Do you think violence is a justified response to offensive speech?

[mjames]

.....

....

[rachmaninoff_forever]

If I'm walking down the street and someone called me a black person, I'm gonna pop his ass in the jaw.

But killing 12 people or however many it was in the video is going overboard.

[kawai_cs]

Does slapping count as violence?

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't believe this anti Muslim propoganda. I'd ask those in political/financial powers do you think innocent people should die so your adgendas can be fulfilled? They of course if answering truthfully would admit that it's fine.

[briansaddleback]

Does slapping count as violence?

Not if you're talking about me.
That's called deservence.

[mjames]

I don't believe this anti Muslim propoganda. I'd ask those in political/financial powers do you think innocent people should die so your adgendas can be fulfilled? They of course if answering truthfully would admit that it's fine.

o.O Where'd you get anti-Muslim propaganda from? It's about the Pope and his views that religion should be exempt from criticism.

If I'm walking down the street and someone called me a black person, I'm gonna pop his ass in the jaw.

But killing 12 people or however many it was in the video is going overboard.

Calling you black is offensive? Anyways here's some advice: how about just ignoring it?

[mjames]

Not if you're talking about me.
That's called deservence.

NO.
NOT ON MY THREAD.
GET
OUT

OUT
U
T

[thalbergmad]

People who respond with violence because their 6th Century warlord has been insulted, are as retarded  as anyone else who commits violence in the name of their moronic imaginary friend and worthless book of fairy tales.

They are nothing but savages and the World would be far better off without them.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

o.O Where'd you get anti-Muslim propaganda from?

Well from the fake story of Muslims killing cartoonists and several other people for insulting Muhammad. It's just a smaller version of 9/11 fakery.

[mjames]

uh what.
wut the heck are you even trying to say? XD

[Bob]

*Bob was paying complete, full attention to Morpheus.* 


Ideally, I'd say no.  It's just words.  No violence necessary.

Realistically, I'd say in some situation it's not unreasonable that there would be violence.  Which is interesting because I was thinking of the people who heckled people attending a funeral, but I guess that would apply the same way to the Muhammad stuff, except that the scope is global in the Muhammad case... which could make it diffused I'd say.

[chopinlover01]

Well from the fake story of Muslims killing cartoonists and several other people for insulting Muhammad. It's just a smaller version of 9/11 fakery.

Please tell me you're joking....
@OP Never. That you need to resort to violence in order to shut someone up because their ideas are "offensive" only proves that you're moronic and incapable of having an actual proper dialogue.

[kalospiano]

no idea what lostinidlewonder was saying, but if the effect is mjames publishing gifs of hot ladies, then I hope to see more of his/her posts   


btw, I second what said below by chopinlover

That you need to resort to violence in order to shut someone up because their ideas are "offensive" only proves that you're moronic and incapable of having an actual proper dialogue.

There might be more complicated cases, though.
What if instead of considering an isolated insult we take the case of somebody continuously keeping an insulting behavior towards us, or even of somebody lacking respect not towards us but towards somebody we love?
Violence is not justified, but I would say that rage is understandably harder to contain in certain particular occasions.

[chopinlover01]

There might be more complicated cases, though.
What if instead of considering an isolated insult we take the case of somebody continuously keeping an insulting behavior towards us, or even of somebody lacking respect not towards us but towards somebody we love?
Violence is not justified, but I would say that rage is understandably harder to contain in certain particular occasions.

In that case, you ignore them. Again, if you can only respond to that with violence, you simply can't handle your emotions.

[outin]

Violence may not be justified but it's one of a human being's natural responses and often difficult to suppress. Some of us are more prone to violence than others because that sort of response is chemically induced in our brain. It can be tamed though... It's not seldom that I want to kick people's asses but these days I manage to effectively stop myself. Not sure I could if I was put into a box with someone really annoying for long enough

[lostinidlewonder]

Please tell me you're joking....

I wish I was, unfortunately the USA government knows false flag operations very well, just look at Vietnam war as another example, fake attacks which gives them ticket to go to war, USA evil political/money powers are getting boring but still fool the mindless majority who lap up propoganda like good little obedient children.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

o.O Where'd you get an

Calling you black is offensive? Anyways here's some advice: how about just ignoring it?

I typed the n word but they auto corrected it to black person

I usually have a rule to this.

If someone's messing with you, you tell them to stop.  If they don't, then maybe they didn't hear you so you tell them to stop again.  If they still do it then you punch him in the face that'll make him stop.  But I have a soft spot for the n word so that rule doesn't apply anymore

[kalospiano]

I typed the n word but they auto corrected it to black person

I usually have a rule to this.

If someone's messing with you, you tell them to stop.  If they don't, then maybe they didn't hear you so you tell them to stop again.  If they still do it then you punch him in the face that'll make him stop.  But I have a soft spot for the n word so that rule doesn't apply anymore

right, except the minor issue that, even excluding ethical considerations, while the consequences of certain violence is generally considered lightly, a single punch to the face (or somewhere else, for that matter) might be absolutely able to kill or severly injure a person, and you might end up in jail or paying thousands dollars of damage just because of that "soft spot" of yours. Wouldn't sound very well played, I must say.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

right, except the minor issue that, even excluding ethical considerations, while the consequences of certain violence is generally considered lightly, a single punch to the face (or somewhere else, for that matter) might be absolutely able to kill or severly injure a person, and you might end up in jail or paying thousands dollars of damage just because of that "soft spot" of yours. Wouldn't sound very well played, I must say.

The chances of actually killing or seriously injuring someone is low.

And the type of people to pull they ish probably won't sue you.

So it's not gonna happen.

I know what I'm doing.

[swagmaster420x]

"Civilization" and "justified" are constructs invented by modern civilization. 500 Years ago no one would give a feck and everyone would be killing each other and shet for looking at each other the wrong way, and it would be perfectly rational human behavior.

[chopinlover01]

Violence may not be justified but it's one of a human being's natural responses and often difficult to suppress. Some of us are more prone to violence than others because that sort of response is chemically induced in our brain. It can be tamed though... It's not seldom that I want to kick people's asses but these days I manage to effectively stop myself. Not sure I could if I was put into a box with someone really annoying for long enough

It may be a natural response, however, it's still not justified, which is rather the point of this conversation..

I wish I was, unfortunately the USA government knows false flag operations very well, just look at Vietnam war as another example, fake attacks which gives them ticket to go to war, USA evil political/money powers are getting boring but still fool the mindless majority who lap up propoganda like good little obedient children.

The Vietnam War and 9/11 being anti muslim propaganda are about as far off as you can get.
Vietnam was fought because we were anti Communist, stupidly so, and thought that we needed to prevent the spread of Communism in SE Asia.
9/11; the Islamic terror group Al-Qaeda launches 4 planes, 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and another into what was supposed to be the White House?
What possible incentive would the Gov't have for attacking themselves? Pass the Patriot Act a little quicker? They got it done just fine even without all the bullshit post 9/11 arguments. Corporate sponsors are a bi*ch.

[mjames]

Conspiracy theories, like religious claims or political promises, only need to exist in order for people to believe in them. Yes, it would be nice if people could research for the evidence instead of believing in conjectures.

[outin]

It may be a natural response, however, it's still not justified, which is rather the point of this conversation..

Well, that's actually relative. WHEN is violence justified? By what standards? WHO defines them? We could debate that endlessly...

There will always be a struggle between natural and normative with humans. It's fascinating to observe how they try to deal with it 

[chopinlover01]

By the standards which WE live, as the question asked "Do you think violence is a justified response to offensive speech?".
So, you use your own standards. Of course, the Pope responded with his, and no doubt if you ask Erdogan (Turkey's prime minister) his answer will be far different.

[outin]

By the standards which WE live, as the question asked "Do you think violence is a justified response to offensive speech?".
So, you use your own standards.

I have trouble answering such questions because I don't necessarily have fixed standards on what is justified or not, for me it depends on the point of view chosen. Just like it's hard for me to say something is right or wrong, it depends on the observer. If I answer based on legal justice it's easy: No. But if I choose another point of view my answer may change. If I put myself in the shoes of the one getting offended I feel quite differently than if I would be the one being offensive. Sorry, still inconclusive 

[kalospiano]

The chances of actually killing or seriously injuring someone is low.

And the type of people to pull they ish probably won't sue you.

So it's not gonna happen.

I know what I'm doing.

Dying is much easier than generally thought. I know of a guy who simply slipped while walking normally, banged is head on the curb and died.
A punch might easily break ribs and cause lung perforation. Hitting the face might cause the victim to lose conscience or simply lose balance, fall down and hit the head against the ground. As ridicolous as it might sound, a kick on the groin of someone's having a full bladder might cause rupture of the bladder and, consequently, death.

And even if there was just 1 chance out of 100 that you'll kill a person with your actions, why exactly would you even risk it? Would you feel smart rotting five years in a cell or paying a huge fine because you had to protect your "pride"? How would your family feel about that?
This, again, without considering ethical aspects (would that guy really deserve physical violence just because he called you the n word? Why can't you just ignore him or, at most, insult him back?).
Also, what happens if you hit the guy and find out he's got a weapon or he's an experienced kick boxer? You escalated from an insult to violence and now you're gonna get killed or just get your ass kicked.
I really really don't see how resorting to violence can be considered the best choice.

[pianoplunker]

If I'm walking down the street and someone called me a black person, I'm gonna pop his ass in the jaw.

But killing 12 people or however many it was in the video is going overboard.

Yeah , killing 12 is a bit excessive. I find 1 or 2 to be satisfying - most of the time.  Especially if they called me "black person"

[lostinidlewonder]

The American banks funded the nazi regime even. People are used to just following mainstream propoganda without question, this history of false flag activity in USA is no conspiracy theory it is actual fact.

[chopinlover01]

The American banks funded the nazi regime even. People are used to just following mainstream propoganda without question, this history of false flag activity in USA is no conspiracy theory it is actual fact.

...this is connected to 9/11 how?

[iansinclair]

There are a good many irrelevant -- but not wholly unexpected -- responses to the OP's question to be found above, most of them directed at the United States, but some directed elsewhere, such as big business, religious institutions, and so on.  They do not address the question, however.

On the overall question as to whether violence -- or warfare, which is institutionalised violence -- is ever justified, I would direct you (if you are really interested and not just spouting propaganda) to Reinhold Neibuhr's brilliant analysis of pacifism.  His conclusion is that indeed violence -- and warfare, by extension, while sinful, is indeed justified in some situations, primarily to avoid the greater sin of failing to defend another person in need.  Indeed, upon analysis, pacifism can be seen to be an expression of disdain (at best) for others, and elevation of the self to the centre -- and a direct violation of the second commandment, "love they neighbour" (a mortal sin).

However, both his analysis -- and my own opinion -- is that violence as a response to offensive speech is not ever a justified response.  Speech can only be offensive to the person who allows themselves to take offense; otherwise it only reflects poorly on the person committing the speech.

I will grant you that there are many precious snowflakes in today's world who manage to take offense at almost anything anyone else says, and I dare say that I have managed to offend several of them with my comments.  So be it.  If you have been offended, my apologies, but I mean no offense, only to say what I believe to be true.

[lostinidlewonder]

...this is connected to 9/11 how?

It is a false flag.

[chopinlover01]

It is a false flag.

Really? I take it, then, that the entire WTC coming down was a mere coincidence?

[mjames]

who cares man
it's pretty much impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists, leave him be.


le zioeeneest proppaganda

[mjames]

no idea what lostinidlewonder was saying, but if the effect is mjames publishing gifs of hot ladies, then I hope to see more of his/her posts   

Got a thing for blondes, eh? 

[lostinidlewonder]

who cares man
it's pretty much impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists, leave him be.


le zioeeneest proppaganda

If you think the false flags are conspiracy theory then you are just being willingly ignorant.

[mjames]

If you think the false flags are conspiracy theory then you are just being willingly ignorant.

I don't care about 9/11, so I have no emotional attachments to it. My viewpoints are solely dependent on evidence and nothing else. If you can provide me evidence to support your claims then I'll be inclined to change my viewpoints, until then I will continue to dismiss your claims.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't care about 9/11...... If you can provide me evidence to support your claims then I'll be inclined to change my viewpoints, until then I will continue to dismiss your claims.

Well dismiss away I don't really care what you do, there is enough evidence already to find by yourself without me spoon feeding it to you but of course that is if you care lol.

[iansinclair]

I have to admit that I am saddened -- not offended, but saddened -- by this thread.  mjames asked an entirely legitimate question, and it would be interesting to me -- and I dare say to him (her?)(I haven't looked to see, sorry, mjames!) -- to hear what others have to say regarding the question.  I have tried to answer for myself, above.

Others?

[mjames]

Yeah I don't agree with pacifism either, though I still feel like there needs to be severe constraints on warfare. Personally I feel that warfare is only truly justified if it is for self-defense from an immediate threat. So that excludes 'threats' like the spread of communism, fascism, terrorism, or whatever in foreign nations. Fighting for ideological, political, or economical purposes sets a bad precedence for a country, and thus making it easier for it to abuse military power.

In regards to violence in response to 'offensive speech', I wholeheartedly agree with you. So I'm correct to assume you disagree with the pope as well, no?

Well dismiss away I don't really care what you do, there is enough evidence already to find by yourself without me spoon feeding it to you but of course that is if you care lol.

This is basically code for 'i don't have any actual evidence.' I actually have looked into 9/11 conspiracy theories, the thing is, I have yet to come across any convincing information. Most of the 'evidence' is usually just conjectures, what ifs, maybes, 'reports' from unverified sources etc. So perhaps maybe you can convince me by providing some actual evidence, no? ;]
Shouldn't be so hard considering it's so obvious. 

 

[ahinton]

Really? I take it, then, that the entire WTC coming down was a mere coincidence?

No, it was definitely a conscious decision on the part of J S Bach to ensure that it came down on paper and we're all the better off for that fact that he took that decision.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

No, it was definitely a conscious decision on the part of J S Bach to ensure that it came down on paper and we're all the better off for that fact that he took that decision.

Best,

Alistair

Well played, sir.

[timothy42b]

Simply, no.  It is not justified.  The reason you think it is is because you are bigger than the dude who's annoying you.  Like, when it's a child. 

There are people who annoy the snot out of me, like those who can't park in the center of the slot or those who don't use the Oxford comma.  But I don't go around hitting them.

There are two things the prudent person should consider when meeting someone seriously annoying.  One is that he probably annoys everybody, and there will be no shortage of other people with low impulse control who will do the smackdown for you.  Two, and it may be more critical, is that he might have learned something about fighting from the last 10 people who swatted him - he might be tougher than he looks. 

[pencilart3]

as retarded  as anyone else who commits violence in the name of their moronic imaginary friend and worthless book of fairy tales.

Not as illogical (notice I do not say retarded as there are many people who would not find that quite so funny) as little children who ignorantly believe everything that their gods *ahem* indoctrinators *cough* brainwashers *I mean* school teachers tell them - that all that they see, touch, hear, and feel came from..... nothing! Yayyyyy!

The more you think about it, the funnier it becomes!!

[chopinlover01]

Committing violence in the name of a religious ideology is more logical than believing in school curriculum which has gone through the best educators in the nation?
By the way, nobody "teaches" atheism in the classroom.
C'mon, Noah. If you're going to try to inject your pseudo-scientific religious beliefs into the conversation, at least have SOME substance.

[pencilart3]

I did, about a week and a half ago. And I don't think I got a PM in response.

[mjames]

Here we go again...

You can independently verify the information science classrooms give you. As for as I know, high school science class are just simplified versions of testable and verified models. Not to mention high school usually incorporate some sort of lab class into the curriculum. So you're actually learning and verifying the information at the same time XD

How is that indoctrination?


*sigh*

[lostinidlewonder]

This is basically code for 'i don't have any actual evidence.'

Just in your own head that is.

I actually have looked into 9/11 conspiracy theories, the thing is, I have yet to come across any convincing information.

Oh so you do care about 911 now? If you believe the 911 commission report then you have a lot of explaining to do.

So perhaps maybe you can convince me by providing some actual evidence, no? ;]
Shouldn't be so hard considering it's so obvious. 

Why on earth do I want to convince you of anything at all? Zero benefit to me.

[mjames]

You really suck at this..so boring...
Got it, so you won't provide any evidence. gtfonow lol

[lostinidlewonder]

You really suck at this..so boring...
Got it, so you won't provide any evidence. gtfonow lol

gtfo? Looks like you approve of offensive speech.
Oh im so sad Im going to cut myself lol

[musikalischer_wirbelwind_280]

Firstly, and in reply to mjames' original question in this thread: (by the way, this might be a bit lengthy, so bear with me)
    I'd say it really depends on just how far and how insistent those offensive speech instances are. And of course, we're not always in the best of moods to put up with such crap. Some of us are just a little more hot-headed than others, and well, a long etc.

    But indeed, as someone already pointed out, there's also a little thing called handling your emotions; so really, to exert violence against someone because they're telling you something offensive and you're just too hot-headed for that, is rather lame and I don't think it justifies the use of that violence.

And yet the particular case of Charlie Hebdo is, I think, a complex subject that should be analyzed more carefully. Yes, people were killed, and yes, that was a tragedy. Did they deserve it? I don't think so, but given the tons of flak with which Muslims all over the world are being currently bombarded, just exactly how surprising can it be to see them reacting like that to the umpteenth time to the fact that their religious beliefs are insulted and made fun of?
And yet, no, that still doesn't justify blowing people to pieces.

However, I think there is much more here than meets the eye. It's likely the attackers were indeed Muslims, but it's just as likely, even if most of the Western world doesn't really want to believe it, that they might not even have been Muslims, but killers instructed by the ones at the very top, you know, the master puppeteers, in order to keep the attitude of the West (and not only of the West, of course) along that path of increasing disapproval of and hatred against Muslims.

lostinidlewonder mentioned false flag ops and the fact is, whether we like it or not, they have been used, no doubts there. 9/11? Of course it was a false flag incident. All that crap of 'Baby' Bush complaining about Iraq's mass destruction weapons? He sends his trained murderers (armed forces) over there, beats the s*** out of countless innocent people, among other sorts of..."collateral damage", they call it, right? And "big" surprise: no mass destruction weapons there! And as for the WTC towers crumbling to pieces: yes, they did, and yes, it was a tragedy, too, because many innocent people had to pay with their lives, because those sweet guys running the world couldn't give less of a crap about that, 'any means is good enough to achieve your ends', that's their motto. And what better way (or so they thought back then, the poor idiots) to sway public opinion in the West against Muslims and convincing that same West that they should have the hell beaten out of them by the US and its allies than by staging that little play?

But of course, they learn from their mistakes, as well. And now they are proud to present you: ISIS. A much better attempt, it's true, at swaying Western public opinion against Muslims and anything related to them. And it seems like ISIS is no crappy terrorist organization, that here it's not a homemade-rockets-against-Iron-Dome situation. Nor is it AK-47s-against M1-Abrams. No, these guys "mean business". Well, of course, they do! CIA, Mossad and MI6 funding can work miracles. We know that. Latin America, Africa, Europe and a few others know it already, thank you.

And it sure never hurts to recruit guys who not only look like the image of Muslims that they want us to have, they also act just like them, they have all the whistles and bells you know and despise: they have beards, turbans, they look “Arabic”,  they speak Arabic, they carry explosive-resistant Korans everywhere they go, and yes, they also know how to pronounce “Allahu akbar!” really nice whenever the need arises. And they already have a killing record of their own. Oh yes, they also love to target innocent people all over Europe and elsewhere, and they also claim all that crap about “fighting against the infidels with sword and fire! Not one of them shall be left alive. They will all drown in their own blood, and burn for not following the precepts of Allah the only one, blah, blah, blah…”
Hmmm, so familiar…

I'm not saying Islamic terrorist organizations don't exist, hell, if such a huge and well-funded and -organized terrorist organization like Israel's IDF forces exist, who am I to say that something like those Boko Haram imbeciles don't?
 I'm also not saying that all those attacks, all those deaths, all that suffering provoked by all those horrific events, like the attack in that theater in France, are just 'illusions'. Actually, that's one of the things that suck the most here: all that is only too real. All those innocent people have paid a huge price, because, like most of us, they remain mere cannon fodder, pieces on the board to be moved about by those who run this world.

But those who run it are so deeply and utterly fu**** up, that they use all of that to stir even more hatred and intolerance, to provoke even more pain, more deaths, more destruction, and they use it by distorting it, by making the people believe what they want them to believe, and if there are some poor saps that refuse to believe that and try to find out what is really going on, then let them: that's what terms like 'conspiracy theories' and the like have been made. Why get mad, why fight back with violence, with threats, etc, when you can just ridicule the findings and explanations of your enemies? And just for a bit more fun, you can even make use of some handy controlled opposition.   (Alex Jones, anyone??) 

Why let a few raise their voices against you, why not just silence them at the first sign of danger? Because deceiving appearances are always welcome; because you've already convinced the majority of people that your truth is the truth; because if real rebels arise here and there, if some people are so damn stubborn that they just prefer to use their head and analyze what you're telling them instead of swallowing it right away, why should give a crap about it?, you've already got your own "rebels" ready to act, instructed on what to say and what to do, so as to spread a little bit of healthy confusion everywhere (as if more was needed...) . Because you know that your own "rebels" will spew such a bunch of truths mixed up with the most absurd and idiotic lies, that if there's anyone willing to listen to them, they will be laughing at them in the end, not desirous of more information. And if people happen to meet real whistle-blowers, then they'll just say something like: "oh, another one of those idiots who think the US devised the whole 9/11 attack and that ISIS is funded by the US, Israel and the UK; I bet he/she also believes that Obama is a reptilian, right? ...let's just keep moving."

Nothing like fear, hatred and misinformation to successfully stage a play like the one they've been staging for quite some time now...