LogFAQs > #904830936

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	16 y/o White Kid who had his MAGA Hat Stolen BAITED people with RACIST Remarks!
Zeus 07/10/18 2:59:14 PM #16:	Doctor Foxx posted... Zeus posted... Doctor Foxx posted... Zeus posted... Not for nothing, but "He said something racist!" seems to be the go-to defense for any act of aggression. And, unlike other alleged provocations, people either willingly or tacitly accept the claim as a justification for unjustifiable acts. You don't get to put your hands on people because you don't like something they said is shit most people learn by kindergarten. Even if the guy actually said what he did (which seems unlikely but who knows), the person who chose to initiate violence deserves the repercussions resulting from that use of violence. However, I don't expect he'll see much in the way of repercussions since the courts will probably give him a slap on the wrist and virtue-signalling employers would happily hire him. Look at this guy defending this racist hate Look at this gal defending the unilateral application of violence to resolve verbal disagreement The witnesses receiving death threats sure agree violence is not acceptable. That's why those people facing that the threat of violence to suppress facts and context (showing this was far from unprovoked assault) is unacceptable. Though I don't hear you saying anything about that aspect Overlooking that you don't seem to understand that actual violence is worse than the threat of violence, we don't have people in this topic defending the use of threats -- unlike certain individuals sociopathically cheering on the use of violence when they dislike what somebody says (although I wonder if they'd be so enthusiastic if their right to speech was silenced by somebody else's violence...) or, in this case, allegedly said -- so it's universally understood as being condemned... although, I should point out, that threats made against my person were less than universally condemned on this board. Maybe you could talk about that. Doctor Foxx posted... (showing this was far from unprovoked assault) ...except even WITH the claims -- which, again, are probably bullshit -- it's still an unprovoked assault. Or do you not understand how provoking an assault actually works? Somebody having a conversation among themselves is a far cry from walking up to somebody and picking a fight. If I walked past a guy shouting that anybody who didn't vote for Hillary should be put to death (which, by the way, is more than he was alleged to have done), I don't have license to hit him. And it's scary that you don't seem to understand that (or, at least, that you very selectively understand that -- in that if it's violence to suppress speech you dislike, it's good). --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:904830936] in 16 y/o Whi... [t:76786670]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Not for nothing, but "He said something racist!" seems to be the go-to defense for any act of aggression. And, unlike other alleged provocations, people either willingly or tacitly accept the claim as a justification for unjustifiable acts. You don't get to put your hands on people because you don't like something they said is shit most people learn by kindergarten. Even if the guy actually said what he did (which seems unlikely but who knows), the person who chose to initiate violence deserves the repercussions resulting from that use of violence. However, I don't expect he'll see much in the way of repercussions since the courts will probably give him a slap on the wrist and virtue-signalling employers would happily hire him.</quote> Look at this guy defending this racist hate</quote> Look at this gal defending the unilateral application of violence to resolve verbal disagreement</quote> The witnesses receiving death threats sure agree violence is not acceptable. That's why those people facing that the threat of violence to suppress facts and context (showing this was far from unprovoked assault) is unacceptable. Though I don't hear you saying anything about that aspect</quote> Overlooking that you don't seem to understand that actual violence is worse than the threat of violence, we don't have people in this topic defending the use of threats -- unlike certain individuals sociopathically cheering on the use of violence when they dislike what somebody says (although I wonder if they'd be so enthusiastic if their right to speech was silenced by somebody else's violence...) or, in this case, allegedly said -- so it's universally understood as being condemned... although, I should point out, that threats made against my person were less than universally condemned on this board. Maybe you could talk about that. <cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote>(showing this was far from unprovoked assault)</quote> ...except even WITH the claims -- which, again, are probably bullshit -- it's still an unprovoked assault. Or do you not understand how provoking an assault actually works? Somebody having a conversation among themselves is a far cry from walking up to somebody and picking a fight. If I walked past a guy shouting that anybody who didn't vote for Hillary should be put to death (which, by the way, is more than he was alleged to have done), I don't have license to hit him. And it's scary that you don't seem to understand that (or, at least, that you very selectively understand that -- in that if it's violence to suppress speech you dislike, it's good). --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1