The reason people stormed the capitol is because they think they have the moral high ground and can sidestep the justice system. Consequences can be immediate even if you tell the referee.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Escalation to violence is never acceptable. Tell it to the referee or police instead.
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 they think they have the moral high ground and can sidestep the justice system. Consequences can be immediate even if you tell the referee.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Based
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.
We know why wars happen in the modern age and it isn’t people punching each other, actually.
lol nah someone calling a weaker person a slur is a little bitch and would not retaliate.
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.
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.
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
Slurs should be met with direct violence EVERY time.
Who decides what a slur is?
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.
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.
Not the trash on this site.
Calling someone a “whore” isn’t a disagreement, it’s violence.
Fuck that shit. Look at the president! Punch them in the fucking head.
It’s hockey.
Sir, this is a Lemmy’s.
Fantasy violence against baddies is mandatory.
Cheng Xin, is that you?
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.
No, it actually exists, and it’s the best strategy: tit-for-tat with forgveness, it’s called.
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
What if its the police escalating to violence?
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.
OK boomer
Eye by Eye, Tooth by Tooth. If you don’t want to be abused, you should not abuse to start.
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.
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.