Shiloh Hendrix and racial ethnic slurs

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
261

Congratulations, this has nothing to do with anything.
You just threw in an argument from authority that reality and objectivity do not matter because the judge gonna decide anyway.

Please dont bullshit your way around questions when you have already drawn a premise, and the premise was that public order needs to be kept. If thats your premise then both parties would have been held accountable cause Hendrix was not the author of the situation.

Its an example as to how your logic can be used to justify acts like these.
And good morning sunshine a third of america did just that. They celebrated it because in their opinion justice was served.

Its not offtopic. Its an outcome and example of where your argument of punishing the speaker for the violence of the other party leads.

Really, so an 8 year old walking off with your purse is… what? Normalcy?
M8 you are biased beyond belief. There is not even a shred of logic to what you are saying, just purely emotional arguments.
How could a 37 year old be the victim of anything an 8 year old does. Wow i dont know, you tell me.

There is. It was the premise of the entire situation and its on the record too.

And here you are asking how a 37 year old could be the victim of anything an 8 year old does.
No. You are clearly not interpreting based on your subjective opinion.

First: Nobody claimed that the law targets an ethnic group. The DAs and the judges do. I sincerely hope i do not need to educate you on how the outcome of trials for the exact same charges and laws can wildly differ based on where your trial gonna take place.
Cause if you gonna say that california has the same standards as texas does, i will pat you on your back and tell you to go and lay down cause you have about as much idea about the subject as the 8 year old autistic black child in question does.

Second: Did it ever occur to you that black individuals have higher arrest rates because they commit crimes at a higher rate?
If you wanna play that game ask why blacks are getting their charges disproportionately dropped in liberal states. Lets play the newyork game where shops are closing everywhere cause theft has been legalized.

262

This has to do with the thread and the OP.

I do not recall stating somewhere that the public order needs to be kept. By what means? I said that I understand why the authorities want to pevent violence, but I did not make it a premise. My “premise” was

If you take an opinion and you set it out of proportions you can create a monster.

We live in democratic societies in the West. After many dialogues, debates, arguments and social battles we have come to agreements on certain boundaries, like what “provokes violence” is, legally speaking. When I give a short opinion on a political issue I expect the other person to understand that I am talking within the norms of our current laws.

And OF COURSE “within its ability” does not mean that the state should prevent violence by all means. I am not suggesting dictatorship measurements. These are obvious things for those living in democracies, if I have to explain them, I will need to write tomes. Authorities can prevent violence through reasonable non-violent measurements, in analogy to the legal framework of a country.

Expressing opinions on political matters, like what Kirk did, is a legal right. Disagreements in political matters are not considered “provocation to violence”. This exists since the establishment of modern democracies. I thought that these things were clear in 2026. If we have to re-discuss them, then let’s re-discuss slavery laws etc.

Try to prevent the use of racial slurs (which are not opinions and provoke specific community) by giving fine to the offender is what I would expect as potential punishment from a US state. That’s what the courts did for the cameraman case, NOT for the kid case for which Hendrix was found not guilty. I did not argue for worse punishment. You do not want any punishment at all. Ok. Maybe if it was in another state the verdict would have been different. Still ok for me.

The first reaction of a 37 year old mother on an 8 year old boy trying to take her purse was to start racial slurs towards him. Is this normal?

On the record is her statement. This is not premise, it is a claim of one of the involved parties. No court decision on that.

Yes, that was my subjective opinion. I have not seen cases where an adult sues a kid of that age. Even at higher ages (teens) the adult usually targets the parents for child neglect. If in US you know cases of lawsuits at 8 year olds then ok, I give you that. Nevertheless, it still remains irrelevant, since she was found innocent for the kid.

When did I claim that we should punish the speaker for the violence of the other party? Are you answering to someone else? I explicitly said:

On all my relevant responses I defended Charlie Kirk’s right to express his opinion and I condemned his murderer. Yet somehow, according to you, my “logic” justifies violence against him.

You do not even have to change state. Sometimes different jurors can give different verdict. I know that, thank you very much. What is the point? State having the ability to punish certain behavior as disorderly conduct does not mean it will definitely do it.

263

Not at all, I just wanted to direct your ire where it belongs. Courts take a lot of flack for their role as impartial arbitrators between the state and its citizens, and I take issue with that (which is not to say courts always fulfill that role perfectly, but they should be criticized for those failures, not for decisions made by the state’s lawyers).

You raise good points with respect to the risks involved in ‘disorderly conduct’ as an idea, and I mostly agree with you.

But I don’t think they land with respect to the current case. The question for the law applied here isn’t whether she was threatening. That would have been a charge of ‘assault’ (which is confusing because it’s so often lumped in with ‘battery’ that it’s understood to refer to actually stiking someone, but assault is the threat of violence and battery is the violence).

Rather, here the question is whether a reasonable person would expect her behavior to provoke a violent reaction.

The other point I’d make is that the notion of disorderly conduct isn’t new and isn’t, as several people have suggested here, an invention of the modern American left. Its roots go back a thousand years, and its modern version is close to is very close to its minimum scope historically.

I don’t think you’ve suggested otherwise, but given how this case has been framed here and elsewhere, it seems worth repeating that this case does not represent an expansion of the law in any sense. Other than its political valence, this is a normal application of a normal law.

Every law has a cost, but this objection feels like an isolated demand for rigor.

Wanna bet that how it “turn[ed] out” was because it was pursued in courts that did grant them a presumption of innocence?

If you’ll forgive a well-meaning paychoanalysis:

You’re lashing out in every direction about something that bothers you. Specifically, many people would call your worldview racist, and you’re scared that people not liking your worldview could have blowback in your life. That is quite reasonable.

But the connection between what bothers you and this particular case is tenuous: some other racist getting convicted of this crime isn’t the crux of what bothers you. You aren’t doing what this person was convicted of, and the blowback you’re scared of won’t come from a court of law.

To go a bit firther, I suspect you’re worried about being misunderstood, and not having what you’d consider a fair opportunity to set the record straight. That’s why you see kindred spirits in this case and the rape accusation case, and are concerned with false accusations: you are worried you will face consequences for how other people interpret your worldview, and not for the worldview itself.

I reach that conclusion because your arguments here aren’t warranted by the facts of this case, and false accusations of rape or otherwise are non-sequiturs on the merits here. But I can see how they would stoke your worries. And while I can’t assuage them, I will say with some confidence that you’re very unlikely to face criminal repercussions for them.

1 Like
264

So now it’s down to ‘scold’s bridle’ silencing-labels-that-have-no-meaning-any-more eg ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’. At least they don’t have a sex bias I suppose. They are used in equal measure on men and women :roll_eyes:

265

Yeah but obviously women are a little worse.

266

Mhm. Well I appreciate your implicit admission that the ruling is nonsensical, Carleas, though you may not care to derive what this implies.

Anyway, guilty, I was referring to the entire apparatus as “the court.” I don’t see why the juries during their deliberating functions should be consideres separate, but fine.

267

@Carleas

Yes, and sometimes the cost outweighs the net gain of such implemented laws.

Look, free speech also comes with the right to be offensive even by those who are not well liked by society. The moment you go outlawing everything deemed offensive don’t pretend you still have free speech anymore. At that point it becomes censored or controlled speech.

I seem to recall the only reason it was found out she lied is because an informant leaked information on her. If it wasn’t for that those men would still be presumed guilty of crimes they didn’t commit.

The difference between me and a liberal is that while we share a belief in equality for all human beings I am much less cosmopolitan.

Liberals believe in a postmodern human where race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and identity don’t exist in that they’re all trivialized to the point of redundancy. At the heart of my political system I am still a nationalist although a bit more civic than ethnic.

You modern liberals have your obsession with the future post-human nonsense.

Ultimately the borderless and stateless world of neoliberalism with your radically individualistic insistence on total freedom of movement I view as a grave error along with being a mistake where for me this century will end with the death of political liberalism itself where I hope to live long enough to see it.

You liberals say you believe in equality and humanism but I have lived in enough liberal city centers to know how you truly believe where you hide behind equality to acquire more slave labor for pennies by the hour to keep those gated communities financially affordable.

Have you ever lost a job because of false accusations of racism? I doubt it, you’re too white collar for those kinds of problems.

I see the persecutions all across Europe in the name of enforced liberal political correctness and don’t want that nightmare system in this nation. That’s what comes to the United States should these hysterical laws become commonplace.

More importantly I am a guy who spent fifteen years of his life homeless against his will where now presently I get my kicks watching neoliberal economic capitalism collapse everywhere because the political corruption is so great it is literally destroying itself. Here we are on the verge of World War III, martial law, civil unrest, massive revolution, and economic financial collapse where having spent my entire life forced to live in the most extreme worst ways I am watching a system I dislike a lot die by its own hand making it all the more poetic. Psycho analyze that Sigmund Freud.

For me revolution on a wide scale is all but inevitable and I am just wondering over here that if things get so bad over time if human civilization will destroy itself first before a popular political revolt even gets off the ground.

:clown_face:

1 Like
268

I have to assume you are referring to the cult of woke here, which is anything BUT liberal. They are obsessed with all of those things. Isn’t that what the wankers mean by ‘diversity’? Shoving humans together (except for them. They invariably choose to live in areas that are as ‘undiverse’ as possible) no matter how violently incompatible they are, and expecting them to not kill each other?

1 Like
269

The closest case I found to what you describe was the 2006 case of theee Duke lacrosse players accused of raping an eotic dancer. The exotice dancer recanted in 2024 and admitted she made it up.

However, in that case the charges were dropped before trial, and the DA who brought the charges was forced to resign and later disbarred following an ethics incestigation. They later sued the state and Duke University and settled both.

I think that is the case you’re misremembering, and there they were presumed innocent and exhonorated long before the accusor recanted.

Look, I’m going to respond to this because I can’t help myself, but this is so far away from the case that started the discussion, right? Hendrix’ case isn’t about liberalism or trivializing race or whatever. We’re very far afield.

Anyway, as a progressive liberal, yeah I don’t think much of modern conceptions of race and ethnicity and culture and religion. Those concepts as they are currently used are on the order of hundreds of years old, and their role in society is contingent.

The progressive liberal position on these is often caricatured as historically illegerate (and some versions are), but a broad reading of history supports it. The way we treat those differences are how past human societies everywhere have treated what seem like laughably tivial differences now.

As I’ve mentioned before, I draw a lot of my rejection of the modern concept from my personal ancestry, as my ancestors fled a racial genocide at the hands of people who are now considered the same race and within a rounding error of the same ethnicity and culture.

The progressive idea that society does not need to be divided along these lines is not denying importance, it’s just noticing that it’s contingent. It’s an intersubjective fact that race etc. matters, which means it’s important only so long as we collectively choose to make it so.

Like you take for granted now that US borders are real and important, but the colonists felt the same way about state borders. Early Americans thought of the states as different nations, and they distrusted each other in the way modern Americans distrust other nations.

You are living in the kind of borderless world you’re trying to argue can’t exist.

It’s weird that you look at that compound (“neoliberal economic capitalism”) and seem to mostly single out the only part that has consistently secured you any rights at all. Liberalism is the embrace of the individual, of personal autonomy and freedoms.

I know you also identify as a communist, but it still feels like a culturally liberal critique, one that assumes the nature individual rights are somehow separate from the economic order.

(That last thought may be worth a separate thread…)

While I think most of what’s referred to as ‘woke’ is compatible with (and often required by) liberalism, I agree that they are not the same; as I understand it, wokism is more progressive than liberal.

In the US, Fox News has ruined the word ‘liberal’. Part of me thinks that was intentional, seeing the budding global oligopoly they’ve built.

This, though, is just wrong. Every major city in the US (and I believe everywhere else) is both highly diverse and highly progressive. Sure, there are plenty of progressives in the suburbs too, but diverse cities absolutely attract and retain progressives.

1 Like
270

‘Progressive’ is such a narcissistic and self-promoting term. Oooh, look at me, I’m so ‘progressive’ with my pink and blue hair, nose rings, tea towel collection and privileged, middle-class background :rofl:

271

MistressOphelia:
‘Progressive’ is such a narcissistic and self-promoting term. Oooh, look at me, I’m so ‘progressive’ with my pink and blue hair, nose rings, tea towel collection and privileged, middle-class background :rofl:

K: apparently, I am the ‘‘token’’ liberal/progressive here and I have
never, ever have colored my hair, or have a nose ring or even a tattoo
and I don’t even know what this ‘‘tea towel collection’’ is and
as far as being privilege, after my parents divorced, for a while
the only meal of the day I ate was the school meal at lunch
for very poor people, like my family… and I have been homeless
as an adult, twice in fact, and until I was 33, I didn’t make more
than 20,000 a year… being middle class today, even while retired,
came about because I worked for almost 50 years… BTW, the most
I ever made as an adult was 41,000 a year and that was when I was
66 years old… that is hardly privileged…
so, let us not make idiotic assumptions about liberals/progressives…

Kropotkin

272

I think to consider it reasonable that something provokes a violent reaction, it should include getting up very close and or threatening behavior. Otherwise, the reaction is a problem.

Oh, I don’t blame the law on the Left or the Right. I just see it as problematic.

Yes, that wouldn’t surprise me. I just think it’s too subjective. As you say above, what can be reasonably expected to lead to violent response. Well 1) it didn’t lead to violent response. I understand that people shouldn’t necessarily get a get out of jail free card if they do certain things around or to people who are pacifist, say. But I also think it carries weight. The people there did not react with violence and they had more direct experience of the behavior than even the video can convey. I also specifically mentioned that it is allowed to say fuck you to police. Those are definitely fighting words in many contexts, nevertheless free speech has won out there.

It’s also odd. You are doing something that might lead to other people breaking the law. Looking in your wallet and pulling the money out to count it late at night. A woman walking tipsy, sexily clad, down a dark street. The counter - those are not wrongful or aggressive actions. Well, once upon a time a women sexily clad walking down the street was seen as wrongful. What if the person counts their money provocatively or laughs and looks smug at some people.

I am not saying that I understand where the line should be brought, but it seems very subjective to me to say Action A could reasonably be expected to elicit violence, but that violence would be illegal - and it would be, even if the person was determined to be disorderly. i think one side of that equation has to give.

It also stakes a claim. These are the triggers that are verboten. Other triggers are ok. Screaming Trump is a piece of shit at a Maga group. Or walking closer to them and just saying ‘He is dumb though.’ over and over and over. You’re calm, not in their face. Or something going against trans people but not said to a trans person, just to woke people. What you consider a fact about the sexes.

It just feels like the courts are going into an area they shouldn’t. Trying to come up with the Marquess of Queensberry Rules of social behavior and then figuring out what style and content, given what sensitivies, can lead to speech being disorderly. These are the norms of violent response trigger, the courts declare. You could say I am mounting a norm critical argument.

They’ve managed to say to police who have dangerous work and must be on edge in many situations…tough, they can say that, even though it makes you want to punch them in the face. They are free to say Fuck the pig police. Now one of the counterarguments here is that police are professionals and held to a higher standard. But actually everyone is held to a higher standard. You are breaking the laws if you hit someone for disorderly conduct.

1 Like
273

You certainly fit the ‘narcissistic’ part perfectly though, which is at it’s core :laughing:

Only an idiot would think I literally meant that every single wokist has pink or blue hair. Everyone with eyes and a brain knows exactly what I mean.

You are still in the same cult, and many people like to signal their membership of a cult with their appearance.

274

These people are completely insane and vicious. Like rabid dogs. Terrifying actually.

image
image680×592 49.3 KB

275

And what’s with these grown women and the little ‘cutesie’ baby voices? It’s so cringy when women do that and vomit-inducing.

There’s a perfectly simple explanation for the current wave of Jew-hatred and persecution. People have been persecuting Jews at pretty regular intervals for over a thousand years and Oct 7 triggered an ‘about time for another one’ reaction in them. It really has little to do with all the extremely well-funded Hamas propaganda. That’s just an excuse. It wouldn’t have mattered WHAT Israel did after that atrocity, it was always going to be the ‘wrong’ thing. The anti-Israel propaganda isn’t even remotely convincing to any normal person, while it’s lapped up with relish by previously dormant Jew-haters. Israel is well aware that it’s fighting for its existence against a wave of hostility from the outside world. It can’t afford to consider the ‘faux feelings’ or teatowel-toting, cultish wankers from the West.

Ancient and Medieval Persecution

  • 70 CE: Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple by the Roman Empire.
  • 1096: The First Crusade, leading to massacres of Jewish communities in the Rhineland.
  • 1290: The Edict of Expulsion banishing all Jews from England by King Edward I.
  • 1348–1351: The Black Death persecutions, where Jews were falsely blamed for causing the plague.

Early Modern Persecution

  • 1492: The Alhambra Decree expelling all Jews from Spain.
  • 1648–1657: The Khmelnytsky Uprising in Ukraine, resulting in the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of Jews.

Modern Persecution

  • 1881–1984: Violent anti-Jewish riots known as pogroms across the Russian Empire.
  • 1933–1945: The Holocaust, resulting in the systematic murder of six million European Jews by Nazi Germany.
  • 1948–1967: Mass expulsions and flight of Jews from Arab and Muslim lands following the creation of Israel.
1 Like
276

@MistressOphelia

It’s interesting that you defend Israel so vehemently considering they’re the gay capital of the entire Middle East including transsexuals that you like the most.

:clown_face:

277

1 Like
278

I’m defending facts. You obviously prefer lies. That’s your prerogative.

1 Like
279

By the way, I too hate the word liberals, but for different reasons.

It seems an affront to identify a group of people with liberty who are so preoccupied with imposing a regime that stretches through every layer of life.

I mean, just the extraAmerican regimes they favour. China, Iran, Europe.

2 Likes
280

@Socrates

It’s interesting a Canadian having such interests in United States politics.

:clown_face: