This case isn’t merely about calling someone the n word. This is about all of the surrounding behavior. If she just muttered ‘n****r’ under her breath and walked away, nobody would ever have heard of it. So what? Some lady muttered the n word, who cares?
It’s about her SCREAMING it into peoples faces. Yes, I would hope that a black person screaming that into another black persons face should be treated similarly.
Talking about it like it’s just about the word alone is disingenuous. That’s not what this is about.
To make this argument i still think that everyone who holds this idea needs to explain why they think that responsibility can be shifted in such gross manner.
No matter how you twist the idea behind this law and concept, you will always fall back on the same set of issues:
Shifting the responsibility and blame from the one who committed the act to some nebulous third party speaker via logical gymnastics rolling with the premise that words cause violence
Since the premise is that words are capable of causing violence, you are instantly (albeit indirectly) advocating for totalitarian speech control and censorship, not to mention curb stomping of human rights.
The problem of agency erasure with the idea that you are not responsible for your own actions but “everybody else is”.
Hypodermic needle fallacy: The dozens of times debunked idea that speech and media is capable of acting like a syringe, adding and changing ideas inside people, provoking actions regardless of their choice or willingness
The causal and logical gymnastics of trying to also transfer agency to a third party
Lastly there are also 2 larger logical fallacies involved with this nonsense:
a.) Post hoc ergo: The claim that because an act happened after a speech, the speech is responsible or plays a role in the act.
b.) Intentionality fallacy: Because a speakers words have supposedly lead to an action, the speaker must have had the intent of creating that action.
TL;DR:
Several people in this topic have claimed now that they feel that this is somehow reasonable, but none of them bothered to engage with the inconsistencies, the consequences or the broken logic of their so called “reasonable” idea.
Im pretty sure that this is because everyone understands that they would not be able to defend such a position. Mostly because its indefensible. Both ethically and logically.
And if thats the case… why the f would you say that you find this to be a reasonable position to hold?
The Authoritarian uses a lot of redundant language. If a normal person would say ‘racial slur’, he feels the need to add extra words like ‘ethnic’. I’m not sure what he’s thinking when he decides to just add more unnecessary words, but I see it often.
Nope, but it’s not the same thing. A friend of yours or your wife says ‘I’m gonna kill you.’ Some stranger walks up to you and says ‘I’m gonna kill you.’ It’s not the same thing. My general sense is if this is said between strangers and between races it should be covered by the first amendment and not be a legal matter. Doctors with patients, bosses with employees, teachers with students, that’s a different matter. A lot of groups take the names that were used to dehumanize them and use them themselves. It doesn’t mean the same thing as a white person calling a black person the n-word. Context matters.
Perhaps I should of utilized the terminology racial-ethnic. I am basically trying to describe race and ethnicity simultaneously.
Of course some of us in our busy lives don’t have enough time to run our posts through a spellcheck sentence structuring app proof reading everything before things are posted.
I prefer substance in dialogue and communication versus things being written perfectly. Of course with you and others here you have to complain about how everything is written in presenting format.
I don’t always have the time to concern myself with such trivial things, but whatever.
Here she got convicted for her behavior with the words included. In other words it’s clear she was insulting the person and she did approach the camera man. I just don’t think it was aggressive enough. It felt like mocking and not a threat.
I think language can affect how actions are interpreted. Someone getting up in my face and saying angrily ‘you piece of shit’ with their fists cocked and ready, I can see that as a crime. The language adds to the threat. Adds to the sense violence is about to happen. I might punch someone in that situation, because it seems like they are about to hit me. I can imagine that being a crime. If someone used the n-word and I was black and did the same, that also would make me think there’s a good chance violence is going to happen.
But I think people can say asshole over there, not getting in my face, and that’s ok, legally. I think the area she got convicted was behavior plus language. I just don’t read her as threatening so I disagree with the verdict.
You’ve had some rough periods in your life. You know what it’s like on the street. Me too. Someone gets in your face using certain language, it can be the wise choice to punch them, even if they haven’t thrown a punch. Certainly you should be able to push them back, which could be considered assault. Either you just broke the law, hitting them first or what they were doing ought to be criminal. The words they use will add to how I interpret their body language. ‘Get out of here’ will hit me very differently from a lot of other short sentences. They may mean get out of here or I will hit you, but they are trying to get me to move away. Other things they say paint a different picture of what is happening. First one to hit often wins.
Right now the law is odd, I think. We can consider their actions/words so threatening that it is a breach of the peace, yet I cannot respond to this with violence or we both have committed crimes. I don’t think that makes sense in real life. If they were so threatening to me that it’s a crime, I think I get to treat it as imminent violence.
I don’t know if anybody else saw this, but online I have
seen reports about the Somalians who were filming at the time…
one was that the person filming has fled the country due to
harassment, and two that the child in question was in trouble
and wearing a ankle bracelet… I see this as an attempt to
dehumanize the Somalians…give it the George Floyd
treatment… which is to smear the people, the Somalians
into thinking because they might have issues, it’s then clearly
their fault…part of the smear is the one on the child, really,
an 8 year old kid with an ankle bracelet? and what that means
is the kid in question is severely autistic, and with the help of the
police department, the father has them put a monitor to help track
the child because the child ‘‘runs’’ away… this preventive action helps
everyone involved, but is painted as being something criminal or
illegal… whereas if something is put into context, the attempt
at the smear tends to lessen, not necessarily go away, but becomes
a bit more limited…
implication? bruh you just had two people spelling out for you clearly how jarring it is reading all the unnecessary redundancies in your posts. it’s not an implication.
‘unnecessary redundancy’ – that’s a redunancy from me XD. Perfect irony.
The difference is that where I was forced to survive on the streets calling the police on somebody could get yourself killed or if it is an organized criminal element they could put an assassin hit on you.
Where I have been the environment was so terribly bad people would kill each other over $20.00-$50.00 sadly.
Most of the time I would avoid trouble by zero interaction with people or just walking away. I would only fight if I had no other alternative choice. I tried everything to avoid violence and conflict if I could.
Big difference as far as my own life experiences are concerned.
Yes there was an online smear campaign by a group of morons against the family. Clip was for the child who is severely artistic and has a tendency to run away and it’s got a GPS in it so they didn’t do anything wrong the child did remove something from the racist woman’s bag without asking most likely due to not understanding boundaries given that he’s autistic or she’s autistic.
But the family’s gotten over 300,000 dollars worth of support, and much of the town has supported them. The white woman has gotten even more cash support to relocate with her family, since she has gotten so many threats.
I guess if I had a child with severe medical bills I might see if I could find a person in a minority group so we could stage some kind of racist encounter and then just wait for the cash to start rolling in to both of us.
