It sounds horrible, but I think we lost something when we made it impossible to get away with fighting someone for doing stupid shit. There’s too many cameras now and, even if they started it by doing something antagonistic, you’ll be arrested and held accountable because they technically didn’t assault you. If this happened in like the 50s (discounting race and everything else, only his actions), he’d get his ass kicked. Everyone around would likely support it.
Now, the only social system to punish them is shaming, and shaming them is exactly what they want. Shaming them gives them publicity. Publicity gets them money. Literally the best option is to ignore them, which absolutely does nothing to stop it, but at least it doesn’t encourage it.
I’m not saying we should go back to the 50s. I’m only saying that sometimes people need consequences, like you said. If the legal system can’t provide it, we need an extra-legal solution, and we don’t have that anymore. We did in the past, though it was often used for evil (lynching and lots of racist/homophobic/other-phobic stuff), it also served a purpose.
Agreed. Shame is weaponized by the shameless, especially in our “attention as currency” culture, and other consequences are necessary to maintain a polite self-policed society. I think a lot of laws about this kind of thing were written for legal expediency over sociological improvement.
I do believe some places have “mutual combat” and “fighting words” clauses.
Basically, if you’re willingly antagonizing and harassing somehody with insults and/or threats, especially depending on severity, they get some leeway in shutting you up if asking nicely doesn’t help.
Mutual combat is basically the law being looser when “two people agreed to fight each other” which, I dunno, it felt worth mentioning lol.
Unfortunately I think we’re seeing a breakdown of humans keeping each other in check and willingness to act based on a severely litigious society (engaging with the law can quickly ruin your life even if you’re innocent), and adult expectations mimicking the inneffectual “zero tolerance” policies of failed school systems, where any physical contact for any reason is your fault, and you’re supposed to go tattle to government and let them slowly do nothing if somebody is being a problem.
On one hand, you’re right, at least this legal framework somewhat prevents mobs of violent vigilantes enforcing their views on others, but also it cushions and lessens the burden of responsibility from malignant social parasites (like this guy, and the ones in office).
*I assert that this comment is entirely opinion and I’m by no means a lawyer. This should be obvious because Internet. Lol
It sounds horrible, but I think we lost something when we made it impossible to get away with fighting someone for doing stupid shit. There’s too many cameras now and, even if they started it by doing something antagonistic, you’ll be arrested and held accountable because they technically didn’t assault you. If this happened in like the 50s (discounting race and everything else, only his actions), he’d get his ass kicked. Everyone around would likely support it.
Now, the only social system to punish them is shaming, and shaming them is exactly what they want. Shaming them gives them publicity. Publicity gets them money. Literally the best option is to ignore them, which absolutely does nothing to stop it, but at least it doesn’t encourage it.
I’m not saying we should go back to the 50s. I’m only saying that sometimes people need consequences, like you said. If the legal system can’t provide it, we need an extra-legal solution, and we don’t have that anymore. We did in the past, though it was often used for evil (lynching and lots of racist/homophobic/other-phobic stuff), it also served a purpose.
Agreed. Shame is weaponized by the shameless, especially in our “attention as currency” culture, and other consequences are necessary to maintain a polite self-policed society. I think a lot of laws about this kind of thing were written for legal expediency over sociological improvement.
I do believe some places have “mutual combat” and “fighting words” clauses.
Basically, if you’re willingly antagonizing and harassing somehody with insults and/or threats, especially depending on severity, they get some leeway in shutting you up if asking nicely doesn’t help.
Mutual combat is basically the law being looser when “two people agreed to fight each other” which, I dunno, it felt worth mentioning lol.
Unfortunately I think we’re seeing a breakdown of humans keeping each other in check and willingness to act based on a severely litigious society (engaging with the law can quickly ruin your life even if you’re innocent), and adult expectations mimicking the inneffectual “zero tolerance” policies of failed school systems, where any physical contact for any reason is your fault, and you’re supposed to go tattle to government and let them slowly do nothing if somebody is being a problem.
On one hand, you’re right, at least this legal framework somewhat prevents mobs of violent vigilantes enforcing their views on others, but also it cushions and lessens the burden of responsibility from malignant social parasites (like this guy, and the ones in office).
*I assert that this comment is entirely opinion and I’m by no means a lawyer. This should be obvious because Internet. Lol