You must log in or # to comment.
Yes violence against people i dont like is acceptable. At least until the violence quotient normalizes.
Conflict is solved only through domination, forgivness, or avoidance.
Forgiveness only resolves conflict if both sides acknowledge the wrongness of the action and the victim accepts it enough to move on.
Do you think this little girl should accept being dominated and be treated as second class person or receive verbal abuse or should she be ostrizied from society in order to avoid that abuse?
Best case, the authority figures caught the abuser and punished him before further escalation happened, they failed to reprimand him for his sick behavior and thus codoned it, forcing the victim or her friends to decided for themselves when on the conflict continuum they were going to be.
No, Im saying violence is the answer
It’s fun watching people discover the paradox of tolerance in real time.
Women are sexually assaulted at rates that are fucking disturbing.
I’d punch you in the face in a heartbeat if you called my wife a whore. We don’t tolerate intolerance. Get with the program.
Oh you think im joking?
The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
Yep, and apparently we have to scream it louder.
Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance? Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.
- It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
- They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems. Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
- The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.
Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant. Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance. Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to reject it.
To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society. That’s it. When intolerant people abandon reason, you can no longer tolerate them in society.
You’re a fart sniffing social media philosopher I see
I’m positive a strongly worded letter would have made all the difference.
No… violence is acceptable…
When my nephew was a little kid he got suspended from school. My sister and her husband were working, but I was still in university so I offered to go pick him up. Turns out he’d done exactly this on the playground so I took him to McDonald’s and bought him Lego on his day off.
Then that hockey game wasn’t valuable. Fuck toxic enviroments as these that ban the ones who do the only correct thing to do.
Hey, violence isn’t the answer, let alone “the only correct thing to do”.
Lmao, “violence is not the answer”. It is. When other people like that fucking asshole kiddo were, then it’s the only acceptable thing to do. “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done unto yourself”.
They need to understand that their shit has consequences, or else bigotry will never end.
Id disagree with you if we were talking about an adult but as we are talking about a kid I would say you are outting yourself as some sort of predator or abuser with that mentality. There can be consequences that are non-violent, violence just propagates more violence. Interesting that you took a popular phrase, changed it so that it has a different meaning, then tried to use it as evidence for your case. Get support, you don’t have to be so violent.
Bigotry is as old as humanity.
It will never end. I would bet that you’re bigoted against a variety of people, too. It’s all around us; most people have a “narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them”.
Especially here on Lemmy.
None of that makes it wrong to oppose bigotry.
we had an ‘airforce’ player in our team. he usually was only on the field, if the other team played dirty. the most dirty opponent would have a painful clash with our ‘airforce’. the game usually was a bit more civilised after that.
was it the right thing to do? probably not. would we have sent the ‘airforce’ if the referee had stopped dirty plays earlier? definitely not! did it protect other players from going home with injuries? yes!
so no, violence is not the only correct thing to do. but it is a way to achieve certain goals. sometimes fire has to be fought with fire.
Was bro flying around?
he made sure we controlled who went flying and who not.
guess he could also have been called “Air Traffic Control”…
Are you trying to say enforcer? I’m plenty familiar with the concept but your word choice is confusing.
Hockey is weird, its sort of expected that the players use violence to keep each others behavior in check.
the concept may be more established for ice hockey. but it is present in all sports or possibly in life: we hope there is a referee to punish bad behaviour. but if there isn’t, we have to take things into our own hands.
i am not necessarily talking about violence here. if at your job someone constantly tries to sabotage you, violence may not be the best approach. but some dirty play on your side, might just discourage the behaviour enough. obviously that should only be considered, if theere is no sort of referee to stop the behaviour traditionally.
Doubt. There’s no way the refs would tolerate that language from kids.
I’m in Western Canada and I can tell you their parents in the stands are usually worse.
If the ref heard it they might care enough. Maybe, maybe not. Hockey kids say all sorts of shit.
Using your children for your made up feel good story is weird
It’s a twitter account called UnfilteredMama. They probably don’t have kids at all.
My kid would get a Disney trip for something like this
I’m tired of these damn horses causing all these problems
Ref: “what are you, as his parent, going to do about it?”
Parent: “well, he really likes the movies, so I think I’ll take him to see the lastest blockbuster.”
Have a good about when it’s acceptable to use violence, and then buy him icecream.
I think the kid has already it out.
Lol, I think you a word
*accidentally
the whole can?
The bottle, even.
The whole cake.
Ugh this is become such an issue when typing anything on a smartphone; it sure really likes to put words in for you… or leave them out.
I don’t know if it’s voyager or my keyboard app but I’ve noticed sometimes when I swipe type a word, it inserts the desired word but then sticks the cursor in front of the word instead of after it so any new text would go before the word and it gets pushed to the end of the message if I don’t catch it.
Yeah, Its a common problem for me… Me not word well
I’m on the fence. On the one side I despise a society that resorts to violence to solve problems. This is primitive. Then again it sure feels like some people don’t learn another way. Doesn’t mean it’s good.
Mhm, a story to remember for sure.
We all had history classes.
Violence is the most effective tool the working class has by a country mile so they don’t get devoured by the wealthys politics and bullshit.
Regulations for business are quite literally often written in blood.
Violence is the last thing some people even understand. Sure it should be a last resort most of the time.
On the other hand Cornell, frats, and the fact that women are sexually assaulted at disturbing rates.
I’d punch an openly misogynistic person too. We’ve spent too many decades not punching shitty people, now we have fascists popping up all over again.
Then again it sure feels like some people don’t learn another way.
That’s because they don’t. Because the lesson they need to learn isn’t “people don’t like that behavior” it’s “that behavior will have swift and severe consequences”.
To renounce the use of violence as a method of conflict resolution is to utterly surrender to those who have not and will not.
It’s hockey. Punching someone in the face is how you express your feelings.
Disagree, sometimes we have go go back to the fundamental. Looks around, shitty people aren’t get punched enough.
Consequences are measuring levels of controlled violence. Both human and not.
If one assumes violence is an unnecessary tool, then we would’ve resolved the issue with actual criminal syndicates both high and low by now. Alas, that’s not happening when said syndicates can and will use their own levels of controlled violence against everyone else.
It’s anecdotal, but I was bullied mercilessly when I was a big, fat sixth grader by this pack of fifth graders who would run up behind me during lunchtime in the playground, kick me, and run away. This went on for some time until one day I happened to turn around at just the right second and caught this little shit by the name of Cory Rodgerson.
I took a big, wide swing and smacked him upside the head as hard as I could. One punch. I vividly remember (probably partly falsely given the forty years that have passed) him spinning, falling over, and then bawling his eyes out. I felt horrible about it, but you know what? Him and his group of cronies never bullied me again.
He learned that actions have consequences, and I learned that violence sucks, but sometimes it does solve problems. Was there a better solution? Probably, but telling my teachers and parents had had no effect, so what else was I supposed to do about it? I also did not grow up to be violent, and in fact have never gotten into any kind of physical altercation as an adult, so maybe it was a good lesson for me, too.
Fucking Cory! Classic
Why did he even get kicked out? It’s hockey. Fighting is only 5 minutes in the box.
I watched a fight once, and suddenly a hockey game broke out.
Not every league allows fighting, some leagues don’t even allow checking
Might be field hockey though
Youth hockey leagues are pretty strict about no fighting. Younger leagues have no checking, for obvious reasons. As you get older, it gets more physical.
Personally, I disagree with the punch. Takes you out of the game when you and the rest of your team can just mark that guy as an asshole and make his day absolutely suck. For everyone saying, but he won’t know why: he’ll know. Plus, you can simply call him a whore every time you hit him. A dirty hit when he has the puck is 2 or 4 in the sin bin, and you get to hit him again later. A single punch is just that, and it’s all over.
Its also absurd because its heavily gendered. If someone called a male teammate a fucking whore we would laugh at them, take note that they are clearly salty, and fuck with them the rest of the game. If it was the girl who punched the guy in the face it would at least make more sense.
Personally, I wouldnt cheer my own kid on for punching someone in the face and getting kicked out of the game. That type of problem solving shows a lack of creativity and compassion.
Agreed. The more I’ve thought about the more I think the comments are mostly a bunch of neck beards proud the kid “defended her honor.” As if she ever asked him to do that. What if it had been a girl on the other team calling his teammate the same thing? Girls can be brutal in their chirping. “Fucking whore” is pretty tame compared to what I’ve heard collegiate female rugby players call one another. Im all for the team ganging up on an asshole player playing like an asshole, but players in just about any team sport constantly shit talk their opponents. Somehow the other guy crossed a line by treating a girl the same as he presumably would any other player on the ice? If he singled her out, fine. Chirp back, or ignore it. And the one comment calling it bullying? Gimme a break. It wasn’t even said to her. Tell the guy to fuck off, score on him and give him a good hip check next time you can get away with it.
For the pros, yes. But for all youth hockey (at least in the US) it’s an immediate game misconduct.
Lol, he didn’t get kicked out…UnfilteredMama posted it on twitter. It never happened to begin with.
Hockey skills are life skills
Fuck I thought hockey was like, the only sport other than boxing where you’re supposed to punch them.
I think a pro hockey player would get kicked out of a game for sucker punching a player at face off.
They can fight, but there’s a sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” that is usually consensual and happens after face off. Referees will often even give them space to duke it out.
Unless someone on the other team did something really fucked up, then all bets are off (and you take the suspension for sucker punching them lol).
In the NHL it’s fine. Actually if a penalty has already been called against you then you can do anything you want.
Absolutely not. You can definitely receive an ejection and a game misconduct which would prevent you from playing in the next game as well.
Yeah, there’s a lot of unwritten rules about where the lines are drawn on legitimate play for competitive advantage in the sport itself, to dirty play that veers into being about hurting someone rather than playing good offense/defense, socially acceptable fighting that is part of the broader game, and is penalized within the rules of the game by the refs on the ice, to socially unacceptable fighting that warrants league intervention after the game for suspensions and the like.
It can still be worth it, but we gotta place each act in the appropriate category.
there are still rules to fight him
Professional hockey yes, but they dont let kids fight.
Escalation to violence is never acceptable. Tell it to the referee or police instead.
You do realize the police are only there to protect the state and capital, not you, right? They’re more likely to escalate to violence than most regular folk, they’re trained to treat everyone as a potential threat. The idea of calling the police over someone calling another person a whore is utterly ridiculous.
The reason why there’s so much shitty stuff happening in 'Murica right now is this attitude
Consequences must be immediate
The reason people stormed the capitol is because people think they have the moral high ground and can sidestep the justice system.
I’m not going to waste any more time on you
You’re a coward
BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING PUNCHED THEIR DUMB FUCK ASS!
No, it’s because the President told them to do it.
And they (mostly rightly) thought that meant they could sidestep the justice system.
And the reason why the pedophile rapist got elected is because usians did not make an example of those idiots storming the capitol immediately.
Violence is never the answer, but some people are not asking questions; some people are looking for consequences.
Please go grow a real spine and an understanding of how the world actually works.
I’m painfully aware of how the world works. Your attitude is why the Israel-Palestine conflict persists.
The question is how can we make world work better? One way is teaching our kids not to escalate conflict into violence.
You do realize that being obnoxious to people who don’t share your support of violence as a teaching method, undermines your whole position? It makes you sound like one of those “I was spanked and I turned out OK” people who did not, in fact, turn out OK.
Parental abuse is a lot different psychologically then just fucking up a peer for their bullshit. But my comments were removed and I have NEVER had that happen on the fediverse before.
I didn’t know we were Reddit now -_-
You’re posting on a lemmy.world server community and they have rules against talking about illegal things in their countries (Netherlands, Finland, Germany). This includes calls of violence and they consider comments encouraging violence to be illegal/ against the rules. If you go to lemmy.world and scroll to bottom they link to their bylaws.
It started when the united health ceo was murdered. Anyone who showed support of it was getting moderated. Eventually they clarified that we can speak of factual things but we can’t make calls for further violence. So i can say i didn’t lose any sleep when the united health ceo was murdered. I cant say anything that calls for more violence against other ceos.
The fediverse is great but now you have an extra layer of rules: your server rules (dbzer0 is pretty good), server rules of whatever community you’re posting in, and the community rules of the comm you’re posting in.
Still gets less moderated than reddit mods who love to powertrip
Unfortunately a closed fist speaks louder than an open mouth when a person has no intention of listening…
A closed fist results in another closed fist. This attitude is why we have wars.
lol nah someone calling a weaker person a slur is a little bitch and would not retaliate.
That’s not entirely true, war is far more complex than that…
My point is/was that sometimes a short sharp shock delivers one of two outcomes: it either clarifies someone’s mind or teaches them the important lesson that words have consequences.
I can’t stress enough that it is a final resort though. All other avenues need to have been fully explored first.
Well, as far as misogyny goes, all other avenues have been explored. Extensively, and repeatedly, through more than 100 years of feminism literature and praxis, discussions, and real world research.
Violence has its place, and when the other person is dehumanizing you, that is almost always the place.
In order to explore other avenues, the other person needs to regard you as an equal. For those with authoritarian/fascistic/bigoted leanings among us, the only way for that, is consequences, because the only thing they care about, is consequences.
Based
Yeah, that’s kind of my point. One of the avenues to explore is whether it’s even worth your time to try any civilised approach.
We know why wars happen in the modern age and it isn’t people punching each other, actually.
The paradox of tolerance is lost on you
You’re a coward
Literally Hitler!!1!one
One unfixably foul mouth results in LOTS of closed fists. Lots of closed fists results in someone backing down and surrendering, not closing their fist.
The “unfixably foul” part is the key. We cherish people’s ability to speak their mind, and it may not fully match ours. But “women exist for sexual slavery” is a long, long way from matching anyone’s I ever want to share a room with.
Chances are, he didn’t mean it. So, it’s a lesson: Don’t ever even pretend to mean it.
Who will then do absolutely nothing
If that’s true then that’s a separate serious problem that needs to be addressed, but it can be done without violence.
Yeah, just ask the paramilitary goombas nicely if they could start enforcing your rights, that always does the trick
Eye by Eye, Tooth by Tooth. If you don’t want to be abused, you stain not abuse to start.
Actually, in hockey it’s literally acceptable. Like, there’s rules for the fighting.
Violence in defense of the innocent is always acceptable.
Yeah. I think about it as just as a spoiled child: if you spoil them every time they forms a tantrum, then they’ll wrongly learn that doing a tantrum not only doesn’t has any consequences, but even that they’ll might get rewarded for doing that.
That mysoginistic kiddo was that spoiled child.
It’s hockey.
Amount dislikes this comment got pains me We should teach children to resolve verbal conflicts without physical retaliation, not reward behavior of escalation to physical violence
Calling someone a “whore” isn’t a disagreement, it’s violence.
Slurs should be met with direct violence EVERY time.
Who decides what a slur is?
Anyone with a brain. It’s not a complicated thing to understand.
What about the people without a brain who think they have a brain? Should they get to decide?
Have fun being stupid, stupid.
I’m going to assume you are intentionally supporting my point, as opposed to unintentionally.
I do.
You’re doing the far-right bullshit thing of treating the fact that a position requires (gasp) human judgment as an argument against the position itself. “Who gets to decide what’s fair?” “Who gets to decide what constitutes harm?” “Who gets to decide what’s reasonable?” They act like these are impossible questions that somehow invalidate the whole idea. If you’re an adult and have any confidence in your own morality, you should be able to make judgment calls. I promise it really isn’t an impossible dilemma unless you’re a moral relativist coward.
The problem is that lots of adults have confidence in their own morality, but they don’t agree. So if you allow violence to enforce your own moral code, then you have to recognize that they will do it too.
You mean the ones who already are? Sure. It’s about time they found out.
Not the trash on this site.
Fuck that shit. Look at the president! Punch them in the fucking head.
Cheng Xin, is that you?
Sir, this is a Lemmy’s.
Fantasy violence against baddies is mandatory.
If they were adults, violence definitely would have been accepted as it’s part of the game.
Not a sucker punch in the face at faceoff, but an actual fight after the play starts. It’s literally part of the sport.
In the context of hockey, escalation to violence is not only acceptable, it’s an integral aspect of the sport.
What if its the police escalating to violence?
According to Game Theory you have to retaliate once if someone crosses a line.
You need to make it clear that that type of behavior is not acceptable while simultaneously not going too far. Or else you will become a doormat.
In the case of the hockey player, 1 punch is enough. More than 1 punch would cross a line.
Game theory says no such thing.
More in line with actual (but barely relevant) game theory results: In repeated interactions, strategies that respond to bad behavior in proportion, then quickly forgive, tend to do well, and being a bit more forgiving than strict tit-for-tat helps when misunderstandings happen.
The key here is in proportion, and you said it yourself: “while simultaneously not going too far”. Responding with physical violence to a verbal attack is disproportionate and it’s going too far.
Intolerance for intolerance is needed in a tolerant society and in my opinion punching that person in the face was not too far. That guy needs to learn to not behave like that towards women.
He got swift justice and maybe he will think twice before he does that again.
I don’t think violence was the only soultion here. In the best case an adult would have heard what he said, banned him for that game, and calmly explained to him why that is wrong to do and he would improve himself. But from experience with kids behaving like that (depending on the age, young kids might listen) he wouldn’t care.
I am not strictly against violence, I am however strictly against murdering people.
I never suggested that it should be tolerated
No, it actually exists, and it’s the best strategy: tit-for-tat with forgveness,it’s called.
OK boomer
Escalation to violence is never acceptable
Bullys and abusers love this mentality. It’s the only reason they can keep being bullies and abusers.
Why does everyone seem to assume no violence means no consequences. I don’t think a player who calls someone a whore should be allowed back on the rink. Just remove the bully. It’s a natural consequence (“we don’t want abuse so if you do that you cant be here”) that I assure you will be more effective than punching them in the face. And it doesn’t require a vigilante justice that risks escalating the situation. That slope is too slippery.
Just remove the bully
You were obviously never a target of bullies growing up. All that does is teach the bully not to get caught. And generally will invite retaliation against whoever the bully decides is at fault for it, usually whoever “snitched”.
But damn few bullies come back and try again after being popped in the nose by the target of their bullying or a bystander. Because they were taught the lesson on the one language they’re able to hear it in.
People who’ve never been in a fight have as much business weighing in on the use of violence as celibate priests have weighing in on sex.
It reminds me when I decked a kid in martial arts class because he made a yo mama joke. There were no consequences for me lol
I did something similar in school. Laid out the kid making fun of me.
We were in pads and helmets. It was middle school chickens establishing the pecking order.
Kid was more abusive than most and picking on me in particular. Put him on the ground, made it clear that this would not be tolerated.
Then I caught up with the running drill.
That’s kinda the attitude that is cultivated for success in athletics.
All these clowns in this thread supporting the kids actions when I know none of you are doing shit like this in your daily life. Put your ass on the line next time someone insults someone else if you really think this is appropriate retaliation. In fact I would say you’re either a hypocrite or a liar if you don’t throw hands next time you hear a insult.
I don’t get to hear that shit in my daily life. The moment I do, I will find out whether I am as awesome as this kid.
Huh? Why does supporting this kid’s actions necessarily imply one would do the same? Why are you so bitter?
Why wouldn’t you do actions you support? Either lying or hypocritical like I said.
“I’m going to climb Mount Everest.”
-“That’s a great goal! I support that.”
“Then get your fucking climbing gear, you little bitch. Or are you a lying hypocrite?”
Yeah, this is definitely a rational line of thought.
Violence was the wrong answer. But a swift and strong reaction to defend someone being bullied is something to praise. At a time when a large portion of society is actively trying to demote women to the position of being property instead of people with equal rights, that instinct is even more important to encourage.
So, while violence would normally be something that is met with swift punishment of its own to try to correct the child’s behavior, in this case, the balance tips a bit the other way. In this case the kid was already ejected from the gameIts a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated. Taking them seriously is the wrong move. The girl in this situation already has a team, and team mates, and its none of them that are harassing her. She should be able to brush it off just as easy as any of the guys, and acting like she needs a defender isnt automatically the right move just because she’s a girl.
All this to say, clearly this is just a dumb social media mother attempting to brag about their impulsive and violent child as if it were a good thing.
Its a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated.
Things only said by people who use racial slurs in online games.
No, I don’t like to speak or act for others without permission first. I won’t assume my team mate is offended unless they say so, and won’t jump to their defense unless they ask. I consider that to be a minimum level of respect and I would expect others treat me the same way.
This user has definitely dropped N bombs in voice chat while playing a FPS.
Okay troll.
No, it was the correct answer
