On violence in response to Islamophobia...

[Novorobo]

With a twist this time, as despite what you'd expect it's not committed BY Muslims, but on their behalf.

A short time later, another man jumps in and punches Devin in the face.

"This social experiment had a negative ending to it, but you know what it is positive because he stood up for him, and I appreciate that," Devin said to conclude the video.

So, NSG, what do you make of this social experiment?

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia. Who gets to say what kinds of opinions justify violence in response to them, and why? Isn't the point of these sorts of principles that they aren't suppose to depend on what you think of what someone has to say?

It also concerns me that it didn't show how other people reacted to said violence. How are we supposed to find out what ordinary Canadians really think of that if we don't get them on tape then and there?

I get that there's more to the social experiment than that, but I'm not surprised the majority of people are supportive of the Muslim community when even Conservative politicians like to be seen speaking positively of them; if most Canadians hated them any politician who bashed them at every opportunity would be at a competitive advantage. I'm a little more surprised; and a bit concerned; that the non-aggression principle falls apart, even in Canada, in the face of opinions people don't like.

Yeah, I know the story's from a couple weeks ago, but it came to mind again because of Remembrance Day a couple days ago.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Is there a point to this post?

[Novorobo]

Is there a point to this post?

Er... yes? It was to discuss violence in response to "Islamophobic" opinions and, if that is perceived positively, by what standards what opinions are perceived to justify violence in response to them? I thought I made that clear.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Ok, so expand on your op a bit. What's your opinion? What's to discuss past an old already discussed story?

[Novorobo]

Ok, so expand on your op a bit. What's your opinion? What's to discuss past an old already discussed story?

Fair enough, I've clarified my stance and elaborated a bit. Is that adequate for now?

[Ereria]

I mean if someone doesn't like another persons opinion, he can react as he seems fit. I don't see anything wrong here. If someone warns you to stop being a dick, you should go somewhere else or shut up.

[Mefpan]

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia. Who gets to say what kinds of opinions justify violence in response to them, and why? Isn't the point of these sorts of principles that they aren't suppose to depend on what you think of what someone has to say?

The guy made it pretty clear that getting his nose restructured wasn't good - the sentiment of standing up for a random person being harassed by some jerk-ass douchebag however was.

Free speech is all nice and so on, but it only protects you from the government punishing you for your views and being allowed to speak your mind means other people are also permitted to reveal your thoughts to be utter garbage. If you behave like an asshole, expect to be told to shut the hell up. If you don't shut the hell up, expect that at some point someone's going to snap. Not a good reaction, but by no means an unpredictable one.

[Transoxthraxia]

I mean if someone doesn't like another persons opinion, he can react as he seems fit. I don't see anything wrong here. If someone warns you to stop being a dick, you should go somewhere else or shut up.

I don't think the reaction was justified, honestly, but if he believed he could, then he'd be at the liberty to.

[Novorobo]

I mean if someone doesn't like another persons opinion, he can react as he seems fit. I don't see anything wrong here. If someone warns you to stop being a dick, you should go somewhere else or shut up.

What if it's an opinion about the Northern Gateway pipeline? What if it's an opinion about cuts to arts funding? On what basis would you pick and choose about this?

[Mefpan]

I mean if someone doesn't like another persons opinion, he can react as he seems fit. I don't see anything wrong here. If someone warns you to stop being a dick, you should go somewhere else or shut up.

What if it's an opinion about the Northern Gateway pipeline? What if it's an opinion about cuts to arts funding? On what basis would you pick and choose about this?

Punching someone over their opinion on a pipeline or government spending is unwarranted - more often than not they're not actually directly involved in causing these to happen.

A racist douchebag on the other hand, is very much directly involved in being an absolute twerp to some random passers-by and thus much more closely related to (and responsible for) doing something tremendously stupid.

[Avenio]

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia. Who gets to say what kinds of opinions justify violence in response to them, and why? Isn't the point of these sorts of principles that they aren't suppose to depend on what you think of what someone has to say?

I find it interesting that you're trying to spin this as though it was violence in response to a fair and reasoned opinion instead of, y'know, harassment on the street.

[Novorobo]

What if it's an opinion about the Northern Gateway pipeline? What if it's an opinion about cuts to arts funding? On what basis would you pick and choose about this?

Punching someone over their opinion on a pipeline or government spending is unwarranted - more often than not they're not actually directly involved in causing these to happen.

A racist douchebag on the other hand, is very much directly involved in being an absolute twerp to some random passers-by and thus much more closely related to (and responsible for) doing something tremendously stupid.

The same applies; who gets to say what constitutes being a twerp?

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia. Who gets to say what kinds of opinions justify violence in response to them, and why? Isn't the point of these sorts of principles that they aren't suppose to depend on what you think of what someone has to say?

I find it interesting that you're trying to spin this as though it was violence in response to a fair and reasoned opinion instead of, y'know, harassment on the street.

So what makes it cross the line into "harassment," and how does this make punching in response "positive?"

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia. Who gets to say what kinds of opinions justify violence in response to them, and why? Isn't the point of these sorts of principles that they aren't suppose to depend on what you think of what someone has to say?

The guy made it pretty clear that getting his nose restructured wasn't good - the sentiment of standing up for a random person being harassed by some jerk-ass douchebag however was.

Free speech is all nice and so on, but it only protects you from the government punishing you for your views and being allowed to speak your mind means other people are also permitted to reveal your thoughts to be utter garbage. If you behave like an asshole, expect to be told to shut the hell up. If you don't shut the hell up, expect that at some point someone's going to snap. Not a good reaction, but by no means an unpredictable one.

Sounds like victim-blaming to me. If someone was offended by someone else's choice of clothing, would you distinguish between someone not being allowed to wear it again and someone wearing it again but getting punched in the face for it?

[Mefpan]

Punching someone over their opinion on a pipeline or government spending is unwarranted - more often than not they're not actually directly involved in causing these to happen.

A racist douchebag on the other hand, is very much directly involved in being an absolute twerp to some random passers-by and thus much more closely related to (and responsible for) doing something tremendously stupid.

The same applies; who gets to say what constitutes being a twerp?

Saying hurtful things to people just because you don't like the way they look is one way of being a racist twerp in the eyes of many people. Yes, it's subjective.

The guy made it pretty clear that getting his nose restructured wasn't good - the sentiment of standing up for a random person being harassed by some jerk-ass douchebag however was.

Free speech is all nice and so on, but it only protects you from the government punishing you for your views and being allowed to speak your mind means other people are also permitted to reveal your thoughts to be utter garbage. If you behave like an asshole, expect to be told to shut the hell up. If you don't shut the hell up, expect that at some point someone's going to snap. Not a good reaction, but by no means an unpredictable one.

Sounds like victim-blaming to me. If someone was offended by someone else's choice of clothing, would you distinguish between someone not being allowed to wear it again and someone wearing it again but getting punched in the face for it?

I wouldn't differentiate between those cases because prohibiting someone from wearing a certain piece of clothing is rubbish.

Telling someone to shut the fuck up when he verbally assaults people over their choice of clothing however, is entirely reasonable. Punching their face in is not, but if being told to shut up doesn't shut you up then it's only a matter of time before someone conducts a high velocity fist-face contact experiment. People don't have limitless patience.

[Novorobo]

Saying hurtful things to people just because you don't like the way they look is one way of being a racist twerp in the eyes of many people. Yes, it's subjective.

Well there we go. And such subjective criteria should not be fair game for something as crucial as whether or not violence is justified.

Telling someone to shut the fuck up when he verbally assaults people over their choice of clothing however, is entirely reasonable. Punching their face in is not, but if being told to shut up doesn't shut you up then it's only a matter of time before someone conducts a high velocity fist-face contact experiment. People don't have limitless patience.

So what's the limit, then? Different people are pissed off by different things, who gets to say whose pet peeves take priority?

[Mefpan]

Saying hurtful things to people just because you don't like the way they look is one way of being a racist twerp in the eyes of many people. Yes, it's subjective.

Well there we go. And such subjective criteria should not be fair game for something as crucial as whether or not violence is justified.

Telling someone to shut the fuck up when he verbally assaults people over their choice of clothing however, is entirely reasonable. Punching their face in is not, but if being told to shut up doesn't shut you up then it's only a matter of time before someone conducts a high velocity fist-face contact experiment. People don't have limitless patience.

So what's the limit, then? Different people are pissed off by different things, who gets to say whose pet peeves take priority?

I hypocritically prefer the hypocritical subjective criteria that favor not being a douchebag to random passers-by.

And let's not pretend that the "racist" in this social experiment wasn't looking for trouble. Walking up to someone to throw insults at them is asking for trouble. It's common sense that if you ask for trouble, trouble will sooner or later answer.
Really, that's it. You can't control every person to make sure they stay objective in such a situation. If someone loses his shit because you insisted on telling them your fucked up world view despite them not wanting any piece of it then you're not at all without blame.

[Herskerstad]

Dumb experiment, bad reaction from the individual who committed violence which deserves to have it on his police record. Don't feel bad for the people who committed said experiment.

[Avenio]

So what makes it cross the line into "harassment," and how does this make punching in response "positive?"

In the video, a man named Zakaria Ghanem is dressed in a traditional Muslim gown called a Dishdasha or Thobe, while another man, Devin Giamou, berates him in public and says he wouldn’t feel safe getting onto a bus with him.

That's what makes it harassment. And people coming to his aid against that harassment is most certainly positive.

[The Pecheneg Republic]

Why the hell was this even necessary? Why perpetuate islamophobia in the first place, and then why praise those who take violent action against it? Violence will only lead to violence.

[Novorobo]

So what makes it cross the line into "harassment," and how does this make punching in response "positive?"

In the video, a man named Zakaria Ghanem is dressed in a traditional Muslim gown called a Dishdasha or Thobe, while another man, Devin Giamou, berates him in public and says he wouldn’t feel safe getting onto a bus with him.

That's what makes it harassment. And people coming to his aid against that harassment is most certainly positive.

"Berating" someone is harassment? So this is the "talk shit, get hit" thing all over again?

Unless it's about expressing fears about getting onto a bus with them, in which case, what happens when someone's being sincere?

Why the hell was this even necessary? Why perpetuate islamophobia in the first place, and then why praise those who take violent action against it? Violence will only lead to violence.

They were "perpetuating" Islamophobia to find out how people would react to it. The condoning of violence was pushing it, though.

[Paid To Troll]

Things violence is appropriate in response to:
Demonstrable, impending, violence against an unprotected and/or non-aggressive physical location/place/person.

This does not rise to that bar.

[Novorobo]

Things violence is appropriate in response to:
Demonstrable, impending, violence against an unprotected and/or non-aggressive physical location/place/person.

This does not rise to that bar.

The whole basis on which violence is excused beyond that is subjective, at best. It should be dismissed out of that.

[Tubbsalot]

What alarms me a bit about it is that violence is referred to as a "positive" thing if it's in response to Islamophobia.

Well yeah. Not necessarily because violence is acceptable, but because the violence was driven by good reasons (defending innocent people) rather than negative reasons (arabs are suicide bombers so I'll punch them).

It also concerns me that it didn't show how other people reacted to said violence. How are we supposed to find out what ordinary Canadians really think of that if we don't get them on tape then and there?

This 'experiment' proves nothing. It's anecdotal. The same would go for recording reactions. The sample size is not sufficient.

I'm a little more surprised; and a bit concerned; that the non-aggression principle falls apart, even in Canada, in the face of opinions people don't like.

If you walk around in a civilised place, calling people niggers and terrorists and loudly proclaiming your support of Adolf Hitler, you're going to make a lot of people very angry. That's not to say violence is a reasonable response, but it shouldn't surprise you that it might occur.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

It seems Canadians really don't have much tolerance for intolerance.

[Avenio]

"Berating" someone is harassment?

Yes. If you start yelling at someone in public, particularly if that person has done nothing other than mind their own business, odds are people are either going to intervene, call security (or the police) or both.

Unless it's about expressing fears about getting onto a bus with them, in which case, what happens when someone's being sincere?

So what if he is sincere? What is yelling at the Muslim you think is going to blow up the bus going to accomplish?

[Herskerstad]

"Berating" someone is harassment?

Yes. If you start yelling at someone in public, particularly if that person has done nothing other than mind their own business, odds are people are either going to intervene, call security (or the police) or both.

Unless it's about expressing fears about getting onto a bus with them, in which case, what happens when someone's being sincere?

And what is yelling at the Muslim you think is going to blow up the bus going to accomplish?

Intervene as in 'punching someone in the face' is not an acceptable form of response for someone verbally harassing another. Putting your body between the man harassing and the person who's harassed is fine, calling the police is perfectly fine, hell, even being hostile without throwing a punch works just fine.

However, that man committed assault, punches, particularly those you don't see coming, have a potential to damage the brain. The fact that he did not even remember the details of the individual is worrisome when the police asked. I dislike both the social experiment and the idea behind it is dumb, but the man who committed violence in response to the harassment, is far more dangerous, than people who will actually just harass.