Support NeoGAF

[Barrage]

Although I usually try to keep a level head about things, some key words mentioned in this thread will make me escalate into physical violence-the N Word, the C Word referring to a member of my family, etc.

Funnily enough, I was listening to T.I.'s "Ain't Gonna Bother Me" when I opened this thread. I don't think I could hit anyone while that song's playing, it's too chill. :lol

 

[Dice]

One time I was channel surfing and caught a bit of I Love New York. So apparently this one guy in the house really hated another for some reason, and the second dude was sitting down talking to his mom on the phone. This other dude is screaming his lungs out about how he's going to murder him or something and the guy sat there for a while, but then the dude got like 6 inches from his face and was pointing and stuff, so the dude sitting down spat in his face.

After this, it has all these clips and talk about how "OMG HE SPIT IN HIS FACE" and how completely horrible it was and all that. Even the dude that did it was like "I'm so sorry, I was so out of line" and whatever. But I thought that wasn't nearly as bad as what the other guy was doing. I mean, yeah it's extremely disrespectful, but the other guy was obviously baiting for violence as an excuse to kill him or whatever, so the spit is like saying "your malice is disgusting trash I won't take part in, so fuck off." I know spitting counts as assault, but aren't there laws for screaming murderous threats at someone 6 inches from their face?

 

[Mr. Banana Grabber]

I just watched this Episode of 6 feet under, too. I sided with David. They're just words!

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

One time I was channel surfing and caught a bit of I Love New York. So apparently this one guy in the house really hated another for some reason, and the second dude was sitting down talking to his mom on the phone. This other dude is screaming his lungs out about how he's going to murder him or something and the guy sat there for a while, but then the dude got like 6 inches from his face and was pointing and stuff, so the dude sitting down spat in his face.

After this, it has all these clips and talk about how "OMG HE SPIT IN HIS FACE" and how completely horrible it was and all that. Even the dude that did it was like "I'm so sorry, I was so out of line" and whatever. But I thought that wasn't nearly as bad as what the other guy was doing. I mean, yeah it's extremely disrespectful, but the other guy was obviously baiting for violence as an excuse to kill him or whatever, so the spit is like saying "your malice is disgusting trash I won't take part in, so fuck off." I know spitting counts as assault, but aren't there laws for screaming murderous threats at someone 6 inches from their face?

why did the other guy hate him?

 

[Nicktals]

People shouldn't be able say whatever they want with no fear of consequences. Rewarding that kind of behavior by doing nothing is immoral. Even if the prick believes this at least he'll think twice about expressing that particular opinion again.

Umm. No. How are you rewarding him simply by not punching him? And should we punch everyone who holds rediculous opinions? I think that's silly.

This guy and levious' cousin were in an argument. I assume he never expressed that belief before, and most likely would never express it again, regardless if violent action was taken or not.

And if you feel you must take action against people who say stupid things like that, then there are other options. I'd take it to the priest. Tell him what this guy said. No priest is going to support that kind of statement, and will most likely talk to the guy, which would be embarassing. Or you just start telling people in the congregation about it. You never have to hit anyone because of verbal abuse.

EDIT:

One time I was channel surfing and caught a bit of I Love New York. So apparently this one guy in the house really hated another for some reason, and the second dude was sitting down talking to his mom on the phone. This other dude is screaming his lungs out about how he's going to murder him or something and the guy sat there for a while, but then the dude got like 6 inches from his face and was pointing and stuff, so the dude sitting down spat in his face.

After this, it has all these clips and talk about how "OMG HE SPIT IN HIS FACE" and how completely horrible it was and all that. Even the dude that did it was like "I'm so sorry, I was so out of line" and whatever. But I thought that wasn't nearly as bad as what the other guy was doing. I mean, yeah it's extremely disrespectful, but the other guy was obviously baiting for violence as an excuse to kill him or whatever, so the spit is like saying "your malice is disgusting trash I won't take part in, so fuck off." I know spitting counts as assault, but aren't there laws for screaming murderous threats at someone 6 inches from their face?

I believe any death threat is illegal.

 

[lil smoke]

One time I was channel surfing and caught a bit of I Love New York. So apparently this one guy in the house really hated another for some reason, and the second dude was sitting down talking to his mom on the phone. This other dude is screaming his lungs out about how he's going to murder him or something and the guy sat there for a while, but then the dude got like 6 inches from his face and was pointing and stuff, so the dude sitting down spat in his face.

After this, it has all these clips and talk about how "OMG HE SPIT IN HIS FACE" and how completely horrible it was and all that. Even the dude that did it was like "I'm so sorry, I was so out of line" and whatever. But I thought that wasn't nearly as bad as what the other guy was doing. I mean, yeah it's extremely disrespectful, but the other guy was obviously baiting for violence as an excuse to kill him or whatever, so the spit is like saying "your malice is disgusting trash I won't take part in, so fuck off." Aren't there laws for screaming murderous threats at someone 6 inches from their face?

I saw this, and I agree that the taunting is on a severely high level on that show. A lot of times, it's against the smaller indefensible guys. Spitting is, though, a LOW tactic but in his case it was justified. When NY herself got spit on, that was just so wrong (but so funny ATST).

Generally though, I feel spitting is down there with kicking a man in the nuts. You just don't do that.

 

[John_B]

We must have a horde of UFC contenders in this thread that amazingly would lay the smack down if anyone would have the audacity to spite them.

If you have equal brains and balls, you will pick your fights wisely. I'm not saying when a midget finally comes a long you should stomp the shit out of him, but there will be situations where it is best to keep a cool head (amateur kick boxers, humongous-hulk-like men, outnumbered or people with knifes/guns) rather than end up hurt badly. If you can swing really great, the best way is always to provoke the other person into physical assaulting you first.

I think it's best to handle a confrontation that rubs you the wrong way, instead of pussying out. It does not have to end with a fight at all, but every man has a limit of how much shit he can take, and if you are dishing out that amount, you are asking for physical confrontation.

 

[Freshmaker]

Umm. No. How are you rewarding him simply by not punching him? And should we punch everyone who holds rediculous opinions? I think that's silly.

He gets to snipe at someone and walk off scott free. He gets what he wants at someone else's expense. He already demonstrated that he's uninterested in living in a civil society.

I think letting someone spew bile like was mentioned without correcting his actions is downright stupid. That's how you get people suing their dry cleaners for millions over a pair of pants etc.

This guy and levious' cousin were in an argument. I assume he never expressed that belief before, and most likely would never express it again, regardless if violent action was taken or not.

Then don't punch him in the face while he's not expressing that precious remark.

And if you feel you must take action against people who say stupid things like that, then there are other options.

None as effective. On top of that, it's not like a punch to the eye is going to cause him lasting harm. It's not pleasant, but he doesn't deserve pleasant.

 

[7Th]

Violence is never truly justifiable, other than for prevention.

 

[Zeke]

Yes. And if the other guy escalated it I'd have my phone out to call the cops.

:lol :lol :lol
yea cause the cops would certainly be there in a reasonable time and actually rush out to take your report. The cops aren't going to save your ass and most likely won't get there when you really need them.

 

[Xeke]

A wise sage once told me.



"I learned a long time ago that there's no sense getting all riled up every time a bunch of idiots give you a hard time. In the end, the universe tends to unfold as it should. Plus I have a really large penis. That keeps me happy. "

 

[BobbyRobby]

Alright, back to one of the original questions in the OP no one answered,

to those who think it is sometimes justifiable, do you think 'fighting words' should be made illegal? By stating they are worthy of physical retaliation, you are implying the two actions are equal. Should they be punished the same under the law?

If violence is justified in response to words, then it wouldn't matter whether the person talking was man or woman, right?

:lol I was planning on playing this card too

 

[Nicktals]

He gets to snipe at someone and walk off scott free. He gets what he wants at someone else's expense. He already demonstrated that he's uninterested in living in a civil society.

So because he holds a rediculous opinion, or says something rediculous to get someone mad, that means he's uninterested in living in a civil society? Gotcha.

I think letting someone spew bile like was mentioned without correcting his actions is downright stupid. That's how you get people suing their dry cleaners for millions over a pair of pants etc.

You get people suing their dry cleaners for millions because of precedents that have previously been set (people being awarded large sums of money over rediculous things. It has nothing to do with not punching everyone who says something hurtful or stupid.

Then don't punch him in the face while he's not expressing that precious remark.

So is the point of punching him to punish him for saying it, or to get him not to say it again?

None as effective. On top of that, it's not like a punch to the eye is going to cause him lasting harm. It's not pleasant, but he doesn't deserve pleasant.

A punch to the eye could cause harm, and a punch to the eye also could lead to legal troubles. And I guarantee having a fair portion of a town totally ostracize him would be MUCH more effective than having his face hurt for a few minutes.

.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

One time my mum was driving into our parking space outside of our house and this man was walking past it. As she turned into the driveway, he was in front of us, but there was no threat of the car hitting him at all. When my mum got out of the car he walked upto her and said "what the fuck are you doing? Are you fucking mad?" and all this other stuff. Now I was about 13 when it happened and this man was in his 30's, but if it happened now I'd hit him.

Well your mother, a woman, was driving. I think his reaction is somewhat understandable.

 

[Freshmaker]

.

Glad you agree with your own response.

Aaanyhooo...

So because he holds a rediculous opinion, or says something rediculous to get someone mad, that means he's uninterested in living in a civil society? Gotcha.

He forfeits the right to live in a civil manner if he elects to be uncivil. There's a wacky (since you seem determined to tone the nature of the comment down progressively with each new post) comment, then there's a focused, direct attack that has no other purpose than to wound.

You get people suing their dry cleaners for millions because of precedents that have previously been set

There was no precedent for that lawsuit. It was fueled by sheer malice.

So is the point of punching him to punish him for saying it, or to get him not to say it again?

Both. It's not a binary choice.

A punch to the eye could cause harm,

Whoopie. Nancy Grace has talked people into killing themselves etc. Vicious comments aren't exactly immune to causing harm as well. (The odds of one punch leading to serious harm are about the same.)

and a punch to the eye also could lead to legal troubles.

Pfft.

And I guarantee having a fair portion of a town totally ostracize him would be MUCH more effective than having his face hurt for a few minutes.

Both would be better.


.

 

[navii]

Is verbal abuse ever justifiable?

If people got physcally abused for being verbally abusive, they would think twice about doing it, thus less abuse all round

 

[BobbyRobby]

Do celebrities have the right to retaliate against comedians who mock them? Once you gain a certain amount of notoriety, do you lose your right to retaliate against verbal abuse?

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Do celebrities have the right to retaliate against comedians who mock them? Once you gain a certain amount of notoriety, do you lose your right to retaliate against verbal abuse?

I don't think it's 100% right, but when you're famous your life becomes public..sort of

 

[BobbyRobby]

I don't think it's 100% right, but when you're famous your life becomes public..sort of

So, what does that matter? Celebrities have the right to physically retaliate those who attack them physically. If verbal abuse can be equal to physical abuse, why would they lose the right to counter it accordingly since their life is public?

 

[Xeke]

If violence is justified in response to words, then it wouldn't matter whether the person talking was man or woman, right?

:lol

Of course people aren't going to answer this.

Violence! Oh...wait, it's a chick, nevermind.:lol

 

[bigswords]

Most posts are Deftinely justifiable. But.... hitting a person without them hitting you first, be considered an assault charged? Harsh language is still harsh language after all.

 

[Fuzzery]

So I assume the N-word is still off limits to people of non-black skin color? What if they use it as a term of endearment, like a lot of black people do?

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

So, what does that matter? Celebrities have the right to physically retaliate those who attack them physically. If verbal abuse can be equal to physical abuse, why would they lose the right to counter it accordingly since their life is public?

it's being discussed since celebrity was created. Celebrities have the right to verbally retaliate press, tv shows, comedians etc etc but the first emendament says satire is a form of freedom of speech so..you get the point. Debates, debates, debates

 

[Dali]

So I assume the N-word is still off limits to people of non-black skin color? What if they use it as a term of endearment, like a lot of black people do?

I think the non-black people that use it as a term of endearment (a practice I think is idiotic) have no doubt that if they use it, it's kosher. Just ask Paul Wall.

 

[BobbyRobby]

it's being discussed since celebrity was created. Celebrities have the right to verbally retaliate press, tv shows, comedians etc etc but the first emendament says satire is a form of freedom of speech so..you get the point. Debates, debates, debates

Well the first amendment protects insulting someone's mother too, but possibly you and many other people here have stated that such things are worthy of physical retaliation, so the first amendment has kind of disregarded by many of you at this point.

Also consider these celebrities have children and spouses. Would Bill Clinton be justified in punching the writers of South Park? How about the son of a famous female celebrity?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Would they be justified? Sure. But the issue is that physically assaulting someone *is* technically against the law, so if you want to do it, you have to weigh your odds of being caught. If you are one of the 25 most famous people on the planet, you've got a good chance of getting caught. So however justified it may be, it's not wise.

Blokes like you and me can get away with it pretty easily though, so why not do the justifiable thing? It's our nature, after all.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Well the first amendment protects insulting someone's mother too, but possibly you and many other people here have stated that such things are worthy of physical retaliation, so the first amendment has kind of disregarded by many of you at this point.

Also consider these celebrities have children and spouses. Would Bill Clinton be justified in punching the writers of South Park? How about the son of a famous female celebrity?

well, I never said I wouldn't get into legal consequences by hitting an asshole on the face. In fact it would happen 99% of the times

if Bill punches the writers of South Park and if Britney punches the paparazzi and if they're's a good reason to do so I would certainly agree with them. But there will also be a crapload of trials, lawyers, debates, guy sues guy etc etc etc. Law is kinda obscure about it..sometimes it says defense is right, sometimes the opposite

that's why it almost never happens: celebrities love to use lawyers to go through such crap because physically attacking someone is against the law, besides the fact you'd get shitty publicity

 

[BobbyRobby]

Do you agree that the laws are just? Should all verbal abuse be determined on a case by case basis? If something is morally condoneable, shouldn't the law reflect this?

Blokes like you and me can get away with it pretty easily though, so why not do the justifiable thing? It's our nature, after all.

because we're not animals, and have excelled as humans by curbing our irrational instincts?

 

[captainbiotch]

No, it is never justified. It is goddamn barbaric. They are WORDS. What are you, children? Can't tolerate some troglodyte taunting you? Can't walk away like a real man? Gotta prove yourself? What the fuck ever. Grow up.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Do you agree that the laws are just? Should all verbal abuse be determined on a case by case basis? If something is morally condoneable, shouldn't the law reflect this?



because we're not animals, and have excelled as humans by curbing our irrational instincts?

You don't want to know my moral beliefs. Even as someone who has made psychology my life path and profession, I can honestly say there are times where a physical punishment is an effective, appropriate, and sometimes the only viable response. And we've excelled by controlling our instincts, not eliminating them. The grand enterprise of capitalism Western-style is no less barbarous.

 

[BobbyRobby]

You don't want to know my moral beliefs. Even as someone who has made psychology my life path and profession, I can honestly say there are times where a physical punishment is an effective, appropriate, and sometimes the only viable response.

I do want to know your moral belief on the matter. Stating your a psychology major and that's it's a complicated of an issue seems like a copout. Why can't verbal abuse be countered with verbal abuse? How is it sometimes the only viable response. What happens if someone continues to insult you? Will the person die?

Resorting to violence shows that you cannot compete on the same playing ground. If you have to resort to violence, it should be considered a well-earned, and just lesson when legal action is taken against you.

And we've excelled by controlling our instincts, not eliminating them.

There's a good chance cavemen used to pick their mates without consent as a lot of mammals do. Should we have never eliminated that instinct, and just controlled it? Should it be sometimes alright to rape a woman?

The grand enterprise of capitalism Western-style is no less barbarous.

will not agree or disagree, but what does the barbarousness of one act have to do with deciding the barbarousness of another.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I do want to know your moral belief on the matter. Stating your a psychology major and that's it's a complicated of an issue seems like a copout. Why can't verbal abuse be countered with verbal abuse? How is it sometimes the only viable response. What happens if someone continues to insult you? Will the person die?

Resorting to violence shows that you cannot compete on the same playing ground. If you have to resort to violence, it should be considered a well-earned, and just lesson when legal action is taken against you.



There's a good chance cavemen used to pick their mates without consent as a lot of mammals do. Should we have never eliminated that instinct, and just controlled it? Should it be sometimes alright to rape a woman?



will not agree or disagree, but what does the barbarousness of one act have to do with deciding the barbarousness of another.

I'm not going to get into it. I have a very controversial moral belief system, and I've spent what amounts to days of my life defending it to people face to face. I've no desire to waste my precious evening hours having it out again.

So carry on friends, make believe I wasn't here.

 

[Nicodimas]

Damn guys there are some things you just do not say to people in a certain manner.

Do you let some people stare you down also? Sometimes the way a person talks to you is in a manner that indictates what they want from you/to do to you.

Victim based manners bother me.

 

[HolyStar]

Everyone who is saying that you shouldn't hit someone for verbal abuse either lives in la-la land or was never seriously insulted to the point of hitting someone. If someone is harassing you, you are perfectly in your rights to throw the first punch.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Everyone who is saying that you shouldn't hit someone for verbal abuse either lives in la-la land or was never seriously insulted to the point of hitting someone. If someone is harassing you, you are perfectly in your rights to throw the first punch.

or maybe they're smart enough to fight back verbally and make their enemies look ridiculous.

Care to answer some of the question raised in this thread? Are women exempt? Should words that have no apparent reason other than to incite anger be outlawed?

 

[pjberri]

I don't think it's really justifiable, but I do think some people deserve it.

 

[favouriteflavour]

No, it is never justified. It is goddamn barbaric. They are WORDS. What are you, children? Can't tolerate some troglodyte taunting you? Can't walk away like a real man? Gotta prove yourself? What the fuck ever. Grow up.

And what if you walk away and this person deciedes to now follow you and continue to insult you? Looks like you are shit out of luck.

 

[BobbyRobby]

And what if you walk away and this person deciedes to now follow you and continue to insult you? Looks like you are shit out of luck.

Are you mute?

 

[Zeke]

or maybe they're smart enough to fight back verbally and make their enemies look ridiculous.

Care to answer some of the question raised in this thread? Are women exempt? Should words that have no apparent reason other than to incite anger be outlawed?

No you don't hit women its a taboo and cowardly and no you can't outlaw words 1st amendment freedom of speech yadda yadda.

 

[Dolphin]

And what if you walk away and this person deciedes to now follow you and continue to insult you? Looks like you are shit out of luck.

That's called harassment and it goes beyond verbal abuse.

 

[BobbyRobby]

That's called harassment and it goes beyond verbal abuse.

Say you found out some dude raped kids, and you were at a bar with him. You decided to call him out on it. Then you continued insult him and follow him. Is this harassment? Should you be arrested for doing this?

 

[WickedAngel]

The only way I could imagine someone saying "Never justifiable!" is someone who has lived a very sheltered life; there is a point where enough is enough and there are lines you just don't cross. Words might not do physical damage but they can inflict a lot of emotional trauma upon a person; if you're willing to do that, you need to be stopped.

You shouldn't just fly off the handle at the first comment but you shouldn't sit back and take a ceaseless verbal lashing, either.

 

[speculawyer]

IMHO . . . no. Just leave the person.

 

[Night_Trekker]

No, but it sure can be funny.

 

[Zeke]

Say you found out some dude raped kids, and you were at a bar with him. You decided to call him out on it. Then you continued insult him and follow him. Is this harassment? Should you be arrested for doing this?

You probably should be arrested but no one in the bar is going to say anything or cooperate with the cops and I'll bet half the people in the bar will call the guy out too and it might move on from verbal abuse to violence until said person leaves the bar.

 

[Forceatowulf]

No, I do not believe so. Words are words. They cannot hurt you unless you let them. Now a punch to the face.. now that shit hurts.

Of course I mean in practical situations, not impractical situations.

 

[BobbyRobby]

The only way I could imagine someone saying "Never justifiable!" is someone who has lived a very sheltered life; there is a point where enough is enough and there are lines you just don't cross. Words might not do physical damage but they can inflict a lot of emotional trauma upon a person; if you're willing to do that, you need to be stopped.

You shouldn't just fly off the handle at the first comment but you shouldn't sit back and take a ceaseless verbal lashing, either.

define sheltered. I wasn't home-schooled. I go out on the weekends.

 

[PrinceAdam]

It depends on the situation. If it's kidding around with a friend or family member than no, but if your walking down the street and stranger goes up to you than by all means give em a good boot to the neck.

 

[Atomspike]

towards me ! i may restrain myself , towards my family ! i'll go tony on his ass .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r0-mZP7NTM&feature=related

 

[Xeke]

I feel the majority of people who say they would kick somebody's ass for saying something would probably get their ass beat by most people, I know I would.:lol