A place for violence

Here, one should take his cue from the unsurpassed and unsurpassable greatest martial artist of all time, Bruce Lee


Link to video.

and walk away. There are few actions one can take here that would improve the situation rather than escalate it. Grab your groceries, walk to the cashier, pay for them, and walk out.



Again, this seems to be based on an assumption that the UCLP is going to be unresponsive to not only a well recognized slur that is waaaaaaay beyond the pale, but a potentially dangerous situation.


It is his job to handle unpleasant situations, situations which may include strong language. It is not an invalid to assume he is capable of handling them.
 
Asked and answered.

Why would I assume that the guy grinning at me is doing so because of my race? That would literally be the last thing on my mind.

I wouldn't assume that the guy doing his job would get fired, for doing his job properly. I would assume that if he does his job properly, he'd be fine.

I'd move out of the way and let these two gentlemen settle their differences. It does not concern me.

And like I said, the race of the people involved would not even be on my mind in this scenario. I would just be thinking: "Uh oh there is going to be a fight? Is this crazy guy grinning at me? What? I'm getting out of the way"
 
In my younger and stupider days I started fights. I found that really most witnesses have no idea about who "threw the first punch," although they think that they do. The person who appears out of control is almost always credited with throwing the first punch.

The guy in this case used a word I have used in the past for exactly the same purpose. It is on a list I called "lose your mind words." The intent of lose your mind words is that when said quietly the other person will lose their mind, loudly, so that when I hit them most witnesses would say they started it and I just defended myself.

To make that list a word has to be effective, and despite the "training" for his not much above minimum wage job I am not really sure the UCLP wouldn't lose their mind when it was used. I'm also not seeing a good reason to assume that the guy applying the "lose your mind" word isn't going to follow it with a punch that will cost the UCLP his job anyway.
 
warpus said:
Why would I assume that the guy grinning at me is doing so because of my race? That would literally be the last thing on my mind.

The white privilege is real
 
Why would I assume that the guy grinning at me is doing so because of my race? That would literally be the last thing on my mind.

If you can watch a white guy call a black guy a n***** and not have race be on your mind I have to ask where you keep your mind.
 
You're initial premise is that sometimes violence is the answer. I agree with that. But I don't see that your scenario has anything to do with that; at least not yet. Certainly nothing presented that suggests that I should start an altercation.

For what, to make a hypothetical black kid who's not even there feel better about Whitey?
I'm going to let UCLP do his job. It's kind of patronizing not to.

I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think it has something to do with role reversals or something.
 
I would step back and let the UCLP sort it out.
And he should probably reply to the dad along the same lines, as he was addressed.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
I was hoping to hear your opinion, but can you genuinely put yourself in the white skin of the hypothetical?

You mean the UCLP guy's friend?
 
To make that list a word has to be effective, and despite the "training" for his not much above minimum wage job I am not really sure the UCLP wouldn't lose their mind when it was used. I'm also not seeing a good reason to assume that the guy applying the "lose your mind" word isn't going to follow it with a punch that will cost the UCLP his job anyway.

Now we're getting somewhere. You assume the black guy is too stupid to control himself when someone calls him a [filter won't let me use that word here] and he's going to get in a fight. And you're projecting that racism onto me.

What I'm watching for is what if the dad pulls a knife or a gun.
 
You're initial premise is that sometimes violence is the answer. I agree with that. But I don't see that your scenario has anything to do with that; at least not yet. Certainly nothing presented that suggests that I should start an altercation.

My question here is: how do we define "starting" an altercation? Is it not an altercation until actual violence happens? Just how much do we allow under the banner of "well, it isn't a real altercation yet"?

For what, to make a hypothetical black kid who's not even there feel better about Whitey?
I'm going to let UCLP do his job. It's kind of patronizing not to.

This was a really good point. Not the part about the hypothetical kid outside the hypothetical scenario, because I think that kid very clearly exists, in the millions. The part about whether it is patronizing.

I think the answer to that rests on whether my assessment of his employment circumstances is correct. I genuinely believe that if the UCLP were a white guy he would have a much better chance to say "the guy attacked me and the fight was unavoidable" and come away keeping his job. I also genuinely believe that if the UCLP were a white guy that at least in the jurisdiction that I live in he would have a much better chance of the cops who would inevitably arrive not arresting him.

In light of those genuine beliefs I don't consider it patronizing to recognize the situation is pretty obviously a no win scenario for the UCLP, and that his skin color is what makes it such.

I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think it has something to do with role reversals or something.

It's actually more about exploring whether "bystanders" have any responsibilities in the world they are standing in. As mentioned earlier, corporations have eliminated any responsibility a store owner may have. How far off the hook is joe six-pack passing through the store?
 
Now we're getting somewhere. You assume the black guy is too stupid to control himself when someone calls him a [filter won't let me use that word here] and he's going to get in a fight. And you're projecting that racism onto me.

What I'm watching for is what if the dad pulls a knife or a gun.

Not at all. Stupidity has nothing to do with it. In the first place, I don't assume that stupidity is a prerequisite for getting in a fight. In the second, I am still not sure we have arrived at a definition of "in a fight" that leaves a question for the UCLP about "getting in" or not. Some people would consider the fight to have already started whether he likes it or not.

On what you are "watching for"...if he does?

Does the possibility that he might give anyone pause in their previous answers?
 
Yeah, though "friend" may be overstating, depending on how you draw lines between friend and acquaintance.

Being white myself, I don't need to put myself in his white skin - assuming that's what you meant.

I dunno, I've never been in a real physical fight in my life, so I don't think I would attack Mr. Racist Dad or anything.

I would probably try to intervene if UCLP started losing a fight, and I would definitely back him up to the cops, and would (verbally) make my hostility to Mr. Racist Dad clear.
 
Being white myself, I don't need to put myself in his white skin - assuming that's what you meant.

It was...my mistake.

I dunno, I've never been in a real physical fight in my life, so I don't think I would attack Mr. Racist Dad or anything.

I would probably try to intervene if UCLP started losing a fight, and I would definitely back him up to the cops, and would (verbally) make my hostility to Mr. Racist Dad clear.

I'd like to note that I think you are the first to even mention "attack Mr Racist Dad" in terms that acknowledge it as a possibility.
 
I've recently been taken to task over my willingness to embrace violence. This prompts me to open a discussion of a situation we'll call a hypothetical.

Assume you are a white person. Not because a white person is vastly different from person in general, but in the construction of the hypothetical situation there will be people who base their actions on the color of your skin, so for the situation to make sense this is a prerequisite.

I will construct the situation piece by piece. Please be patient.

Location: a store you frequent. Corner mini-mart, drug store, whatever. Not a big supermarket; too many employees and probably too crowded (make that too many people...the bigger store means they aren't really 'crowded,' but we have to limit the overall number). 'Frequent" means just that. This isn't an auto parts store where you buy brake pads every few years when they wear out. This is a store where you buy milk, or beer, or smokes, you go there often enough that the cashiers know your brand when you say "two packs."

The players:

Undercover loss prevention specialist. This guy is a store employee. He hangs around the store in street clothes, looking for shoplifters. You know him, because you come in often enough that his "cover" just doesn't work. At some point you struck up a conversation with him, and found out you have some common interests in sports. Having someone to talk to actually makes him less obvious in his hanging around not shopping, so when you aren't in a hurry you stop and converse with him. You don't even know each other's names, but on some superficial level you might consider him a friend.

A kid. This kid is mid teens. He's been caught boosting some small thing from the store at some point. He was given a pass, but told not to come back in the store. Getting a pass was a gift, since store policy actually requires holding such miscreants and filing a police report, but with youngsters boosting small items there's a hope that a simple "scared straight" will be at least as effective and maybe more...plus, when such a miscreant has to be held for a few hours until the cops show up there's a good chance his miscreant friends came in the store with him and keeping an eye on them is more useful anyway.

Scene.

You are talking to loss prevention guy (UCLP) about <sport of choice> when he sees the kid down an aisle. He has to go after the kid. You tag along, sort of on autopilot, expecting a quick "beat it kid" and return to conversation. UCLP provides the expected dialog, something along the lines of "I told you before not to come back in the store."

Enter unexpectedly, coming around the end of the aisle, Kid's dad. His entry line is "Get away from my kid." This being pretty reasonable, UCLP steps back. At this point some sort of explanation is required. UCLP says "My apologies. I'm a store employee assigned to loss prevention. Your son and I have met before. Anything he wants to tell you about that is his business, but the result is that he isn't welcome in the store. As long as you are with him though it will be okay."

Dad's response is "I don't care, you don't talk to my kid." He's obviously agitated. Coming down off adrenaline rush of defending his kid maybe, starting to consider why his kid is banned from the store maybe and get mad at the kid, hard to tell.

UCLP seems to give him some benefit of the doubt, and apologizes again. "Sorry about that. I have a job to do so sometimes I have to talk to people in the store." At this point there seems to be nothing more to say that would be productive, and he takes a step back, putting him arms reach from you.

Dad takes backing away as backing down, and puffs up like a banty rooster. He moves quickly forward, getting close enough to speak in a low voice and be heard, and says "Swing at me <your guess is no doubt accurate> and lose your job." He looks at you, who are standing close enough to hear him clearly, with a grin that says that he fully expects you, since you are on the "right side" of a skin color equation, to have his back in whatever happens when the cops get there.

Soooooo...what is the appropriate action here?

What does UCLP mean? Black person?? (cause if not then you waited till the end to allude to that employee not being white).

As for what to do... Ehm, why should you do anything? Jerks exist. Not seeing how the stealing kid had to be in this hypothetical either, given if one is a jerk he can just insult someone without any context at all; they only care being of the view they will get away with it.
And obviously violence would not help anyone. Not you obviously. Not the employee either.
 
I'm going to put the scene in a small town in Alabama. In Seattle, Angry Dad would not assume I'm an ally.

So, we're all on our home turf, and we all know the score. Angry Dad is intimidating because he expects it will work. So far, everyone is on script.

I take a step back to indicate that this show is wasted on me, it's for the boy only. Maybe I shoot the kid a sympathetic look, maybe not, depends on how I read things. It should end here, with dad and kid stalking off. UCLP and I both give wattayagonnado shrugs; we are not brought closer by the shared experience, we are are already as close are we are ever going to be, and we both know it.

If anyone's going to go off-script, it's got to be UCLP. Maybe he steps forward, gets in-the-face. At this point, tactical details matter: Dad got a knife?, is it Saturday night?, etc.
 
If you can watch a white guy call a black guy a n***** and not have race be on your mind I have to ask where you keep your mind.

Wait, this was in your hypothetical? Because if so I missed it. Where is it? I still don't see it. Can you quote it? (It's very possible I am just not seeing it in your initial post. I've had a long day. This could be on me.)

If it is, then I would definitely approach the situation differently. I mean, some guy grinning at me is a COMPLETELY different situation than a guy calling another guy a racist term and then looking at me and grinning, assuming I'm "on his side"

As for those throwing around "white privilege" idiocy, now I know who to ignore. Thanks!
 
What does UCLP mean? Black person?? (cause if not then you waited till the end to allude to that employee not being white).

As for what to do... Ehm, why should you do anything? Jerks exist. Not seeing how the stealing kid had to be in this hypothetical either, given if one is a jerk he can just insult someone without any context at all; they only care being of the view they will get away with it.
And obviously violence would not help anyone. Not you obviously. Not the employee either.

In the introduction of the players there was UCLP...Under Cover Loss Prevention.

Presence of the kid, the job of the UCLP...context for the situation that I think gives it a different flavor from "random jerk just being a jerk."

As to your conclusion, that's really what is being explored. Is it really obvious that violence won't help anyone? Most specifically the employee.

And what constitutes violence in the first place? Consider, what will the UCLP recover from faster, a bloody nose or a lass of his job? Is this jerk not trying to harm him? Harm him even more than he could by just up and hitting him in the nose?
 
Wait, this was in your hypothetical? Because if so I missed it. Where is it? I still don't see it. Can you quote it? (It's very possible I am just not seeing it in your initial post. I've had a long day. This could be on me.)

If it is, then I would definitely approach the situation differently. I mean, some guy grinning at me is a COMPLETELY different situation than a guy calling another guy a racist term and then looking at me and grinning, assuming I'm "on his side"

As for those throwing around "white privilege" idiocy, now I know who to ignore. Thanks!

I pretty thoroughly put it in "fill in the blank" terms that I thought were obvious, so it's not your fault that they weren't obvious. My apologies. I was trying to be a little less blatant than I eventually got to in answering your question because I was too lazy to look up the rules.

But, now you are definitely on to the situation as I intended to present it.
 
Back
Top Bottom