Random question. If a woman was getting touched by 3 guys, would she be justified in getting violent towards them?
No need to be coy like there is some double-standard. Lets add the context from the LaBeouf situation for your question for an apples-to-apples comparison:
If a woman was asked to leave a bar by an employee because they were harassing other patrons, then she punched the employee before leaving, then she returned later outside the bar and started punching another patron and headbutted a third while yelling at the men “say ‘Christ is Lord’! Say it! Say ‘Christ is Lord!’” would she be justified in this violent towards them?
I’m just replying to the text you quoted. If there is a lot worse context, why not quote that?
If people randomly start touching me, fists won’t be far behind. If that’s not actually what happened, it seems strange for that to be the part you quote.
Leg-touching is too low a threshold, and can happen inadvertently in a crowded venue. Grabbing your bits, that would be different.
My young adult daughter was groped in a crowded pub once and gave the guy a beatdown. Footswept him and kept knocking him down when he tried to get up, until the bouncers threw him out. There were witnesses, and he had escalated after she’d already told him to back off. There was no ambiguity about what he was up to. There were no charges. And this was in the UK, where throwing hands can get you an ABH or GBH charge if you carry matters even a little bit too far.
But that’s not what happened with LaBeouf. He was the aggressor, his defense was bullshit, and he took a plea.
So, do you spend a lot of time running scenarios through your mind about how violently you’re going to respond if a gay guy touches you?
The expected etiquette upon posting in a forum thread dedicated to an article is that each poster has at the very least read the article. Your post could have been the elaboration of oc’s post that stated the far worse offense to the shock of casual readers as opposed to detracting from the actual discussion.
To answer your question in earnest, yes, because a double standard enforced as a means of countering an existing inequality that society refuses to correct is a better, albeit not best, solution than blanket condemnation. Another example would be that a gay male being touched in a bar by straight men would also be within his rights to respond with violence as statistically gay men are more likely to be victimized by straight men than the other way around. For supporting example, see article above.
Random question. If a woman was getting touched by 3 guys, would she be justified in getting violent towards them?
That “random question” shit is extremely cringe.
Just going by the quote my guy. Nothing in the text that was quoted seems too crazy.
Read the fucking article
No need to be coy like there is some double-standard. Lets add the context from the LaBeouf situation for your question for an apples-to-apples comparison:
If a woman was asked to leave a bar by an employee because they were harassing other patrons, then she punched the employee before leaving, then she returned later outside the bar and started punching another patron and headbutted a third while yelling at the men “say ‘Christ is Lord’! Say it! Say ‘Christ is Lord!’” would she be justified in this violent towards them?
I would say, no. No, she wouldn’t be justified.
I’m just replying to the text you quoted. If there is a lot worse context, why not quote that?
If people randomly start touching me, fists won’t be far behind. If that’s not actually what happened, it seems strange for that to be the part you quote.
Leg-touching is too low a threshold, and can happen inadvertently in a crowded venue. Grabbing your bits, that would be different.
My young adult daughter was groped in a crowded pub once and gave the guy a beatdown. Footswept him and kept knocking him down when he tried to get up, until the bouncers threw him out. There were witnesses, and he had escalated after she’d already told him to back off. There was no ambiguity about what he was up to. There were no charges. And this was in the UK, where throwing hands can get you an ABH or GBH charge if you carry matters even a little bit too far.
But that’s not what happened with LaBeouf. He was the aggressor, his defense was bullshit, and he took a plea.
So, do you spend a lot of time running scenarios through your mind about how violently you’re going to respond if a gay guy touches you?
To clear up your misunderstanding, those were quotes by himself. He played it down and tried to frame himself as the victim.
Seriously?!
You’re replying to a post about an article. You’ve got the whole context if you bother to click on it.
Yes seriously. I replied to your comment, not the article.
Bullshit, seriously. I mean, this is almost textbook “whataboutism”, a decidedly dishonest debate tactic.
But what about whataboutism? Yes, attack my straw man, good! My strawman can beat up your strawman ! /s
My strawman has big balls of straw! Don’t even try!
The expected etiquette upon posting in a forum thread dedicated to an article is that each poster has at the very least read the article. Your post could have been the elaboration of oc’s post that stated the far worse offense to the shock of casual readers as opposed to detracting from the actual discussion.
To answer your question in earnest, yes, because a double standard enforced as a means of countering an existing inequality that society refuses to correct is a better, albeit not best, solution than blanket condemnation. Another example would be that a gay male being touched in a bar by straight men would also be within his rights to respond with violence as statistically gay men are more likely to be victimized by straight men than the other way around. For supporting example, see article above.
“Police arrested LaBeouf, 39, after he punched two men and head-butted a third” head butting someone is a lot though