A place for violence

[Timsup2nothin]

It's interesting how a lot of non-Americans were confused by the racial angle. Tim didn't specifically say the father was white and the security guard was black but judging from the description that's what I assumed.

In the initial description I specified that you, the bystander had to be white, and that other people would react to you based on that. I also said that the dad considered you to be "on the right side of the skin color equation." While it was a little bit subtle, it was definitive that he was white also.

I wonder, a bit, whether people who missed that were just thrown off by the designated criminal (shoplifter teen) and the aggressive thug (racist dad) not being the usual suspects.

 

[NovaKart]

I understood it but a lot of people didn't but a lot of people commenting here aren't from America and aren't necessarily as familiar with race issues as they play out in america, although people in many European countries have their own issues with race, just different.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The fight, obviously, only start when someone throw a physical assault.
The confrontation or aggression, though... that's a much blurry line, which will defined very differently depending on the person.

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.

 

[trader/warrior]

I think the race confusion had to do with OP basically starting with "You are white, this is important for the scenario", then continuing with introducing UCLP guy in some detail but making no mention of his race though that is equally important. Us undiverse euros (or others) have then already formed a picture of UCLP guy, probably that of a white person by default (subconcious biases and such). Then it goes all the way until the "<your guess is no doubt accurate>" bit when the race of UCLP guy is relevant again, and I honestly just interpreted that as "insert vulgarity of your choice" rather than a racial epithet. Then I was thrown off by the "since you are on the "right side" of a skin color equation" bit at the very end, but didn't quite get it until the later posts that clarified.

 

[Gori the Grey]

For whatever it might be worth, I understood the racial dimension, but it had little bearing on my response. The scenario evoked a prejudice more powerful in me than anything having to do with race: against parents who take their kids' side right or wrong. That's what made the dad a douche in my view, and I'd have backed the UCLP up the same way regardless of race. No thought of his losing his job even so much as occurred to me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For whatever it might be worth, I understood the racial dimension, but it had little bearing on my response. The scenario evoked a prejudice more powerful in me than anything having to do with race: against parents who take their kids' side right or wrong. That's what made the dad a douche in my view, and I'd have backed the UCLP up the same way regardless of race. No thought of his losing his job even so much as occurred to me.

Thing is that even that had a gigantic racial component. In the real event the hypothetical was based on the UCLP recognized clearly that the dad wasn't so much "my kid right or wrong" as he was "your kind doesn't talk to my kid." It didn't convey well in the hypothetical, but in the real the UCLP had no doubt that he was about to get hit. The hatred boiling off the guy was unmistakable.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, if that was as certain, why didn't it happen?

Cause it seems very strange that (even in the US with its issues with race war) an employee can so easily just risk being hit by a random person inside the store, let alone with a witness around.

Now if the parent was drunk, or insane, it would explain such a threat. Without that i am just not seeing this as a likely scenario.

I also don't agree with pre-emptively hitting someone, cause you felt they would hit you, regardless of the context. And being in a store, you being a clerk, another person there as witness, possibly also cameras, makes your feeling of being hit or worse not as rational.

 

[Akka]

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.

This doesn't disagree with the definitions I gave (though I might have been using "aggression" in a wrong manner ; now that I think about it, "fight" and "aggression" could have their meaning reversed compared to what I'm used to).

So let's clear it up a bit : until the first physical strike starts, it's not yet an "assault", but the aggressive situation begins when someone acts with the intent of provoking a confrontation.

By the way, as someone trained in martial art, I agree that either you don't fight at all, or you fight until the guy can't fight back - no half-measures.

I wonder, a bit, whether people who missed that were just thrown off by the designated criminal (shoplifter teen) and the aggressive thug (racist dad) not being the usual suspects.

Would it ever come to your mind that maybe they simply don't live in race-obsessed context and as such treat this information as more background noise than critical information ?

For whatever it might be worth, I understood the racial dimension, but it had little bearing on my response. The scenario evoked a prejudice more powerful in me than anything having to do with race: against parents who take their kids' side right or wrong. That's what made the dad a douche in my view, and I'd have backed the UCLP up the same way regardless of race.

Kinda the same.

 

[red_elk]

Thing is that even that had a gigantic racial component. In the real event the hypothetical was based on the UCLP recognized clearly that the dad wasn't so much "my kid right or wrong" as he was "your kind doesn't talk to my kid." It didn't convey well in the hypothetical, but in the real the UCLP had no doubt that he was about to get hit. The hatred boiling off the guy was unmistakable.

As far as I understand, the UCLP guy should have instructions about what to do in such situations (aggressive customer). Are there legal consequences of dad's actions according to US laws? Could the guy just say something like "Stop talking to me like that and leave the store immediately, or I'll call police"? To me, the situation looks like "just another jerk around" and it's not worth starting fight unless maybe the UCLP is my friend.

 

[Nexlev]

This may have been asked already...

why not just say to the loss prevention guy, "i've got your back on this".

the bad dad will get the message

 

[zxcvbob]

Thing is that even that had a gigantic racial component. In the real event the hypothetical was based on the UCLP recognized clearly that the dad wasn't so much "my kid right or wrong" as he was "your kind doesn't talk to my kid." It didn't convey well in the hypothetical, but in the real the UCLP had no doubt that he was about to get hit. The hatred boiling off the guy was unmistakable.

Perhaps the "gigantic" racial component is all in your imagination? The alleged real event that all this is based on happened when, 40 years ago?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perhaps the "gigantic" racial component is all in your imagination? The alleged real event that all this is based on happened when, 40 years ago?

Well, the UCLP in question is in his mid to late twenties, so, no, not 40 years ago. Race relations have certainly improved, but I'm sort of surprised you think there are no more racists out roaming about.

 

[Phrossack]

What if you're like in the frozen foods section or something? Most people aren't capable of instantly finding a "weapon" in some random part of a supermarket to knock someone out with. I mean maybe you're experienced enough to knock someone out with a soup can. Most people aren't.

Ever read "Lamb to the Slaughter"?

But in all likelihood, I would be frozen in confusion. I might consider making conversation with the UCLPS, or just telling him we should leave, or displaying hostility to Racist Dad, but in the presence of a suitable blunt object, I'd consider either fighting or hitting pre-emptively. That's probably illegal, but this is a case where obeying the law could result in the UCLPS getting shot, me getting shot, or both--Racist Dad is clearly looking for a fight, and if he doesn't get it, may start it himself, perhaps with a gun--this is America, after all.

 

[JohannaK]

that's the worst part. I'd never think anyone could possibly be carrying a gun (unless he's a soldier or security service personnel ofc)

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ever read "Lamb to the Slaughter"?

But in all likelihood, I would be frozen in confusion. I might consider making conversation with the UCLPS, or just telling him we should leave, or displaying hostility to Racist Dad, but in the presence of a suitable blunt object, I'd consider either fighting or hitting pre-emptively. That's probably illegal, but this is a case where obeying the law could result in the UCLPS getting shot, me getting shot, or both--Racist Dad is clearly looking for a fight, and if he doesn't get it, may start it himself, perhaps with a gun--this is America, after all.

And you wouldn't think of looking out the door/window first to see if rasist dad's confidence simply reflected that the rest of the Klu Klax Klan was outside as backup.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm surprised no one before now even mentioned the size of the participants being a potential factor. I left it out initially because, as I said, I consider the possibility that any aggressive person may be armed or highly trained in some sort of combat skills, so I would intentionally not take size into account, but I expected it to be mentioned pretty consistently as a factor.

In the real situation the UCLP was a late twenties guy who had played on the D line for a pretty robust high school football program and despite some softening is still a very imposing guy. The bystander was "of a size" with him, though older and flabbier, and the dad was more the wiry type but not a particularly little guy.

As long as we're in the physical characteristics, something else that might have made a difference. In the actual setting a "wiry type" exhibiting white supremacist beliefs would somewhat automatically suggest involvement with the local meth problem. That may have been an influence on the assumptions about whether actual physical contact was about to happen no matter what the bystander or UCLP might have preferred. Though "hmmmm, must be a meth head" is a distasteful conclusion to leap to unsupported, in a hot second sometimes there's no room to wait for facts and assumptions do get made.

It's not the size of the dog that counts, but the size of the fight in the dog.

Fwiw, I find people that are highly trained in combat skills to be less aggressive for the simple reasons they know what they are capable of and confident in it. They don't start fights - they finish them.

My experience is the smaller types can often be just as aggressive as larger bullies as they often exhibit they have something to prove, usually to themselves.

 

[Phrossack]

And you wouldn't think of looking out the door/window first to see if rasist dad's confidence simply reflected that the rest of the Klu Klax Klan was outside as backup.

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

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Haven't read any of the replies, but I've read the OP twice and don't get the relevance of race to the question at all. The only race specified is that of the hypothetical version of "me". Am I supposed to infer that some or all of the other players are non-white? Is what I infer actually part of the test? On top of that I didn't even follow the story well enough to even work out what's going on... the undercover guy tries to defuse the situation and the father sees that as weakness and so escalates it... but only by seemingly trying to goad the undercover guy into hitting him verbally, not by actually being violent. He also then smiles at me so isn't threatening me with violence either. Am I supposed to say that I would suddenly start a violent incident when nobody else seems about to start one? And who called the police, or why am I supposed to think that anyone has done or will do?

 

[zxcvbob]

Haven't read any of the replies, but I've read the OP twice and don't get the relevance of race to the question at all. The only race specified is that of the hypothetical version of "me". Am I supposed to infer that some or all of the other players are non-white? Is what I infer actually part of the test? On top of that I didn't even follow the story well enough to even work out what's going on... the undercover guy tries to defuse the situation and the father sees that as weakness and so escalates it... but only by seemingly trying to goad the undercover guy into hitting him verbally, not by actually being violent. He also then smiles at me so isn't threatening me with violence either. Am I supposed to say that I would suddenly start a violent incident when nobody else seems about to start one? And who called the police, or why am I supposed to think that anyone has done or will do?

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.

Well, the UCLP in question is in his mid to late twenties, so, no, not 40 years ago. Race relations have certainly improved, but I'm sort of surprised you think there are no more racists out roaming about.

Sure there are still racists roaming about, but what you've presented is a caricature. A cartoon racist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure there are still racists roaming about, but what you've presented is a caricature. A cartoon racist.

Depends on where you film your cartoons, I suppose.