Oh, is that a thing now? Rephrase a crime to make it sound less illegal and morally reprehensible? Great, from now on I'll just refer rape as "sexual reciprocation encouragement". Yeahhhhhh.Leadfinger said:In my view, the beat down was totally warranted. You could look at it as a kind of "manners coaching." Perhaps the fellow will think before he speaks in the future.
Are you serious? If you hate something, and that something proceeds to beat the shit out of you, you're likely to hate it even more, regardless of your initial reasons for hating it. Also, why spout off a bunch of stereotypical reasons why someone would dislike gay people? Do you honestly think people are suddenly going to go "oh yeah, I forgot people tend to dislike gay people for religious reasons, thanks teebeeohh!"teebeeohh said:wait since when are gay people getting hate for being violentBadguy said:Well, they sure did a good job of justifying and probably cementing his hatred of them. They were all morons.
Freedom of Speech means that people cannot get arrested for what they say, it does not mean that no one can ever get mad at anyone for what they say. The man mouthed off, people got mad at what he said and jumped him. The man isn't getting arrested for what he said, neither are the assailants. Freedom of Speech doesn't come into play in this case.chadachada123 said:Yeah it does. Being a dick is covered unless it is truly inciting. An argument over the use of the word "******" is NOT inciting anymore than arguing about whether or not a girl is a ***** or not is not inciting.
Physical assault and self-defense are completely different from speechMost state constitutions also protect people who were gang-beat for no reason, as this guy was. A woman held him up to a wall and slapped him, and he went to slap back, and then they jumped him. Self defense is protected in the majority of states.
But again, no one in the situation will be arrested for what they have said, only what they have doneThe beating was completely unwarranted. The woman at least should be charged with assault for attacking someone without reason.
axlryder said:Oh, is that a thing now? Rephrase a crime to make it sound less illegal and morally reprehensible? Great, from now on I'll just refer rape as "sexual reciprocation encouragement". Yeahhhhhh.Leadfinger said:In my view, the beat down was totally warranted. You could look at it as a kind of "manners coaching." Perhaps the fellow will think before he speaks in the future.
The middle portion (relating to state constitutions) was separate from speech and specifically related to the actions. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that. I agree that no one here can be arrested for what they said, but the gay dudes and that woman CAN be arrested for their assaults while the lone guy in this case acted pretty much solely in defense, and can't be arrested for that (in most states).twistedmic said:Freedom of Speech means that people cannot get arrested for what they say, it does not mean that no one can ever get mad at anyone for what they say. The man mouthed off, people got mad at what he said and jumped him. The man isn't getting arrested for what he said, neither are the assailants. Freedom of Speech doesn't come into play in this case.chadachada123 said:Yeah it does. Being a dick is covered unless it is truly inciting. An argument over the use of the word "******" is NOT inciting anymore than arguing about whether or not a girl is a ***** or not is not inciting.
Physical assault and self-defense are completely different from speechMost state constitutions also protect people who were gang-beat for no reason, as this guy was. A woman held him up to a wall and slapped him, and he went to slap back, and then they jumped him. Self defense is protected in the majority of states.
But again, no one in the situation will be arrested for what they have said, only what they have doneThe beating was completely unwarranted. The woman at least should be charged with assault for attacking someone without reason.
I can't share your moral outrage over this issue. Your equating it to rape doesn't make any sense either. You seem to have an emotional stake in this issue that's hard to understand. In my view, the homophobe incited violence and got what he was asking for. Hell, it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.axlryder said:Oh, is that a thing now? Rephrase a crime to make it sound less illegal and morally reprehensible? Great, from now on I'll just refer rape as "sexual reciprocation encouragement". Yeahhhhhh.Leadfinger said:In my view, the beat down was totally warranted. You could look at it as a kind of "manners coaching." Perhaps the fellow will think before he speaks in the future.
He clearly hit her first. Look at 0:13 in the video - you can't see much, because there's a man's back in the way but you can see his arm go out and it is to this she responds.Jack the Potato said:Clearly the woman struck the offender first. He's still a hateful, callous asshole, but he was backed into a corner and was hit by the woman. So no, he didn't deserve an ass-kicking. Violence doesn't change minds, in fact if anything he'll be even more hateful towards gay people. Violence begets more violence, after all.
I'm not directly equating it to rape, I'm highlighting how silly it is to try and put obviously wrong actions in a different light to make it sound better just because it might produce a superficially desirable effect. Obviously there is an element of hyperbole in my example. Regardless, in cases like this, beating someone is only going to make the man more angry and likely incite more bigotry and violence in the future. That's not even talking about potential legal ramifications in this situation. Just because you can't understand why a needlessly violent reaction to a situation isn't a serious problem, doesn't make it any less serious or wrong. You may feel it was justified, but a beating of this nature practically never is. I couldn't care less about whatever sadistic glee you derive from the situation.Leadfinger said:I can't share your moral outrage over this issue. Your equating it to rape doesn't make any sense either. You seem to have an emotional stake in this issue that's hard to understand. In my view, the homophobe incited violence and got what he was asking for. Hell, it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.axlryder said:Oh, is that a thing now? Rephrase a crime to make it sound less illegal and morally reprehensible? Great, from now on I'll just refer rape as "sexual reciprocation encouragement". Yeahhhhhh.Leadfinger said:In my view, the beat down was totally warranted. You could look at it as a kind of "manners coaching." Perhaps the fellow will think before he speaks in the future.
There's no "banned" words on the site. You can say ******, ******, fuck etc. etc. It's just about context. If you're using the words as insults, then yes, you will get banned.GildaTheGriffin said:I think Escapist would prohibit me from saying it. ****** isn't a banned word like the N word I believe. Sorry if ****** is.WaysideMaze said:Interesting how you state the 2 words are equal, yet have only typed out one of them.GildaTheGriffin said:I support the gay community, but when someone speaks such a slur that is common in today's society, don't react unless he is going to physically harm you. The word, '******' is like the racial slur 'N word' towards African Americans. The 'N word' is used commonly now, but still has meaning if used wrong.