|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Talk poo poo, get hit. I guess a big problem is that Tyson is a trained fighter who shouldn't hit people, period... but gently caress that, this is a pretty clear case of harrassment and Tyson defended himself. If anyone deserves catching poo poo for this (other than the shithead drunk), it's the people around them who let this play out and enabled the shithead.
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 07:46
|
|
is only ever used as an excuse to act like a shithead to people minding their own business.
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
LionArcher posted:No. dude was harassing him, moved seats to harass him more, flight crew did nothing. in that case Tyson punching him was gently caress around find out. I'm sick of liberals acting like violence is never the answer. There are plenty of times throwing hands is justified. You shouldn't go through life thinking no behavior is going to get you smacked, and if you go through life thinking no actions could lead to you getting smacked, you're too privileged and completely head in the sand of where society is headed. I kind of want to hear more about "where society is headed," but I suppose it's a bit outside the purview of this thread. There are certainly instances, particularly in self-defense, in which physical retaliation can be justified. I struggle to see a guy being an rear end in a top hat for a few hours on a plane as qualifying. Even if the guy did seem to be "asking for it" in a rather literal sense. I'll agree that it's hard to muster much sympathy for the victim when he seems to be quite chuffed at the result. Chemtrailologist posted:Maybe him punching someone shouldn't have been posted in the Sexual Assault thread in the first place. I didn't intend a derail. It seemed about as in line with the thread focus as Ezra Miller's violent assaults or the Depp vs Heard case (unless I'm mistaken and that case includes sexual assault, I believe it's entirely about non-sexual abuse though?), and was directly relevant to the discussion of Tyson's reform.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I guess a big problem is that Tyson is a trained fighter who shouldn't hit people, period I don’t really understand this logic. Which professions are allowed to hit people? Is it okay to deck someone if you’re an accountant because surely your spindly accountant arms can’t do any real harm? What if you’re a super buff accountant? Bugblatter posted:I didn't intend a derail. It seemed about as in line with the thread focus as Ezra Miller's violent assaults or the Depp vs Heard case (unless I'm mistaken and that case includes sexual assault, I believe it's entirely about non-sexual abuse though?), and was directly relevant to the discussion of Tyson's reform. Context matters. Beating up your girlfriend or repeatedly starting fights with complete strangers are categorically different offenses than hitting a guy who is dedicated to harassing you, verbally and physically, in an enclosed space that you can’t escape from, and who is literally asking to be hit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Wait, are we not okay with the nazi getting punched anymore?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
No violence is bad and not good! I blame that rapscallion will smith
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Wait, are we not okay with the nazi getting punched anymore? Keep up, all the punch-likers have been purged in the latest round of purity-testing.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Wait, are we not okay with the nazi getting punched anymore? Democrats gave Nazis billions of dollars
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Democrats gave Nazis billions of dollars Meanwhile Republicans...... Not sure where you are going with this. A
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I kind of want to hear more about "where society is headed," but I suppose it's a bit outside the purview of this thread. The Depp v Heard case does involve sexual abuse, but that was only revealed with this most recent trial. Heard previously had not publicly disclosed that.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:I don’t really understand this logic. Which professions are allowed to hit people? Is it okay to deck someone if you’re an accountant because surely your spindly accountant arms can’t do any real harm? What if you’re a super buff accountant? It's especially odd since you don't have to be huge or a trained puncher to kill someone. There was a spate of sucker punch deaths in Australia. It lead to new legislation and a real media push against the idea, including calling them 'coward punches.' When you watch the videos of punches that killed it's these spindly teenagers throwing the worst punches you've ever seen. But when you don't see it coming, and it results in your head landing on concrete, it's more than enough to kill you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
No one should be hitting people in the head unless they're okay with killing them because of the eggshell skull rule. You have no idea whether or not you'll kill someone by hitting them in the head, regardless of whether or not their head impacts something as a consequence. My point was that a professional boxer is more likely than not going to be delivering stronger blows than the average joe because their body is built specifically for the purpose of punching people. And in general, starting a physical fight on a plane in the air is a loving stupid and dangerous idea that should get you prosecuted. As should being an abusive, disruptive prick. History Comes Inside! posted:Keep up, all the punch-likers have been purged in the latest round of purity-testing. A millionaire rapist wounding someone for using bad words, no matter how lovely they were being, is not doing a praxis. It's using violence to achieve an ends that he desires in the knowledge that he's probably going to get away with it. Which seems pretty true to form for him. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:A millionaire rapist wounding someone for using bad words, no matter how lovely they were being, is not doing a praxis. It's using violence to achieve an ends that he desires in the knowledge that he's probably going to get away with it. Which seems pretty true to form for him. Is it praxis to consider someone who served time for their crime and has not reoffended a criminal for life and continue to refer to the by their crime instead of treating them like a person? I get the instinctive revulsion at sexual assault but if you don’t believe in the concept of rehabilitation you’re probably a really lovely leftist.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
He was on a plane, there was a cabin crew trained and equipped to restrain passengers. He was not as far as I know in fear for his physical well-being. I take him resorting to extreme violence in the face of confrontation to be indicative of him not being an especially reformed character.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1524093232816214016?s=20&t=lJLB6Oyu53GcoeTiVfJZAg
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I take him resorting to extreme violence in the face of pressure to be indicative of him not being an especially reformed character. Do you think what is at worst misdemeanor assault is basically the same as rape? How many years in prison do you think he should get for it?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Meanwhile Republicans...... He's saying aid to Ukraine is giving money to Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
I think he should get what anyone else would for starting a physical fight on a plane in flight and injuring someone. I don't know why you are trying to make this into some weird attack about me trivialising rape when what I said and meant was pretty obvious. I assume you're just being a prick. The rich celebrity who was an extremely violent bag of poo poo, and was convicted of rape, is still resorting to violence in situations where he doesn't need to. Perhaps people should stop stanning him in the assault and rape by rich celebrities thread.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:He's saying aid to Ukraine is giving money to Nazis. Wait til he finds out about operation paperclip!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RomaniaDispatch/status/1526115296200777729?s=20&t=TLM1x-r9KKqC6agUhRkt7g
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1524093232816214016?s=20&t=lJLB6Oyu53GcoeTiVfJZAg Why does he look like a knockoff Trump
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Why does he look like a knockoff Trump no toupee duh
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I think he should get what anyone else would for starting a physical fight on a plane in flight and injuring someone. I don't know why you are trying to make this into some weird attack about me trivialising rape when what I said and meant was pretty obvious. I assume you're just being a prick. The victim did not want to press charges so Tyson got what anyone else would have gotten, which is no charges. Tyson probably isn’t a good person but his crime was 30 years ago and he hasn’t re-offended so pearl clutching about his not being imprisoned for an minor altercation that neither the victim nor the DA wanted to pursue criminally seems especially pointless. Wishing for the full weight of the criminal justice system to crush people for minor transgressions isn’t very leftist either. I also don’t really see the relevance to the thread about the pervasive culture of unpunished sexual assault in Hollywood given that Tyson was punished, it was three decades ago, and as far as we know he hasn’t sexually assaulted anyone since.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I think he should get what anyone else would for starting a physical fight on a plane in flight and injuring someone. A fight doesn't "start" when somebody throws a punch. Doing everything in your power to get somebody to hit you is starting a fight, regardless of whether or not you threw the first punch.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OutOfFachs/status/1526607636749332481?s=20&t=PhSkD7RbR69BEk1fAEUe3g
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I think he should get what anyone else would for starting a physical fight on a plane in flight and injuring someone. I don't know why you are trying to make this into some weird attack about me trivialising rape when what I said and meant was pretty obvious. I assume you're just being a prick. The thing with the Mike Tyson situation is that it would've been far better for most people, including many mentioned in this thread, to have had the freedom and ability to just punch their harasser in the face several times and knock them down. If even one of the women just glassed Louis CK with a nearby beer bottle when he started jerking off he would've suffered more consequences from that then anything that actually happened. Obviously none of the did, and the reasons should be understandable to all. Taking the stance of "absolutely no physical violence, ever" means you feel safe enough from your perch to declare that decorum is the law of the land and striking out physically always puts blame on the victim as well as the abuser. Yes, it's quite apt that in the thread to discuss sexual assault in Hollywood you feel the need to take a stand that violence is never acceptable from victims of harassment and making up all sorts of conditional requirements. It's also a good point to bring up prisoner rehabilitation because a big part of this issue is that the offenders are rarely if ever consequenced for their behavior so it brings to question that even if they are, are they ever allowed to rejoin society and go back to a career/profession?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
They didn't say that no victim of harassment should ever defend themselves. That seems to be a preposterous pretzel twist of an interpretation of the argument. The argument was isolated to the specific incident where they felt Tyson's decision to beat a man for deliberately antagonising him was wrong. Also comparing Tyson to a one of C.K's victims is a profoundly false equivalence.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:starting a physical fight There's a reason you chose this specific, quite awkward phrasing and if you know what it is, you also know why the people who disagree with you do so and it also means you can stop talking about it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Referring to Tyson as a rapist like a scarlet letter after going to prison and rehabilitation is some gross loving poo poo IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Wait til he finds out about operation paperclip! Don't forget about the secret (((George Soros))) funded BIOLABS!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Referring to Tyson as a rapist like a scarlet letter after going to prison and rehabilitation is some gross loving poo poo IMO. No. No one is obliged to not refer to Tyson as a rapist on the grounds that he went to jail. He still commited that heinous act and many will never be cool with him and to imply they should is in fact what's loving gross. It is really up to the individual to decide how they feel about him.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Karloff posted:They didn't say that no victim of harassment should ever defend themselves. That seems to be a preposterous pretzel twist of an interpretation of the argument. The argument was isolated to the specific incident where they felt Tyson's decision to beat a man for deliberately antagonising him was wrong. Also comparing Tyson to a one of C.K's victims is a profoundly false equivalence. He said you should never strike someone in the head unless you are prepared to kill then as a blanket statement with no additional context required. In addition to being extremely silly it also implies that a victim of harassment is responsible for weighing the moral implications of killing someone before they respond physically to extricate themselves from the situation.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Karloff posted:They didn't say that no victim of harassment should ever defend themselves. That seems to be a preposterous pretzel twist of an interpretation of the argument. The argument was isolated to the specific incident where they felt Tyson's decision to beat a man for deliberately antagonising him was wrong. Also comparing Tyson to a one of C.K's victims is a profoundly false equivalence. The entire point is Louis victims absolutely could not react that way because Louis CK was a famous man in a position of influence over them and any action like that they took would've absolutely torched them professionally and socially. But that they should've been allowed to do that and not worry about a bunch of woke-scolds telling them that passive resistance is the only correct option. Terry Crews is a better example, because a man walked up and grabbed his dick in the middle of a party, and he held back because he knew that had he punched the man sexually assaulting him no matter what the story would be "huge angry black man (possibly drunk or high) punches 5'5 white man at party" and that his assaulter was also powerful enough to ruin him professionally or at least make a serious attempt. Had this incident with Tyson not been 100% captured on video and then blasted on social media the default narrative would be "angry black man who was violent in the past clearly up to his old tricks" pentyne fucked around with this message at 03:25 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Referring to Tyson as a rapist like a scarlet letter after going to prison and rehabilitation is some gross loving poo poo IMO. He still did it regardless of the justice he faced for it, and his continuing to call the accuser a liar to this day at every chance he gets to bring up the subject (including on an HBO special he did) is some gross loving poo poo IMO You don't get to wash away your past just because you weren't able to run from the consequences as it happened
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
Karloff posted:No. No one is obliged to not refer to Tyson as a rapist on the grounds that he went to jail. He still commited that heinous act and many will never be cool with him and to imply they should is in fact what's loving gross. It is really up to the individual to decide how they feel about him. It’s entirely performative and re-enforces the idea that people are essentially the worst thing they’ve ever done which is a really lovely attitude to take if you care about dismantling the police state, but you’re entire right that you can do whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:He said you should never strike someone in the head unless you are prepared to kill then as a blanket statement with no additional context required. In addition to being extremely silly it also implies that a victim of harassment is responsible for weighing the moral implications of killing someone before they respond physically to extricate themselves from the situation. It's not silly. People can get killed by one punch, there's a charity in the UK https://www.onepunch.org.uk/ that raises awareness of that because a lot of time people can underestimate the damage hitting someone can do. This is terrible for the victim of the punch, because they're dead, but also the person who committed the assault, as they most likely didn't intend to kill the victim but because they had a skewed perception of what an physical attack can do - maybe due to screen portrayals of bar fights where everyone ends up okay with just a red tissue in their nose - they ended up taking an action that could not be undone. The term harassment both legally and colloquially incorporates a huge amount of different acts, some of those justify a physical response in my opinion but others do not. pentyne posted:The entire point is Louis victims absolutely could not react that way because Louis CK was a famous man in a position of influence over them and any action like that they took would've absolutely torched them professionally and socially. But that they should've been allowed to do that and not worry about a bunch of woke-scolds telling them that passive resistance is the only correct option. It's a false equivalence is because C.K and the exec who grabbed Crews were protected by their positions of power. CKs victims didn't need to attack him to be torched for it, they were torched anyway just by talking about it, it was only when the winds changed with the Me Too movement that they were able to get traction. Furthermore it is entirely justified to physically defend yourself from a sexual assault, so to my mind both CK's victims and Crews would be justified in a physical response. People feel differently about Tyson in this case because the harassment seems less severe and not sexual in nature though the video is choppy and doesn't show everything, most notably it cuts suddenly to Tyson beating him, we don't see the specific thing he did that prompted that. Karloff fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:It’s entirely performative and re-enforces the idea that people are essentially the worst thing they’ve ever done which is a really lovely attitude to take if you care about dismantling the police state, but you’re entire right that you can do whatever you want. I don't think it's performative. You must understand that for many that crime is unforgivable and that is a perfectly okay thing to feel. I believe in redemption, and I believe that people do terrible things sometimes but do the work of trying to be a better person and that should be looked at with compassion and grace. But for many, especially in regards to that crime and sometimes due to their own experiences, they don't have the bandwidth in order to do that, so shaming someone for having a negative view of Tyson despite him going to jail is a bad look imo.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
Karloff posted:It's not silly. People can get killed by one punch, there's a charity in the UK https://www.onepunch.org.uk/ that raises awareness of that because a lot of time people can underestimate the damage hitting someone can do. This is terrible for the victim of the punch, because they're dead, but also the person who committed the assault, as they most likely didn't intend to kill the victim. But because they had a skewed perception of what an physical attack can do - maybe due to screen portrayals of bar fights where everyone ends up okay with just a red tissue in their nose - they ended up taking an action that could not be undone. The term harassment both legally and colloquially incorporates a huge amount of different acts, some of those justify a physical response in my opinion but others do not. There were 90 deaths in Australian between 2000 and 2015 due to being punched. There are about 100 injuries due to lightning strike in Australia a year. Your odds of killing someone with a punch are lower than your odds of being struck by lightening. The majority of deaths due to being hit are actually due to the head striking the pavement after a fall. So you actually should not push, trip, or otherwise throw someone off balance unless you are prepared to kill them. That means that not only can you not punch your harasser, you can’t even try to shoulder past them, lest you knock them to the ground where they strike their head and die. This is all extremely silly. People should, as a rule, not punch people. But like all rules there are exceptions and sometimes it is necessary, even advisable, and if someone is in a situation where they feel unsafe they shouldn’t be too worried about an extremely freak occurrence to protect themselves in an extremely measured way. A punch is not deadly force.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I don't think it's performative. You must understand that for many that crime is unforgivable and that is a perfectly okay thing to feel. I believe in redemption, and I believe that people do terrible things sometimes but do the work of trying to be a better person and that should be looked at with compassion and grace. But for many, especially in regards to that crime and sometimes due to their own experiences, they don't have the bandwidth in order to do that, so shaming someone for having a negative view of Tyson despite him going to jail is a bad look imo. Having a negative opinion of Mike Tyson is not performative. It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. I think he’s a pretty lovely person. Being sure to interject that he’s a rapist every time you mention him is entirely performative. Who is it for? His victim doesn’t know or care, he doesn’t know or care, and you’re not telling anyone anything they didn’t already know. It’s basically just you saying “hey, I think rape is really bad.” I think everyone here agrees. He’s still a person with a name though and not a rape elemental.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:A punch is not deadly force. According to the statistics in your post it certainly can be. Sure, maybe people get killed more by lightning, but lightning can be dangerous and I think it's wise for people take care around it such as not playing a game of golf during a lightning storm. Similarly, people should take care around hitting someone. Yes, if someone feels unsafe* and they feel a punch will protect them then they should take that action, but, with the incident on the plane it's debateable whether Tyson felt unsafe or or he just found the dude infuriating. To be honest the video doesn't show everything so it's hard to say, but if he felt unsafe than fair enough he was probably justified, if the guy was just infuriating and rude then no he probably shouldn't have beat him. *With some cause, "feeling threatened" can still not be a justifiable use of violence as some people "feel threatened" by someone of a different race walking down the road. Karloff fucked around with this message at 04:20 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
It’s not like it’s a difficult thing to go through the day - or even your entire adult life - without throwing a single punch. Or shoving, or acting physically violent in any way at all. I’m 37 years old, had serious anger and temper issues as a child and, and I haven’t thrown a punch at anyone in my whole life. It’s not like it’s hugely challenging to avoid violence or violent situations on a personal level, it only requires the tiniest level of maturity and restraint. The ability to know how and when to walk away and not purposely escalate or provoke poo poo. I totally call bullshit on the idea that people are somehow entitled to beat on others, frankly. There might be times when it’s justifiable or permissible, but I personally believe that even in those situations some pretty poor decisions had to be made to lead to a place where violence is justified. If you seriously hurt or injure someone, even with a single punch, there should always be consequences of some sort - even in the most extreme and absurd circumstances one could imagine where self-defense is absolutely necessary, I think some restraint is warranted. kaworu fucked around with this message at 04:20 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 04:16
|
|
