to one time just up and completely lose your temper. Instead of seeing this as the one time he threatened someone dehumanizing him, imagine all the times that week he has probably had to resist responding to that kind of treatment. Can you really blame him for losing his temper one time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To me this looks like a case of team-affilliation thinking. Someone "on our side" does something clearly unjustifiable, for reasons we can all sympathize with. There is a natural inclination to rationalize the behavior as excuseable, justifiable, desirable. But that doesn't mean it actually is. Sometimes the "good guys" gently caress up. This was one of those times. Yeah if all she did was put her hands on the back of his neck I'd call him a pansy loser because that's battery in the same way someone tapping your shoulder is battery, but seriously she added a true threat to it. That's pretty much the definition of against the law and she's probably best to just plead to a lesser charge and get some community service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am not team LGBT. If we have to tediously reduce this to "teams" I am team "do not attack a minority group with their minority status" Thanks, Mr/Ms. Semantics. You can support not attacking minority groups with their minority status (and denounce bigots like Shapiro) without trying to justify someone crossing a line the way Zoe did. Mel Mudkiper posted:I think one of the problems is that I do not see this as just this moment. This is not a response to this guy saying this thing, this is a response to the constant experience transsexual people face ever day of their lives. They are under assault by this kind of dehumanization almost constantly, and to expect them to suck it up as "just words" is ridiculous. If you go onto a debate show, you expect a certain level of basic human respect and if you are being dehumanized by some rear end in a top hat it seems perfectly understandable to me to one time just up and completely lose your temper. I don't blame her for losing her temper, but at the same time I'm not going to defend her actions, because the manner in which she expressed her frustration is not acceptable in society. Yes, she should not be punished heavily, but you don't excuse people breaking the law because they were provoked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:
Given that you just misgendered Zoe here, would she be justified in decking you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:but you don't excuse people breaking the law because they were provoked. Maybe you don't. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Given that you just misgendered Zoe here, would she be justified in decking you? Boooooo
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Given that you just misgendered Zoe here, would she be justified in decking you? She'd probably be justified in getting upset but I was not doing it deliberately as a way to dehumanize her so I would not imagine she would want to punch me no
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
The right wing talk guys on 1400 Omaha/Lincoln can't figure out how to get deadmau5 to stop playing. They've been talking over Ghosts N Stuff for like 15 minutes now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
I'd forgive her in an instant and donate to her defense fund if she laid the wormy little poo poo out and scared this anti-trans idiot poo poo head book tour "libertarian" movement that is being given public space on a golden platter back to being scared in their hateful little basements with Freepers and chomo subreddits. If it's a choice between some bigot getting KO'd by a woman on live TV and a Reddit-approved realm of political discussion then call me Pol loving Pot
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If you go onto a debate show, you expect a certain level of basic human respect Second, you expect the worst if the "debate" show has a panel including people like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Hannity, O'Rielly, et al. Being denied your humanity and dignity is specifically how they hope to make you lose it in front of an audience so they can use it against you personally and, by extension, everyone you are there to represent, forever. I think that's why, when you accept a gig like that, it's in your best interest to maintain control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:If it's a choice between some bigot getting KO'd by a woman on live TV and a Reddit-approved realm of political discussion then call me Pol loving Pot Its regrettable but the fear of violence keeps a lot of shitheads in line. Dr. Faustus posted:Ok, first of all, no, you don't. Choosing silence or willful dehumanization is not a tolerable choice and I am not going to hold someone to it
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:55
|
|