The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
In highschool an opponent coach called one of my team mates the n word. I told the coach I was going to kill him. Referee decided the fouls canceled one another. Wish I had drop kicked that fucking cunt instead.
Some states have "fighting words" clauses in their statutes or case law that stipulate when someone's held less accountable for an otherwise clear-cut Assault/Battery.
If what you say is obviously an attempt to get under someone's skin to make them throw the first punch it essentially blames you for the fight.
Of course the devil's in the details, but rumor has it those exceptions exist.
If it were me, I'd hope I'd have the courage to risk my job to use some Discretion in an event like that without clear statute/case law backing up a Fighting Words issue, but I never handled a case like that so we can never be sure.
I'm on the fence. On the one side I despise a society that resorts to violence to solve problems. This is primitive. Then again it sure feels like some people don't learn another way. Doesn't mean it's good.
It's anecdotal, but I was bullied mercilessly when I was a big, fat sixth grader by this pack of fifth graders who would run up behind me during lunchtime in the playground, kick me, and run away. This went on for some time until one day I happened to turn around at just the right second and caught this little shit by the name of Cory Rodgerson.
I took a big, wide swing and smacked him upside the head as hard as I could. One punch. I vividly remember (probably partly falsely given the forty years that have passed) him spinning, falling over, and then bawling his eyes out. I felt horrible about it, but you know what? Him and his group of cronies never bullied me again.
He learned that actions have consequences, and I learned that violence sucks, but sometimes it does solve problems. Was there a better solution? Probably, but telling my teachers and parents had had no effect, so what else was I supposed to do about it? I also did not grow up to be violent, and in fact have never gotten into any kind of physical altercation as an adult, so maybe it was a good lesson for me, too.
Then again it sure feels like some people don't learn another way.
That's because they don't. Because the lesson they need to learn isn't "people don't like that behavior" it's "that behavior will have swift and severe consequences".
To renounce the use of violence as a method of conflict resolution is to utterly surrender to those who have not and will not.
Consequences are measuring levels of controlled violence. Both human and not.
If one assumes violence is an unnecessary tool, then we would've resolved the issue with actual criminal syndicates both high and low by now. Alas, that's not happening when said syndicates can and will use their own levels of controlled violence against everyone else.
I think a pro hockey player would get kicked out of a game for sucker punching a player at face off.
They can fight, but there's a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that is usually consensual and happens after face off. Referees will often even give them space to duke it out.
Unless someone on the other team did something really fucked up, then all bets are off (and you take the suspension for sucker punching them lol).
Yeah, there's a lot of unwritten rules about where the lines are drawn on legitimate play for competitive advantage in the sport itself, to dirty play that veers into being about hurting someone rather than playing good offense/defense, socially acceptable fighting that is part of the broader game, and is penalized within the rules of the game by the refs on the ice, to socially unacceptable fighting that warrants league intervention after the game for suspensions and the like.
It can still be worth it, but we gotta place each act in the appropriate category.
In the NHL it's fine. Actually if a penalty has already been called against your team then you can do anything you want until the other team gets a penalty.
Sure, when your son punches someone on the opposing team during a kid’s hockey game he’s “defending his teammates honor”, but when I do it I’m “assaulting a minor” and “not allowed within 300 feet of a school” by a so-called “judge”.
I don't know if it's voyager or my keyboard app but I've noticed sometimes when I swipe type a word, it inserts the desired word but then sticks the cursor in front of the word instead of after it so any new text would go before the word and it gets pushed to the end of the message if I don't catch it.
The correct solution is to wait for the game to start, then wait for that player to get the puck. And that's when you go in for as solid a body check as you can. Once they get the puck it becomes fair game to check them and you won't get in trouble for it.
It's like a boxing match: you wait until you're in the ring and the bell dings before laying in to them.
As sly as this is, I like the other guy’s response.
It’s important to deliver immediacy. Also important to show public courage towards the act. “I assert, in full view of everyone, this is the right action and I deserve no consequences for it.”
You may still be punished, but it’s still important you make the statement.
Eh. I agree with the sentiment, but it's weaker behavior than the instant punch. You implicitly agree that "fucking whore" is an insult, if you do that.
People are acting like this doesn't happen in pro hockey sometimes too.
I haven't actually watched it in many years but I used to be a big fan, and every now and then someone would do or say something so egregious, that they'd get sucker punched (or something worse like slashed in the face with a hockey stick). And the person who did it would usually get kicked out of the game for it. But his teammates and the fans that knew what was up would support them as they skated off.
Weaker behavior? I do applaud the kid putting the aspiring frat bro in his place, but equating aggression with strength is bonkers. There are other, better ways for educating fools than a damn sucker punch.
By this logic it's ok for anyone to just walk around punching people that offend their moral views.
No.
It's not about offending moral views in abstract. It's about specific assholes that put their "moral views" into violent action. When someone is violent, it's proof they don't see their victim as a person.
::: spoiler Therefore it IS ok for anyone to just walk around punching people who instigate oppressive violence.
Also, please don't fall for the paradox of tolerance, I will lose a lot of respect for you.
:::
I was too. As a peewee. I think that’s like 6th or 7th grade or so. However, I was the last year that was the case for. They had switched to bantams. Which, if I remember correctly, is 8th-9th grade. So, still on the bubble. Not sure if it’s changed since then.
When my nephew was a little kid he got suspended from school. My sister and her husband were working, but I was still in university so I offered to go pick him up. Turns out he'd done exactly this on the playground so I took him to McDonald's and bought him Lego on his day off.
we had an 'airforce' player in our team. he usually was only on the field, if the other team played dirty. the most dirty opponent would have a painful clash with our 'airforce'. the game usually was a bit more civilised after that.
was it the right thing to do? probably not. would we have sent the 'airforce' if the referee had stopped dirty plays earlier? definitely not! did it protect other players from going home with injuries? yes!
so no, violence is not the only correct thing to do. but it is a way to achieve certain goals. sometimes fire has to be fought with fire.
the concept may be more established for ice hockey. but it is present in all sports or possibly in life: we hope there is a referee to punish bad behaviour. but if there isn't, we have to take things into our own hands.
i am not necessarily talking about violence here. if at your job someone constantly tries to sabotage you, violence may not be the best approach. but some dirty play on your side, might just discourage the behaviour enough. obviously that should only be considered, if theere is no sort of referee to stop the behaviour traditionally.
Lmao, "violence is not the answer". It is. When other people like that fucking asshole kiddo were, then it's the only acceptable thing to do. "Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto yourself".
They need to understand that their shit has consequences, or else bigotry will never end.
It will never end. I would bet that you're bigoted against a variety of people, too. It's all around us; most people have a "narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them".
Youth hockey leagues are pretty strict about no fighting. Younger leagues have no checking, for obvious reasons. As you get older, it gets more physical.
Personally, I disagree with the punch. Takes you out of the game when you and the rest of your team can just mark that guy as an asshole and make his day absolutely suck. For everyone saying, but he won’t know why: he’ll know. Plus, you can simply call him a whore every time you hit him. A dirty hit when he has the puck is 2 or 4 in the sin bin, and you get to hit him again later. A single punch is just that, and it’s all over.
Its also absurd because its heavily gendered. If someone called a male teammate a fucking whore we would laugh at them, take note that they are clearly salty, and fuck with them the rest of the game. If it was the girl who punched the guy in the face it would at least make more sense.
Personally, I wouldnt cheer my own kid on for punching someone in the face and getting kicked out of the game. That type of problem solving shows a lack of creativity and compassion.
Agreed. The more I’ve thought about the more I think the comments are mostly a bunch of neck beards proud the kid “defended her honor.” As if she ever asked him to do that. What if it had been a girl on the other team calling his teammate the same thing? Girls can be brutal in their chirping. “Fucking whore” is pretty tame compared to what I’ve heard collegiate female rugby players call one another. Im all for the team ganging up on an asshole player playing like an asshole, but players in just about any team sport constantly shit talk their opponents. Somehow the other guy crossed a line by treating a girl the same as he presumably would any other player on the ice? If he singled her out, fine. Chirp back, or ignore it. And the one comment calling it bullying? Gimme a break. It wasn’t even said to her. Tell the guy to fuck off, score on him and give him a good hip check next time you can get away with it.
That's what I'm talking about, just keep escalating untill someone draws a gun!! Pride and ego RULEZZZ!! FUCK YEAH, VIOLENCE! /s
Why in the flying fuck would you ever care what some fuckstick in the opposite team shouted at you or your friends? Responding to words on the field with violence is so fucking dumb and this whole appreciation thread feels even dumber. Just shout back that his mom was a whore in retaliation if you really need to reciprocate, and then proceed to score more points than the opposite team.
Pacifism is surrender to every bully you'll ever encounter. Teaching kids horseshit like this is how you make a generation of slaves who'll never revolt. Which explains why every kid is repeatedly told that violence is bad and only bad people are violent (except the cops and soldiers, because state-sanctioned violence is different).
May you and every other person who disapproves of this kid's actions never again know any peace you haven't had to fight for and don't constantly have to fight to defend.
Words are what ruined this country; made a generation of Christians hateful of empathy and compassion.
I am tired of words being viewed as universally humble and peaceful. They are rarely so strong as to deserve violent retribution, but rare is not never.
When they get away with it from the start, they do not learn the important lessons. Kids need to be taught these things, when they are little, so they do not become fucking assholes, who start insulting, and even assaulting other people in the first place. But once they are past that, the sooner someone gives them some immediate consequences, the sooner they are going to learn the important lessons - the hard way. Obviously violence should always be avoided, but at some point, if they get away with it long enough, it becomes the only thing bullies understand.
Also, if someone bullies you, defend yourself from the start, even if you get trouble for it. It makes them more likely to choose another target and maybe even stop bullying, and keeps your self-respect intact. And that last part matters a lot, especially considering how the bullying will affect you in long-term.
Yeah, that would be much worse than the world we live in now. Where everyone who can, just enslaves and coerces people for 8 hours a day, regardless of whether they violate their moral standards. (/s)
The amount of violence already normalized in this world, is enormous. Calling someone a "fucking whore", is a serious gendered insult, in a world that seriously allows and ignores the assault, rape, and murder of women, as well as their economical life being lived on a short leash. He was reminding her her place.
But when the violence is turned against the not-woman, don't worry, institutions will be there right away! (/s)
All violence is violence, don't selectively ignore shit.
Are you... Not familiar with hockey? It's a very physical sport where fighting is often allowed by referees. Even at levels where they don't tolerate fighting, it's still very very physical.
It's a violent team sport. To the point where teams have "enforcers" who are specifically used to retaliate against the other team when they do something fucked.
Nobody has ever drawn a gun on the ice, that I'm aware of. Usually a fight is enough to get it out of their system. There's no reason to believe this would ever escalate to gun violence, it's just an accepted (and possibly integral) aspect of the sport.
In hockey, fighting exists to enact justice when the refs fail to achieve that. Usually it's for missed calls or intentional harm. It's my personal opinion that calling an underage girl a whore is verbally abusive which translates to intentional harm enough to justify beating the brakes off that little fucker. The refs should've thrown the insulter out for that shit, and if that were my daughter, I'd be after that ref's job for doing nothing AND punishing the kid who had the courage that the ref didn't. Yeah, the kid sucks, but his behavior is the product of bad parenting and a lack of education and discipline; that ref should've fucking known better.
If you think calling someone a name during a competitive sport is intentional harm, then you probably shouldnt partake in any sports. Its also pretty clear that most of the reason you are upset is because the "victim" was a girl. If you replace the story with a boy, the reaction you have is entirely different, isnt it?
All these clowns in this thread supporting the kids actions when I know none of you are doing shit like this in your daily life. Put your ass on the line next time someone insults someone else if you really think this is appropriate retaliation. In fact I would say you're either a hypocrite or a liar if you don't throw hands next time you hear a insult.
Violence was the wrong answer. But a swift and strong reaction to defend someone being bullied is something to praise. At a time when a large portion of society is actively trying to demote women to the position of being property instead of people with equal rights, that instinct is even more important to encourage.
So, while violence would normally be something that is met with swift punishment of its own to try to correct the child's behavior, in this case, the balance tips a bit the other way. In this case the kid was already ejected from the game and the parent decided that was enough of a punishment without needing to add additional punishment. Some people feel that there should also be some reward to encourage the instinctive feeling.
I have not seen any response so far that denies that ejection was not warranted as a punishment for the violence.
As a parent you have to be conscious of the lessons you teach your children. Harsh retaliation to anything that the kid does wrong will end up squashing their ability to act for themselves or stand up for themselves. In fact it may even lead to them becoming a bully.
Its a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated. Taking them seriously is the wrong move. The girl in this situation already has a team, and team mates, and its none of them that are harassing her. She should be able to brush it off just as easy as any of the guys, and acting like she needs a defender isnt automatically the right move just because she's a girl.
All this to say, clearly this is just a dumb social media mother attempting to brag about their impulsive and violent child as if it were a good thing.
I fully agree with you, but I think we are picturing kids at the opposite ends of childhood. In my head we are talking about little kids that are very young and just learning things like impulse control and what is fair. The smear of the very few pixels left in the OP's image gave me the impression that we were dealing with someone pretty young. But if we're dealing with older kids, then the dynamic does change dramatically. If your teenager is physically lashing out at other kids then we are dealing with someone with behavioral problems (both child and parents) and that does need a much stronger correction.
No, I don't like to speak or act for others without permission first. I won't assume my team mate is offended unless they say so, and won't jump to their defense unless they ask. I consider that to be a minimum level of respect and I would expect others treat me the same way.
Sure, because people never work hourly jobs that they can't get days off from, and they never have multiple children who have events on the same night, and they never have younger kids they have to stay home with while the other parent goes to the event.
And that's assuming this parent wasn't at the hockey game. It's totally possible that she was, but she couldn't hear why the punch happened because she was too far back and the comment was too quiet.
The reason people stormed the capitol is because they think they have the moral high ground and can sidestep the justice system. Consequences can be immediate even if you tell the referee.
Yeah. I think about it as just as a spoiled child: if you spoil them every time they forms a tantrum, then they'll wrongly learn that doing a tantrum not only doesn't has any consequences, but even that they'll might get rewarded for doing that.
That’s not entirely true, war is far more complex than that…
My point is/was that sometimes a short sharp shock delivers one of two outcomes: it either clarifies someone’s mind or teaches them the important lesson that words have consequences.
I can’t stress enough that it is a final resort though. All other avenues need to have been fully explored first.
Well, as far as misogyny goes, all other avenues have been explored. Extensively, and repeatedly, through more than 100 years of feminism literature and praxis, discussions, and real world research.
Violence has its place, and when the other person is dehumanizing you, that is almost always the place.
In order to explore other avenues, the other person needs to regard you as an equal. For those with authoritarian/fascistic/bigoted leanings among us, the only way for that, is consequences, because the only thing they care about, is consequences.
One unfixably foul mouth results in LOTS of closed fists. Lots of closed fists results in someone backing down and surrendering, not closing their fist.
The “unfixably foul” part is the key. We cherish people’s ability to speak their mind, and it may not fully match ours. But “women exist for sexual slavery” is a long, long way from matching anyone’s I ever want to share a room with.
Chances are, he didn’t mean it. So, it’s a lesson: Don’t ever even pretend to mean it.
Why does everyone seem to assume no violence means no consequences. I don't think a player who calls someone a whore should be allowed back on the rink. Just remove the bully. It's a natural consequence ("we don't want abuse so if you do that you cant be here") that I assure you will be more effective than punching them in the face. And it doesn't require a vigilante justice that risks escalating the situation. That slope is too slippery.
You were obviously never a target of bullies growing up. All that does is teach the bully not to get caught. And generally will invite retaliation against whoever the bully decides is at fault for it, usually whoever "snitched".
But damn few bullies come back and try again after being popped in the nose by the target of their bullying or a bystander. Because they were taught the lesson on the one language they're able to hear it in.
People who've never been in a fight have as much business weighing in on the use of violence as celibate priests have weighing in on sex.
More in line with actual (but barely relevant) game theory results: In repeated interactions, strategies that respond to bad behavior in proportion, then quickly forgive, tend to do well, and being a bit more forgiving than strict tit-for-tat helps when misunderstandings happen.
The key here is in proportion, and you said it yourself: "while simultaneously not going too far". Responding with physical violence to a verbal attack is disproportionate and it's going too far.
Intolerance for intolerance is needed in a tolerant society and in my opinion punching that person in the face was not too far. That guy needs to learn to not behave like that towards women.
He got swift justice and maybe he will think twice before he does that again.
I don't think violence was the only soultion here. In the best case an adult would have heard what he said, banned him for that game, and calmly explained to him why that is wrong to do and he would improve himself. But from experience with kids behaving like that (depending on the age, young kids might listen) he wouldn't care.
I am not strictly against violence, I am however strictly against murdering people.
Yeah. I think about it as just as a spoiled child: if you spoil them every time they forms a tantrum, then they'll wrongly learn that doing a tantrum not only doesn't has any consequences, but even that they'll might get rewarded for doing that.
You do realize the police are only there to protect the state and capital, not you, right? They're more likely to escalate to violence than most regular folk, they're trained to treat everyone as a potential threat. The idea of calling the police over someone calling another person a whore is utterly ridiculous.
You do realize that being obnoxious to people who don't share your support of violence as a teaching method, undermines your whole position? It makes you sound like one of those "I was spanked and I turned out OK" people who did not, in fact, turn out OK.
Parental abuse is a lot different psychologically then just fucking up a peer for their bullshit. But my comments were removed and I have NEVER had that happen on the fediverse before.
You're posting on a lemmy.world server community and they have rules against talking about illegal things in their countries (Netherlands, Finland, Germany). This includes calls of violence and they consider comments encouraging violence to be illegal/ against the rules. If you go to lemmy.world and scroll to bottom they link to their bylaws.
It started when the united health ceo was murdered. Anyone who showed support of it was getting moderated. Eventually they clarified that we can speak of factual things but we can't make calls for further violence. So i can say i didn't lose any sleep when the united health ceo was murdered. I cant say anything that calls for more violence against other ceos.
The fediverse is great but now you have an extra layer of rules: your server rules (dbzer0 is pretty good), server rules of whatever community you're posting in, and the community rules of the comm you're posting in.
Still gets less moderated than reddit mods who love to powertrip
Amount dislikes this comment got pains me
We should teach children to resolve verbal conflicts without physical retaliation, not reward behavior of escalation to physical violence
You’re doing the far-right bullshit thing of treating the fact that a position requires (gasp) human judgment as an argument against the position itself. “Who gets to decide what’s fair?” “Who gets to decide what constitutes harm?” “Who gets to decide what’s reasonable?” They act like these are impossible questions that somehow invalidate the whole idea. If you’re an adult and have any confidence in your own morality, you should be able to make judgment calls. I promise it really isn’t an impossible dilemma unless you’re a moral relativist coward.
200 replies
Yes violence against people i dont like is acceptable. At least until the violence quotient normalizes.
It's fun watching people discover the paradox of tolerance in real time.
Women are sexually assaulted at rates that are fucking disturbing.
I'd punch you in the face in a heartbeat if you called my wife a whore. We don't tolerate intolerance. Get with the program.
The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
Oh you think im joking?
I'm positive a strongly worded letter would have made all the difference.
No... violence is acceptable..
Thrown out? Just give him a 2 min minor
In highschool an opponent coach called one of my team mates the n word. I told the coach I was going to kill him. Referee decided the fouls canceled one another. Wish I had drop kicked that fucking cunt instead.
Drop kicking someone while on skates would be fucking impressive.
what does the law say about any of those offences ?
Some states have "fighting words" clauses in their statutes or case law that stipulate when someone's held less accountable for an otherwise clear-cut Assault/Battery.
If what you say is obviously an attempt to get under someone's skin to make them throw the first punch it essentially blames you for the fight.
Of course the devil's in the details, but rumor has it those exceptions exist.
If it were me, I'd hope I'd have the courage to risk my job to use some Discretion in an event like that without clear statute/case law backing up a Fighting Words issue, but I never handled a case like that so we can never be sure.
- Ex-cop
Just mentioned "fighting words" in another comment. But those words weren't directed to the attacker, so would that still count?
That question exceeds the scope of my training, experience, and rumor I heard on the job from other cops, so your web search would be as good as mine.
I'm 99% sure I was never trained on it, 100% sure I never saw it applied, and such a scenario never came up in the rumor mill.
The insulter didn't threaten the girl, so he's clear. The boy is guilty of battery, no defense of others here.
OTOH, "fucking whore" could be considered "fighting words", but I have no idea how that works if directed at another person. 🤷🏼♂️
Being legal doesn't mean being right. Some crimes are worth the punishment.
That's nice. This part of the discussion is about how the law views this event.
And fuck the guy that asked! Typical lemmy, downvoting questions.
Depends on the kids parents wealth.
Idk i was 17 and the coach was old. I'm glad it didnt go much further because it would have not ended at all well.
I'm on the fence. On the one side I despise a society that resorts to violence to solve problems. This is primitive. Then again it sure feels like some people don't learn another way. Doesn't mean it's good.
Mhm, a story to remember for sure.
We all had history classes.
Violence is the most effective tool the working class has by a country mile so they don't get devoured by the wealthys politics and bullshit.
Regulations for business are quite literally often written in blood.
Violence is the last thing some people even understand. Sure it should be a last resort most of the time.
On the other hand Cornell, frats, and the fact that women are sexually assaulted at disturbing rates.
I'd punch an openly misogynistic person too. We've spent too many decades not punching shitty people, now we have fascists popping up all over again.
It's anecdotal, but I was bullied mercilessly when I was a big, fat sixth grader by this pack of fifth graders who would run up behind me during lunchtime in the playground, kick me, and run away. This went on for some time until one day I happened to turn around at just the right second and caught this little shit by the name of Cory Rodgerson.
I took a big, wide swing and smacked him upside the head as hard as I could. One punch. I vividly remember (probably partly falsely given the forty years that have passed) him spinning, falling over, and then bawling his eyes out. I felt horrible about it, but you know what? Him and his group of cronies never bullied me again.
He learned that actions have consequences, and I learned that violence sucks, but sometimes it does solve problems. Was there a better solution? Probably, but telling my teachers and parents had had no effect, so what else was I supposed to do about it? I also did not grow up to be violent, and in fact have never gotten into any kind of physical altercation as an adult, so maybe it was a good lesson for me, too.
Fucking Cory! Classic
That's because they don't. Because the lesson they need to learn isn't "people don't like that behavior" it's "that behavior will have swift and severe consequences".
To renounce the use of violence as a method of conflict resolution is to utterly surrender to those who have not and will not.
Disagree, sometimes we have go go back to the fundamental. Looks around, shitty people aren't get punched enough.
Consequences are measuring levels of controlled violence. Both human and not.
If one assumes violence is an unnecessary tool, then we would've resolved the issue with actual criminal syndicates both high and low by now. Alas, that's not happening when said syndicates can and will use their own levels of controlled violence against everyone else.
It's hockey. Punching someone in the face is how you express your feelings.
Fuck I thought hockey was like, the only sport other than boxing where you're supposed to punch them.
I think a pro hockey player would get kicked out of a game for sucker punching a player at face off.
They can fight, but there's a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that is usually consensual and happens after face off. Referees will often even give them space to duke it out.
Unless someone on the other team did something really fucked up, then all bets are off (and you take the suspension for sucker punching them lol).
Yeah, there's a lot of unwritten rules about where the lines are drawn on legitimate play for competitive advantage in the sport itself, to dirty play that veers into being about hurting someone rather than playing good offense/defense, socially acceptable fighting that is part of the broader game, and is penalized within the rules of the game by the refs on the ice, to socially unacceptable fighting that warrants league intervention after the game for suspensions and the like.
It can still be worth it, but we gotta place each act in the appropriate category.
In the NHL it's fine. Actually if a penalty has already been called against your team then you can do anything you want until the other team gets a penalty.
Absolutely not. You can definitely receive an ejection and a game misconduct which would prevent you from playing in the next game as well.
there are still rules to fight him
Professional hockey yes, but they dont let kids fight.
May I interest you in Australian Rules Football?
Sure, when your son punches someone on the opposing team during a kid’s hockey game he’s “defending his teammates honor”, but when I do it I’m “assaulting a minor” and “not allowed within 300 feet of a school” by a so-called “judge”.
I thought this was America!
You're only allowed to sleep with them and only if you're rich enough!
Calm down Randy!
You might need some Sephora to blend in as a kid
Ref: "what are you, as his parent, going to do about it?"
Parent: "well, he really likes the movies, so I think I'll take him to see the lastest blockbuster."
Have a good about when it's acceptable to use violence, and then buy him icecream.
Lol, I think you a word
Yeah, Its a common problem for me... Me not word well
Ugh this is become such an issue when typing anything on a smartphone; it sure really likes to put words in for you... or leave them out.
I don't know if it's voyager or my keyboard app but I've noticed sometimes when I swipe type a word, it inserts the desired word but then sticks the cursor in front of the word instead of after it so any new text would go before the word and it gets pushed to the end of the message if I don't catch it.
*accidentally
the whole can?
The whole cake.
The bottle, even.
I think the kid has already it out.
The correct solution is to wait for the game to start, then wait for that player to get the puck. And that's when you go in for as solid a body check as you can. Once they get the puck it becomes fair game to check them and you won't get in trouble for it.
It's like a boxing match: you wait until you're in the ring and the bell dings before laying in to them.
Nah that doesn't send a message. The kid did the right thing.
As sly as this is, I like the other guy’s response.
It’s important to deliver immediacy. Also important to show public courage towards the act. “I assert, in full view of everyone, this is the right action and I deserve no consequences for it.”
You may still be punished, but it’s still important you make the statement.
But then they might not know why they got hit.
Call him a 'fucking whore' as he picks himself up off the ice.
Eh. I agree with the sentiment, but it's weaker behavior than the instant punch. You implicitly agree that "fucking whore" is an insult, if you do that.
People are acting like this doesn't happen in pro hockey sometimes too.
I haven't actually watched it in many years but I used to be a big fan, and every now and then someone would do or say something so egregious, that they'd get sucker punched (or something worse like slashed in the face with a hockey stick). And the person who did it would usually get kicked out of the game for it. But his teammates and the fans that knew what was up would support them as they skated off.
If it was said with the intent to insult, it's an insult.
The intent to insult, is an insult itself, sure.
But the content may be, or not be. The "fucking whore" insult, as content, is a misogynistic insult.
Weaker behavior? I do applaud the kid putting the aspiring frat bro in his place, but equating aggression with strength is bonkers. There are other, better ways for educating fools than a damn sucker punch.
No.
Fuck off. By this logic it's ok for anyone to just walk around punching people that offend their moral views, sensible or not.
No.
It's not about offending moral views in abstract. It's about specific assholes that put their "moral views" into violent action. When someone is violent, it's proof they don't see their victim as a person.
::: spoiler Therefore it IS ok for anyone to just walk around punching people who instigate oppressive violence. Also, please don't fall for the paradox of tolerance, I will lose a lot of respect for you. :::
Those people should be punched.
Exactly this. The fuckstick needs to know why he got hit.
OP didn't mention the obligatory "who the whore now fuckwad?"
spits tooth... "Your mum."
makes you spit another tooth
cough ....Worth...it... splutter
Oh, he will. You tell him.
Nah, this sends a MUCH clearer message.
It also gets him knocked out of the game and prevents him from supporting the girl when this chud inevitably tries to slam her
If you’re in highschool. You can’t check until pretty late in learning the game.
We were body checking in middle school. Maybe it's different now.
I was too. As a peewee. I think that’s like 6th or 7th grade or so. However, I was the last year that was the case for. They had switched to bantams. Which, if I remember correctly, is 8th-9th grade. So, still on the bubble. Not sure if it’s changed since then.
When my nephew was a little kid he got suspended from school. My sister and her husband were working, but I was still in university so I offered to go pick him up. Turns out he'd done exactly this on the playground so I took him to McDonald's and bought him Lego on his day off.
Doubt. There's no way the refs would tolerate that language from kids.
I'm in Western Canada and I can tell you their parents in the stands are usually worse.
If the ref heard it they might care enough. Maybe, maybe not. Hockey kids say all sorts of shit.
Then that hockey game wasn't valuable. Fuck toxic enviroments as these that ban the ones who do the only correct thing to do.
Hey, violence isn't the answer, let alone "the only correct thing to do".
Edit: you all are real tough guys for advocating that the rude child in this totally true story get beat up. What a bunch of losers.
we had an 'airforce' player in our team. he usually was only on the field, if the other team played dirty. the most dirty opponent would have a painful clash with our 'airforce'. the game usually was a bit more civilised after that.
was it the right thing to do? probably not. would we have sent the 'airforce' if the referee had stopped dirty plays earlier? definitely not! did it protect other players from going home with injuries? yes!
so no, violence is not the only correct thing to do. but it is a way to achieve certain goals. sometimes fire has to be fought with fire.
Are you trying to say enforcer? I'm plenty familiar with the concept but your word choice is confusing.
i meant to say airforce, as that is what we called it. i put it into quotation, as it was a specific name we used.
Was bro flying around?
he made sure we controlled who went flying and who not.
guess he could also have been called "Air Traffic Control"...
Hockey is weird, its sort of expected that the players use violence to keep each others behavior in check.
the concept may be more established for ice hockey. but it is present in all sports or possibly in life: we hope there is a referee to punish bad behaviour. but if there isn't, we have to take things into our own hands.
i am not necessarily talking about violence here. if at your job someone constantly tries to sabotage you, violence may not be the best approach. but some dirty play on your side, might just discourage the behaviour enough. obviously that should only be considered, if theere is no sort of referee to stop the behaviour traditionally.
Lmao, "violence is not the answer". It is. When other people like that fucking asshole kiddo were, then it's the only acceptable thing to do. "Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto yourself".
They need to understand that their shit has consequences, or else bigotry will never end.
Bigotry is as old as humanity.
It will never end. I would bet that you're bigoted against a variety of people, too. It's all around us; most people have a "narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them".
Especially here on Lemmy.
None of that makes it wrong to oppose bigotry.
It reminds me when I decked a kid in martial arts class because he made a yo mama joke. There were no consequences for me lol
I did something similar in school. Laid out the kid making fun of me.
We were in pads and helmets. It was middle school chickens establishing the pecking order.
Kid was more abusive than most and picking on me in particular. Put him on the ground, made it clear that this would not be tolerated.
Then I caught up with the running drill.
That's kinda the attitude that is cultivated for success in athletics.
Good on you for standing up for yourself.
Hockey skills are life skills
The white knight.
Why did he even get kicked out? It's hockey. Fighting is only 5 minutes in the box.
I watched a fight once, and suddenly a hockey game broke out.
For the pros, yes. But for all youth hockey (at least in the US) it's an immediate game misconduct.
Lol, he didn't get kicked out...UnfilteredMama posted it on twitter. It never happened to begin with.
Not every league allows fighting, some leagues don't even allow checking
Youth hockey leagues are pretty strict about no fighting. Younger leagues have no checking, for obvious reasons. As you get older, it gets more physical.
Personally, I disagree with the punch. Takes you out of the game when you and the rest of your team can just mark that guy as an asshole and make his day absolutely suck. For everyone saying, but he won’t know why: he’ll know. Plus, you can simply call him a whore every time you hit him. A dirty hit when he has the puck is 2 or 4 in the sin bin, and you get to hit him again later. A single punch is just that, and it’s all over.
Its also absurd because its heavily gendered. If someone called a male teammate a fucking whore we would laugh at them, take note that they are clearly salty, and fuck with them the rest of the game. If it was the girl who punched the guy in the face it would at least make more sense.
Personally, I wouldnt cheer my own kid on for punching someone in the face and getting kicked out of the game. That type of problem solving shows a lack of creativity and compassion.
Agreed. The more I’ve thought about the more I think the comments are mostly a bunch of neck beards proud the kid “defended her honor.” As if she ever asked him to do that. What if it had been a girl on the other team calling his teammate the same thing? Girls can be brutal in their chirping. “Fucking whore” is pretty tame compared to what I’ve heard collegiate female rugby players call one another. Im all for the team ganging up on an asshole player playing like an asshole, but players in just about any team sport constantly shit talk their opponents. Somehow the other guy crossed a line by treating a girl the same as he presumably would any other player on the ice? If he singled her out, fine. Chirp back, or ignore it. And the one comment calling it bullying? Gimme a break. It wasn’t even said to her. Tell the guy to fuck off, score on him and give him a good hip check next time you can get away with it.
Might be field hockey though
I’m tired of these damn horses causing all these problems
WHY THE LONG FACE?!
My kid would get a Disney trip for something like this
I would not celebrate physical violence in response to words. If it were two adults, there would be charges of assault.
Oh no a assault charge. If it was my son I'd be fucking proud.
These misogynist manosphere boys need to fkn learn . And more dads need to step the messaging to them to respect women
I fully respect women. Does our law condone punching someone in the face for words?
Oh Mr. Cop here says we should respect the law and let the misogyny continue. Oh, sorry he FULLY RESPECTS the women his support of misogyny hurts.
Bro this is hockey
tell the child to apologize to the family member or relative he stole from.
Must be american. Surely violence is the right solution to insult, right?
Have you seen a hockey game? Mostly Canadians and this is a completely reasonable thing to happen in hockey.
That's what I'm talking about, just keep escalating untill someone draws a gun!! Pride and ego RULEZZZ!! FUCK YEAH, VIOLENCE! /s
Why in the flying fuck would you ever care what some fuckstick in the opposite team shouted at you or your friends? Responding to words on the field with violence is so fucking dumb and this whole appreciation thread feels even dumber. Just shout back that his mom was a whore in retaliation if you really need to reciprocate, and then proceed to score more points than the opposite team.
Pacifism is surrender to every bully you'll ever encounter. Teaching kids horseshit like this is how you make a generation of slaves who'll never revolt. Which explains why every kid is repeatedly told that violence is bad and only bad people are violent (except the cops and soldiers, because state-sanctioned violence is different).
May you and every other person who disapproves of this kid's actions never again know any peace you haven't had to fight for and don't constantly have to fight to defend.
Words are what ruined this country; made a generation of Christians hateful of empathy and compassion.
I am tired of words being viewed as universally humble and peaceful. They are rarely so strong as to deserve violent retribution, but rare is not never.
Sometimes, horrible little fuckers just need a punch in the mouth
And if they always did get punched in the mouth maybe the world would be just a little less fucked up than it is.
When they get away with it from the start, they do not learn the important lessons. Kids need to be taught these things, when they are little, so they do not become fucking assholes, who start insulting, and even assaulting other people in the first place. But once they are past that, the sooner someone gives them some immediate consequences, the sooner they are going to learn the important lessons - the hard way. Obviously violence should always be avoided, but at some point, if they get away with it long enough, it becomes the only thing bullies understand.
Also, if someone bullies you, defend yourself from the start, even if you get trouble for it. It makes them more likely to choose another target and maybe even stop bullying, and keeps your self-respect intact. And that last part matters a lot, especially considering how the bullying will affect you in long-term.
Imagine the utopia where everyone just punches people who violate their moral standards
Yeah, that would be much worse than the world we live in now. Where everyone who can, just enslaves and coerces people for 8 hours a day, regardless of whether they violate their moral standards. (/s)
The amount of violence already normalized in this world, is enormous. Calling someone a "fucking whore", is a serious gendered insult, in a world that seriously allows and ignores the assault, rape, and murder of women, as well as their economical life being lived on a short leash. He was reminding her her place.
But when the violence is turned against the not-woman, don't worry, institutions will be there right away! (/s)
All violence is violence, don't selectively ignore shit.
Yeah, these people are just so fucking mononeuronal that they won't understand words, they just go oonga boonga and they only understand fists.
Punching someone in the face for being misogynistic is a kindness that may correct him from going irreversibly down that road.
Are you... Not familiar with hockey? It's a very physical sport where fighting is often allowed by referees. Even at levels where they don't tolerate fighting, it's still very very physical.
It's a violent team sport. To the point where teams have "enforcers" who are specifically used to retaliate against the other team when they do something fucked.
Nobody has ever drawn a gun on the ice, that I'm aware of. Usually a fight is enough to get it out of their system. There's no reason to believe this would ever escalate to gun violence, it's just an accepted (and possibly integral) aspect of the sport.
In hockey, fighting exists to enact justice when the refs fail to achieve that. Usually it's for missed calls or intentional harm. It's my personal opinion that calling an underage girl a whore is verbally abusive which translates to intentional harm enough to justify beating the brakes off that little fucker. The refs should've thrown the insulter out for that shit, and if that were my daughter, I'd be after that ref's job for doing nothing AND punishing the kid who had the courage that the ref didn't. Yeah, the kid sucks, but his behavior is the product of bad parenting and a lack of education and discipline; that ref should've fucking known better.
If you think calling someone a name during a competitive sport is intentional harm, then you probably shouldnt partake in any sports. Its also pretty clear that most of the reason you are upset is because the "victim" was a girl. If you replace the story with a boy, the reaction you have is entirely different, isnt it?
Hey whore.
Using your children for your made up feel good story is weird
It's a twitter account called UnfilteredMama. They probably don't have kids at all.
All these clowns in this thread supporting the kids actions when I know none of you are doing shit like this in your daily life. Put your ass on the line next time someone insults someone else if you really think this is appropriate retaliation. In fact I would say you're either a hypocrite or a liar if you don't throw hands next time you hear a insult.
Violence was the wrong answer. But a swift and strong reaction to defend someone being bullied is something to praise. At a time when a large portion of society is actively trying to demote women to the position of being property instead of people with equal rights, that instinct is even more important to encourage.
So, while violence would normally be something that is met with swift punishment of its own to try to correct the child's behavior, in this case, the balance tips a bit the other way. In this case the kid was already ejected from the game and the parent decided that was enough of a punishment without needing to add additional punishment. Some people feel that there should also be some reward to encourage the instinctive feeling.
I have not seen any response so far that denies that ejection was not warranted as a punishment for the violence.
As a parent you have to be conscious of the lessons you teach your children. Harsh retaliation to anything that the kid does wrong will end up squashing their ability to act for themselves or stand up for themselves. In fact it may even lead to them becoming a bully.
No, it was the correct answer
Its a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated. Taking them seriously is the wrong move. The girl in this situation already has a team, and team mates, and its none of them that are harassing her. She should be able to brush it off just as easy as any of the guys, and acting like she needs a defender isnt automatically the right move just because she's a girl.
All this to say, clearly this is just a dumb social media mother attempting to brag about their impulsive and violent child as if it were a good thing.
I fully agree with you, but I think we are picturing kids at the opposite ends of childhood. In my head we are talking about little kids that are very young and just learning things like impulse control and what is fair. The smear of the very few pixels left in the OP's image gave me the impression that we were dealing with someone pretty young. But if we're dealing with older kids, then the dynamic does change dramatically. If your teenager is physically lashing out at other kids then we are dealing with someone with behavioral problems (both child and parents) and that does need a much stronger correction.
Things only said by people who use racial slurs in online games.
No, I don't like to speak or act for others without permission first. I won't assume my team mate is offended unless they say so, and won't jump to their defense unless they ask. I consider that to be a minimum level of respect and I would expect others treat me the same way.
This user has definitely dropped N bombs in voice chat while playing a FPS.
Okay troll.
I don't get to hear that shit in my daily life. The moment I do, I will find out whether I am as awesome as this kid.
Huh? Why does supporting this kid’s actions necessarily imply one would do the same? Why are you so bitter?
Why wouldn't you do actions you support? Either lying or hypocritical like I said.
“I’m going to climb Mount Everest.”
-“That’s a great goal! I support that.”
“Then get your fucking climbing gear, you little bitch. Or are you a lying hypocrite?”
Yeah, this is definitely a rational line of thought.
You also just publicly admitted you don't attend you kids games, shitty parent.
Sure, because people never work hourly jobs that they can't get days off from, and they never have multiple children who have events on the same night, and they never have younger kids they have to stay home with while the other parent goes to the event.
And that's assuming this parent wasn't at the hockey game. It's totally possible that she was, but she couldn't hear why the punch happened because she was too far back and the comment was too quiet.
I didn't attend every single one of my kid's games. I attended most, but not all. Things happen.
Shitty comment
Oof, a proud shitty parent here.
Shitty comment
Escalation to violence is never acceptable. Tell it to the referee or police instead.
The reason why there's so much shitty stuff happening in 'Murica right now is this attitude
Consequences must be immediate
The reason people stormed the capitol is because they think they have the moral high ground and can sidestep the justice system. Consequences can be immediate even if you tell the referee.
No, it's because the President told them to do it.
And they (mostly rightly) thought that meant they could sidestep the justice system.
And the reason why the pedophile rapist got elected is because usians did not make an example of those idiots storming the capitol immediately.
Violence is never the answer, but some people are not asking questions; some people are looking for consequences.
BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING PUNCHED THEIR DUMB FUCK ASS!
Violence in defense of the innocent is always acceptable.
Yeah. I think about it as just as a spoiled child: if you spoil them every time they forms a tantrum, then they'll wrongly learn that doing a tantrum not only doesn't has any consequences, but even that they'll might get rewarded for doing that.
That mysoginistic kiddo was that spoiled child.
Unfortunately a closed fist speaks louder than an open mouth when a person has no intention of listening…
A closed fist results in another closed fist. This attitude is why we have wars.
We know why wars happen in the modern age and it isn’t people punching each other, actually.
lol nah someone calling a weaker person a slur is a little bitch and would not retaliate.
That’s not entirely true, war is far more complex than that…
My point is/was that sometimes a short sharp shock delivers one of two outcomes: it either clarifies someone’s mind or teaches them the important lesson that words have consequences.
I can’t stress enough that it is a final resort though. All other avenues need to have been fully explored first.
Well, as far as misogyny goes, all other avenues have been explored. Extensively, and repeatedly, through more than 100 years of feminism literature and praxis, discussions, and real world research.
Violence has its place, and when the other person is dehumanizing you, that is almost always the place.
In order to explore other avenues, the other person needs to regard you as an equal. For those with authoritarian/fascistic/bigoted leanings among us, the only way for that, is consequences, because the only thing they care about, is consequences.
Yeah, that’s kind of my point. One of the avenues to explore is whether it’s even worth your time to try any civilised approach.
Based
One unfixably foul mouth results in LOTS of closed fists. Lots of closed fists results in someone backing down and surrendering, not closing their fist.
The “unfixably foul” part is the key. We cherish people’s ability to speak their mind, and it may not fully match ours. But “women exist for sexual slavery” is a long, long way from matching anyone’s I ever want to share a room with.
Chances are, he didn’t mean it. So, it’s a lesson: Don’t ever even pretend to mean it.
Bullys and abusers love this mentality. It's the only reason they can keep being bullies and abusers.
Why does everyone seem to assume no violence means no consequences. I don't think a player who calls someone a whore should be allowed back on the rink. Just remove the bully. It's a natural consequence ("we don't want abuse so if you do that you cant be here") that I assure you will be more effective than punching them in the face. And it doesn't require a vigilante justice that risks escalating the situation. That slope is too slippery.
You were obviously never a target of bullies growing up. All that does is teach the bully not to get caught. And generally will invite retaliation against whoever the bully decides is at fault for it, usually whoever "snitched".
But damn few bullies come back and try again after being popped in the nose by the target of their bullying or a bystander. Because they were taught the lesson on the one language they're able to hear it in.
People who've never been in a fight have as much business weighing in on the use of violence as celibate priests have weighing in on sex.
According to Game Theory you have to retaliate once if someone crosses a line.
You need to make it clear that that type of behavior is not acceptable while simultaneously not going too far. Or else you will become a doormat.
In the case of the hockey player, 1 punch is enough. More than 1 punch would cross a line.
Game theory says no such thing.
More in line with actual (but barely relevant) game theory results: In repeated interactions, strategies that respond to bad behavior in proportion, then quickly forgive, tend to do well, and being a bit more forgiving than strict tit-for-tat helps when misunderstandings happen.
The key here is in proportion, and you said it yourself: "while simultaneously not going too far". Responding with physical violence to a verbal attack is disproportionate and it's going too far.
Intolerance for intolerance is needed in a tolerant society and in my opinion punching that person in the face was not too far. That guy needs to learn to not behave like that towards women.
He got swift justice and maybe he will think twice before he does that again.
I don't think violence was the only soultion here. In the best case an adult would have heard what he said, banned him for that game, and calmly explained to him why that is wrong to do and he would improve himself. But from experience with kids behaving like that (depending on the age, young kids might listen) he wouldn't care.
I am not strictly against violence, I am however strictly against murdering people.
Yeah. I think about it as just as a spoiled child: if you spoil them every time they forms a tantrum, then they'll wrongly learn that doing a tantrum not only doesn't has any consequences, but even that they'll might get rewarded for doing that.
I never suggested that it should be tolerated
No, it actually exists, and it's the best strategy: tit-for-tat with forgveness, it's called.
Actually, in hockey it's literally acceptable. Like, there's rules for the fighting.
You do realize the police are only there to protect the state and capital, not you, right? They're more likely to escalate to violence than most regular folk, they're trained to treat everyone as a potential threat. The idea of calling the police over someone calling another person a whore is utterly ridiculous.
OK boomer
You do realize that being obnoxious to people who don't share your support of violence as a teaching method, undermines your whole position? It makes you sound like one of those "I was spanked and I turned out OK" people who did not, in fact, turn out OK.
Parental abuse is a lot different psychologically then just fucking up a peer for their bullshit. But my comments were removed and I have NEVER had that happen on the fediverse before.
I didn't know we were Reddit now -_-
You're posting on a lemmy.world server community and they have rules against talking about illegal things in their countries (Netherlands, Finland, Germany). This includes calls of violence and they consider comments encouraging violence to be illegal/ against the rules. If you go to lemmy.world and scroll to bottom they link to their bylaws.
It started when the united health ceo was murdered. Anyone who showed support of it was getting moderated. Eventually they clarified that we can speak of factual things but we can't make calls for further violence. So i can say i didn't lose any sleep when the united health ceo was murdered. I cant say anything that calls for more violence against other ceos.
The fediverse is great but now you have an extra layer of rules: your server rules (dbzer0 is pretty good), server rules of whatever community you're posting in, and the community rules of the comm you're posting in.
Still gets less moderated than reddit mods who love to powertrip
Sir, this is a Lemmy's.
Fantasy violence against baddies is mandatory.
Who will then do absolutely nothing
If that's true then that's a separate serious problem that needs to be addressed, but it can be done without violence.
Name a time in history that I never has.
Yeah, just ask the paramilitary goombas nicely if they could start enforcing your rights, that always does the trick
What if its the police escalating to violence?
If they were adults, violence definitely would have been accepted as it's part of the game.
Not a sucker punch in the face at faceoff, but an actual fight after the play starts. It's literally part of the sport.
In the context of hockey, escalation to violence is not only acceptable, it's an integral aspect of the sport.
It's hockey.
Eye by Eye, Tooth by Tooth. If you don't want to be abused, you should not abuse to start.
Amount dislikes this comment got pains me We should teach children to resolve verbal conflicts without physical retaliation, not reward behavior of escalation to physical violence
Calling someone a "whore" isn't a disagreement, it's violence.
Slurs should be met with direct violence EVERY time.
Who decides what a slur is?
I do.
You’re doing the far-right bullshit thing of treating the fact that a position requires (gasp) human judgment as an argument against the position itself. “Who gets to decide what’s fair?” “Who gets to decide what constitutes harm?” “Who gets to decide what’s reasonable?” They act like these are impossible questions that somehow invalidate the whole idea. If you’re an adult and have any confidence in your own morality, you should be able to make judgment calls. I promise it really isn’t an impossible dilemma unless you’re a moral relativist coward.
Anyone with a brain. It’s not a complicated thing to understand.
Not the trash on this site.
Fuck that shit. Look at the president! Punch them in the fucking head.
Cheng Xin, is that you?