A place for violence

[Yeekim]

Although I have happily taken advantage of that "obvious" definition of when the fight starts, I don't agree with it. Letting the other guy get off first just to avoid "starting" the fight is a quick ticket to losing. It's fine in the schoolyard in junior high, where losing the fight is maybe a little bit of lost reputation, but when the stakes are higher losing sucks.

Somebody makes it reasonably clear that they are willing, and might very well hit somebody, I see no reason to let them just to be certain they really will.

Can't argue with that... but then again, I think it is a reasonably good bet that the aggressor might back down before things get physical, if he realizes the situation is shaping into 1vs2 rather than 1vs1.
On the other hand, I see why one might prefer to solve it your way.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The "twist" is that the teen shoplifter is white (apparently he's supposed to be black) and this somehow changes everything. The dad is a racist (I think the storyteller is the real racist) and that's supposed to be justification for giving him a beatdown.

I just pictured everyone as being white. This could be because:

a) I'm massively racist.
b) I come from a country where most people are white so that's just how my imagination works.
c) The question stated that me being white was relevant, and so I assumed I would be told when someone black* entered the situation and this never happened.

* is it also racist to assume the other non-white race had to be black?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I suppose you're being sarcastic, but no, that is fantastically unlikely.

When encountered by an aggressive man, one of the first things
I do is look around and behind me to see whether he has support.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think former professional bank robbers are unqualified to judge non-violent protests even if they aren't violent themselves (anymore), in the same way former neo Nazis are unqualified to talk about a surplus of jews in the media and/or entertainment industry, even if by now they denounced their former Nazi affliations.

 

[Phrossack]

When encountered by an aggressive man, one of the first things
I do is look around and behind me to see whether he has support.

The scenario Tim put forth did not state that Racist Dad had backup of any kind, so, for the purposes of this scenario, I figured it was safe to assume he didn't have any.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The scenario Tim put forth did not state that Racist Dad had backup of any kind, so, for the purposes of this scenario, I figured it was safe to assume he didn't have any.

It also didn't state that anyone was black, but then it turns out they are and that it was hugely relevant.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It also didn't state that anyone was black, but then it turns out they are and that it was hugely relevant.

As has been previously discussed, it pretty much did. Sorry you didn't get it.

 

[BvBPL]

So a lot of people have provided their initial thoughts on this matter. I’m curious what happens if we change things up a bit.

In the initial description of the hypothetical, the store detective seems to behave himself in a generally upstanding manner in which few people could find blame. However, not every interaction between children and authority figures occurs with such decorum. If the store detective behaved in a somewhat less civil manner, does that change how you would act vis-à-vis the father’s statement to the detective? For example, would your course of action change if the store detective grabbed the child by his shoulder and spun him around? If he called the child a punk or otherwise insulted him? Would it matter if it was a racial insult? A religious one? Would it matter if he called the child a bastard as that insult is about the father as much as the child? What if he insulted the child’s parentage on the distaff side? Most people found the father’s statement outrageous, would it be any more acceptable if the store detective’s actions were uncivil and unprofessional? If not acceptable, would the father’s actions become excusable at some point? At what point of outrageous behavior by the store detective do you change your course of action, assuming the father’s response remains the same?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As has been previously discussed, it pretty much did. Sorry you didn't get it.

Well it didn't though did it. I still don't get whether it was intentionaly to only very indirectly imply it, as if that was part of the test or something. I assume it must have been as I can't see any reason to seemingly deliberately avoid making it clear otherwise.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well it didn't though did it. I still don't get whether it was intentionaly to only very indirectly imply it, as if that was part of the test or something. I assume it must have been as I can't see any reason to seemingly deliberately avoid making it clear otherwise.

There are some forums where even an implication of the racial slur used is unacceptable. So I did the first post skirting it as indirectly as I could, expecting that having explicitly said that the bystander is white and the dad saw the bystander as being on the "same side of the race equation" would clue people in as to what the not quoted slur being avoided was. This had worked well on those other forums, perhaps because there making such a roundabout reference points to a short list of words that they just don't allow. It seems that many people here also recognized it for what it was. When some people before you didn't get it I clarified. It wasn't an intentional "test," but I do find some of the confusion interesting.

I also note that among your criticism of how the scenario was presented, which has now been repeatedly clarified, you seem to not be responding to the issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So a lot of people have provided their initial thoughts on this matter. I’m curious what happens if we change things up a bit.

In the initial description of the hypothetical, the store detective seems to behave himself in a generally upstanding manner in which few people could find blame. However, not every interaction between children and authority figures occurs with such decorum. If the store detective behaved in a somewhat less civil manner, does that change how you would act vis-à-vis the father’s statement to the detective? For example, would your course of action change if the store detective grabbed the child by his shoulder and spun him around? If he called the child a punk or otherwise insulted him? Would it matter if it was a racial insult? A religious one? Would it matter if he called the child a bastard as that insult is about the father as much as the child? What if he insulted the child’s parentage on the distaff side? Most people found the father’s statement outrageous, would it be any more acceptable if the store detective’s actions were uncivil and unprofessional? If not acceptable, would the father’s actions become excusable at some point? At what point of outrageous behavior by the store detective do you change your course of action, assuming the father’s response remains the same?

That is an interesting question. My initial reaction makes it difficult to answer, because my experience with people in low end retail jobs is that they suck down enormous amounts of abuse and if they ever break and respond in any sort of unprofessional way they get fired. So hypothesizing the UCLP saying something offensive that sets off the dad requires hypothesizing a UCLP who would risk being overheard saying such a thing and such a UCLP would be unemployed, probably long before the encounter in question.

In fact, I just can't picture the exchange proceeding along that line. If the UCLP said something really egregious, and certainly if he put hands on the kid, the dad would almost certainly go directly to management and demand an immediate firing.

The moral dilemma for the bystander there is whether to lie for your friend who is really just an acquaintance in the face of them clearly not performing in their job. To me that's not much of a dilemma, since if they have reached that breaking point they aren't going to last anyway and need to just move on.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There are some forums where even an implication of the racial slur used is unacceptable. So I did the first post skirting it as indirectly as I could, expecting that having explicitly said that the bystander is white and the dad saw the bystander as being on the "same side of the race equation" would clue people in as to what the not quoted slur being avoided was. This had worked well on those other forums, perhaps because there making such a roundabout reference points to a short list of words that they just don't allow. It seems that many people here also recognized it for what it was. When some people before you didn't get it I clarified. It wasn't an intentional "test," but I do find some of the confusion interesting.

Well one problem was that it wasn't even really implied that the slur you censored was even racial. By the time you mention "same side of the race equation" the story is pretty much over. So yes, while on second (or multiple) readings there is about enough information in there to work out what was going on, the fact that you left the crucial hint until right at the end makes it look like the reader is not meant to realise the full picture until that point And even then you can only really deduce that he's non-white, not necessarily black (which may or may not be enough I suppose). Which in turn makes it look like that's part of the question/test. If it isn't, then why not just clearly state "the store detective guy is black" when you first introduce him?

I also note that among your criticism of how the scenario was presented, which has now been repeatedly clarified, you seem to not be responding to the issue.

Well I did also outline other things that confused me about the question, such as the fact that, as worded, there didn't seem to be any indication that anyone else in the scenario was about to be violent, which would imply that the question is about whether or not I would initiate violence in response to a verbal insult. But then maybe I misread it and you were implying that things were about to "kick off" anyway, in which case the question is then about how I would react to that. I also didn't get why there was the implication that the police would be appearing on the scene, since nothing had apparently happened that would warrant that at that point. I also don't know if your question is specificially "would you punch a racist guy" or a more general "would you punch a jerk".

Anyway, if you want a direct answer it is that no, I wouldn't just spontaneously punch a guy in the face just for being a dick to someone else. I don't see why that would be a good thing to do.

 

[BvBPL]

In fact, I just can't picture the exchange proceeding along that line. If the UCLP said something really egregious, and certainly if he put hands on the kid, the dad would almost certainly go directly to management and demand an immediate firing.

Huh? You think that if the store detective put his hand on the child then in that case the father, who previously responded to a verbal confrontation with an outrageous insult, would instead be the one to deescalate the situation by bringing in a third party. If we are already assuming that the father would react to a verbal confrontation in an outrageous manner, it seems unlikely that his response would lessen in the case of an initial physical confrontation by the store detective.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well one problem was that it wasn't even really implied that the slur you censored was even racial. By the time you mention "same side of the race equation" the story is pretty much over. So yes, while on second (or multiple) readings there is about enough information in there to work out what was going on, the fact that you left the crucial hint until right at the end makes it look like the reader is not meant to realise the full picture until that point And even then you can only really deduce that he's non-white, not necessarily black (which may or may not be enough I suppose). Which in turn makes it look like that's part of the question/test. If it isn't, then why not just clearly state "the store detective guy is black" when you first introduce him?



Well I did also outline other things that confused me about the question, such as the fact that, as worded, there didn't seem to be any indication that anyone else in the scenario was about to be violent, which would imply that the question is about whether or not I would initiate violence in response to a verbal insult. But then maybe I misread it and you were implying that things were about to "kick off" anyway, in which case the question is then about how I would react to that. I also didn't get why there was the implication that the police would be appearing on the scene, since nothing had apparently happened that would warrant that at that point. I also don't know if your question is specificially "would you punch a racist guy" or a more general "would you punch a jerk".

Anyway, if you want a direct answer it is that no, I wouldn't just spontaneously punch a guy in the face just for being a dick to someone else. I don't see why that would be a good thing to do.

So take that step...that even though I failed to word it clearly things are indeed "about to kick off." One could, perhaps, infer that from the implication that the police were going to be involved, since if nothing "kicked off" they probably wouldn't.

And just to make it interesting for those who have already exhausted the opening scenario, let's change the UCLP to a black woman. Do those who insist on waiting for racist dad to "start it" still stand by until the UCLP takes the first punch?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Huh? You think that if the store detective put his hand on the child then in that case the father, who previously responded to a verbal confrontation with an outrageous insult, would instead be the one to deescalate the situation by bringing in a third party. If we are already assuming that the father would react to a verbal confrontation in an outrageous manner, it seems unlikely that his response would lessen in the case of an initial physical confrontation by the store detective.

Yeah, that's a fair point. I am just having a hard time getting my head around it. The UCLP putting their hands on the kid would have to be pretty close to a first time break, otherwise they'd have already been fired. The coincidence of such a first time break happening just when racist dad's kid comes along is hard for me to get with.

I suspect that before racist dad even got around the corner I'd be saying something like "easy there" to the UCLP, particularly if I considered them more a friend than an acquaintance.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So take that step...that even though I failed to word it clearly things are indeed "about to kick off." One could, perhaps, infer that from the implication that the police were going to be involved, since if nothing "kicked off" they probably wouldn't.

But nothing in your OP implies that anything is about to kick off, so me deciding to pre-empt that would be a very different answer to if I was just responding to a violent situation that started without me. Until that point I'd have to assume that it was none of my business and dealing with a verbal confrontation is presumably part of the job of the store detective and something he'd have at least some basic training for. If the other guy did start something then at that point I might step in to defend the store detective or try and stop things escalating, but even then I don't really see how the race of any of the participants would have any bearing on what I did.

And just to make it interesting for those who have already exhausted the opening scenario, let's change the UCLP to a black woman. Do those who insist on waiting for racist dad to "start it" still stand by until the UCLP takes the first punch?

So now, not only do I have to initiate violence, but I have to white knight as well? No thanks.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But nothing in your OP implies that anything is about to kick off, so me deciding to pre-empt that would be a very different answer to if I was just responding to a violent situation that started without me. Until that point I'd have to assume that it was none of my business and dealing with a verbal confrontation is presumably part of the job of the store detective and something he'd have at least some basic training for. If the other guy did start something then at that point I might step in to defend the store detective or try and stop things escalating, but even then I don't really see how the race of any of the participants would have any bearing on what I did.



So now, not only do I have to initiate violence, but I have to white knight as well? No thanks.

Got it. Your only interest here is blazingly critiquing the "vagueness" of the OP. Noted. I'll try to meet your high standards next time and hopefully you will then be able to participate. You may go now.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Got it. Your only interest here is blazingly critiquing the "vagueness" of the OP. Noted. I'll try to meet your high standards next time and hopefully you will then be able to participate. You may go now.

Except I just gave you a pretty direct answer. And I did so in the post before too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Except I just gave you a pretty direct answer. And I did so in the post before too.

Agreed. You simplified the problem out of existence with "well, the OP was vague so I'll assume there is absolutely no indication there will be any physical violence if I just let it be" and said "so there's no reason to do anything but just let it be." No sweat. I agree with you completely. If it is absolutely crystal clear that racist dad is calling the UCLP a <epithet again vaguely deleted> and charging into his space in <what I can't keep you from assuming is> a manner indicating that he is absolutely not going to hit anyone, there is really nothing further to be done.

And since you are not allowing any challenges to your assumptions about the non-problem there is nothing more to be said.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Agreed. You simplified the problem out of existence with "well, the OP was vague so I'll assume there is absolutely no indication there will be any physical violence if I just let it be" and said "so there's no reason to do anything but just let it be." No sweat. I agree with you completely. If it is absolutely crystal clear that racist dad is calling the UCLP a <epithet again vaguely deleted> and charging into his space in <what I can't keep you from assuming is> a manner indicating that he is absolutely not going to hit anyone, there is really nothing further to be done.

And since you are not allowing any challenges to your assumptions about the non-problem there is nothing more to be said.

Well you can't really criticise me for answering "how would you react to this scenario" by saying how I would react to the scenario as I see it described, and as it's described I see no indication that it's about to get violent. Yes, you said he charged into his space, but you then said he was "getting close enough to be heard speaking in a low voice" and what he said appeared to be daring the other guy to make a move. He then breaks eye contact with the guy and looks at me. He's still not hit anyone. To me it looks like he's trying to provoke someone else into making the first move. You wrote a scenario which is very open to interpretation, but then you're getting annoyed that I'm not interpreting it the way you wanted it to be interpreted. Why didn't you just write it in a less ambiguous way if you don't want people to come up with their own interpretations?

But in any case, I did also say how I would react (or might react at least) if it did get violent. I also explained why I would act the way I said I would act. So is that not a complete answer?