Whose side do you take?

[7437]

Is person B also a cop?

 

[m52nickerson]

Person A is an ideologically driven dickhead.

Person B is an ideologically driven "useful idiot".

Only one of these people is committing a crime.

Not necessary. Person A's speech could be rising to the level of incitement, which is criminal.

 

[ripskater]

We don't have to take anyone's side.

But it depends also on what's being said and done.

 

[irish_thug]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I know that person B is wrong here, but I could be person B in this situation. I mean, I've been wrong before.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

Whoever is the Marxist I am going to do my best to get on top of.

 

[ShinkanPo]

You cannot just attack people on site that is reckless vigilantism and innocent people will get hit in the process if it escalates.

 

[BEER]

Not necessary. Person A's speech could be rising to the level of incitement, which is criminal.

I doubt it. It very specifically says that Person A isn't physically threatening anybody. I would take "incitement" to fall under that umbrella.

 

[Fawlty]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

Q #1) Of course person A is wrong for his actions. Yes, it's wrong to stand in a park and spew hateful speech. Why the fuck is this even a source of confusion?

Q #2) It's unlikely that it's okay to physically attack him, and that depends on the circumstances.

 

[HereticBD]

Is person A wearing a Slipknot shirt? This is important.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

We live in a country of free speech

A is an asshole but assholes have a right to exist and you can't assault someone because they triggered you

We learned this in kindergarten

Correction: we were taught this is kindergarten.
But there was a competing message that everyone is special and unique, like particles of snow.
Apparently, only one if these messages was delivered effectively.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Is person A wearing a Slipknot shirt? This is important.

If so they deserve a beating for having such shitty taste in music.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Q #1) Of course person A is wrong for his actions. Yes, it's wrong to stand in a park and spew hateful speech. Why the fuck is this even a source of confusion?

Q #2) It's unlikely that it's okay to physically attack him, and that depends on the circumstances.

Under what circumstances is it OK to physically attack someone? I'm happy to give my answer but I'd like to hear yours first.

 

[Fawlty]

Under what circumstances is it OK to physically attack someone? I'm happy to give my answer but I'd like to hear yours first.

This is so tedious and obvious, and there's almost no chance you have anything insightful to add. Let's put it in kindergarten brackets:

Not okay to attack: "Jews are scum"

Okay to attack: "I'm going to kill you, Jew"

Everything in between those is an exercise in determining whether there was a real threat. And you need to account for mutual escalation, fighting words, etc. Same as it always has been.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

This is so tedious and obvious, and there's almost no chance you have anything insightful to add. Let's put it in kindergarten brackets:

Not okay to attack: "Jews are scum"

Okay to attack: "I'm going to kill you, Jew"

Everything in between those is an exercise in determining whether there was a real threat. And you need to account for mutual escalation, fighting words, etc. Same as it always has been.

Aside from your assertion that I have nothing to add, that's a calm measured response. Why are you so positive that someone with a different political bent is by definition an adversary to be shut down on sight? Just curious, I'm not always tolerant of differing opinions myself.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Who cares?

We have some of the best entertainment in store for us. Enjoy it, I know I do.

These people we see at these rallys, they arent normal people. When you go to work, do you people like this? Most likely, the answer is a resounding no.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Q #1) Of course person A is wrong for his actions. Yes, it's wrong to stand in a park and spew hateful speech. Why the fuck is this even a source of confusion?

Q #2) It's unlikely that it's okay to physically attack him, and that depends on the circumstances.

Nobody asked if it was wrong to spew hateful speech. It's between hateful speech and attacking somebody. Try to keep up

 

[Fawlty]

Nobody asked if it was wrong to spew hateful speech. It's between hateful speech and attacking somebody. Try to keep up

You did. You exactly asked if Person A was wrong for his actions. The action you gave was spewing hate speech in a public park. That's wrong.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I support A all day long, even if I find what they are saying is vile.

This nation was founded on Freedom of Speech as a key tenant and for good reason.

 

[Fawlty]

I support A all day long, even if I find what they are saying is vile.

This nation was founded on Freedom of Speech as a key tenant and for good reason.

Tenet. The goddamn word is tenet.