Leave people the fuck alone! God I can't believe some of the posts here. So basically a lot of you think people are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to do to you as long as they don't touch you. It's fucking ridiculous.
A person annoying someone else is not sufficient grounds for the latter to engage in violent retaliation. There were obvious non-violent solutions to the situation, yet Tyson decided the best course of action was to take matters into his own hands and engage in assault and battery, which, last I checked, is still a crime. Violence is only acceptable when it's in defending oneself or others from violence. "Talk shit, get hit" is something hot-headed teenagers believe in, but should not be considered an acceptable philosophy among adults.
Lord... The truth.
And did anybody check on Amy Schumer?
Is Amy OK?
you are putting words in the mouths of a whole lot of peopleso many white ppl in this thread just showing they have no idea what their privilege affords them in the real world.
you flip this situation and have a drunk obnoxious black person or visible minority who refuses to respect the personal space of a famous white person (fuck doesn't even have to be famous in this situation just white lol), and that individual will be immediately told to leave the person alone by the staff, and if they refuse possibly even arrested. It's even likely if the staff noticed that individual was drunk or somewhat intoxicated prior to boarding the plane, they would already be watching their actions in case a situation escalated. Oh but when it's the white person who is slightly intoxicated, nothing to worry about let that person go about their business, which I guess includes straight bothering a black person until he decides to remedy the situation himself and it becomes his fault.
Last I checked, abortion was now illegal in a few states. You gonna go condemn that too?A person annoying someone else is not sufficient grounds for the latter to engage in violent retaliation. There were obvious non-violent solutions to the situation, yet Tyson decided the best course of action was to take matters into his own hands and engage in assault and battery, which, last I checked, is still a crime. Violence is only acceptable when it's in defending oneself or others from violence. "Talk shit, get hit" is something hot-headed teenagers believe in, but should not be considered an acceptable philosophy among adults.
ERA posters would be standing in that temple going, "No, Jesus. This is wrong. There are actual adult ways to resolve this" 👉👈
this glorification of violence is not healthy for a society. it is along the same vector of thought that leads to stand-your-own laws, road rage and good guy with a gun fantasies
It's only unnecessary if you're privileged enough to not have to think about that every single second of every single day of your life. We don't ever get to ignore race.
It's funny you point these things out when they have their roots in the oppression of Black people.
I remember that video of the kid being power bombed!LOL, right? It was like that Simpson's episode where Homer's brain just straight up grabbed a suitcase and walked out of his head XD XD
Lol thanks! It's just that sometimes people get pushed too far, and they snap. Like that video of that short kid bullying that bigger kid, and the kid just power bombs him because he had fucking had enough of the bully. My situation was reversed, in that I was the much smaller target, and the bully thought he could just keep picking on me like he did Freshman year, because i tend to have a pretty calm temperament, and was raised to not immediately resort to violence, and i can usually shrug off bullying and ignore it, but i had reached my limit with that jackass Sophomore year, and had to let him know what was up. Some bullies really won't back down until you knock some sense into them, and no amount of turning the other cheek is going to work.
I'm not condoning Tyson's actions (again, he's known to be aggressive and pop off), but I can understand his actions for sure. I just don't get why, drunk or not, you'd want to antagonize him period.
the 'murican culture of glorification of violence is rooted in oppression of people of colour, yes. right to self defense and right to violent retribution was very convenient to provide excuses for ethnic cleansing of native americans and the stealing of their lands, as well as for the atrocities perpetrated against black slaves and black poor folks during the reconstruction era, into the jim crow era and until today.It's funny you point these things out when they have their roots in the oppression of Black people.
the 'murican culture of glorification of violence is rooted in oppression of people of colour, yes. right to self defense and right to violent retribution was very convenient to provide excuses for ethnic cleansing of native americans and the stealing of their lands, as well as for the atrocities perpetrated against black slaves and black poor folks during the reconstruction era, into the jim crow era and until today.
it has led to cruel practices like the death penalty, individual rights to weapon ownership, and the police state, which hurt people of all races, but hurt people of colour disproportionately.
i can't speak for black people but i don't think that perpetuating these 'murican ideals rooted in racism is helpful or constructive, even in the minority of cases where the victim is white and the perpetrator is a person of colour
i'm not saying people shouldn't stand up for themselves, but i think it ought to be done in a proportional manner. celebrating disproportionate displays of violence in response to provocations only helps perpetuate 'murican violence culture
the 'murican culture of glorification of violence is rooted in oppression of people of colour, yes. right to self defense and right to violent retribution was very convenient to provide excuses for ethnic cleansing of native americans and the stealing of their lands, as well as for the atrocities perpetrated against black slaves and black poor folks during the reconstruction era, into the jim crow era and until today.
it has led to cruel practices like the death penalty, individual rights to weapon ownership, and the police state, which hurt people of all races, but hurt people of colour disproportionately.
i can't speak for black people but i don't think that perpetuating these 'murican ideals rooted in racism is helpful or constructive, even in the minority of cases where the victim is white and the perpetrator is a person of colour
i'm not saying people shouldn't stand up for themselves, but i think it ought to be done in a proportional manner. celebrating disproportionate displays of violence in response to provocations only helps perpetuate 'murican violence culture
i agree that the violence is inherent in 'murica. i'm trying to say that glorifying the inherent violence with phrases like "talk shit, get hit" helps perpetuate those toxic values that 'murica is built on. and i don't think that is good. i think the toxicity inherent in 'murican culture should be rejected.I disagree. It's not really the forum, but I would argue
1)America was always an extremely violent place; it was founded on forced slavery, genocide of indigenous people, and a literal uprising. So not sure what 'glorification' is when it's pretty inherent.
2)The whole 'we need to be above violence' has more often than not been used as a cudgel to pacify those being oppressed. There's a reason why we've danced around privlege accusations; simply put a non-violent world that most enjoy is off the back of violence. The idealized suburbs are built on the police states of nearby cities. Pacifist European countries in 2020 were involved in nefarious colonialistic shit not too long ago.
3)To piggy back the above, minority groups don't really have the opportunity to avoid violence, even when not in a violent place. "Smear the Queer" as a childhood game etc. Its why a scuffle where both sides are not really much for wear and tear is called 'violence!' seems disingenuous in comparison to police violence, the trauma of slurs hurled at young children, etc.
And sadly; there's the fact that America's big changes, even the positive ones, are built off violence. MLK didn't swoop down, cure racism, and get flown to heaven by Jesus. He was murdered by a white America that largely did not like him at the time, but was terrified at what the riots would have eventually lead too (see my suburb comment above)
I remember that video of the kid being power bombed!
Yeah. In the end. I understand. Violence is never a step 1, but man.........I understand.
i agree that the violence is inherent in 'murica. i'm trying to say that glorifying the inherent violence with phrases like "talk shit, get hit" helps perpetuate those toxic values that 'murica is built on. and i don't think that is good.
i guess you're saying violence is inherent in 'murica, and so trying to reject it is futile, that trying to reject violence in a culture where it is so omnipresent only makes you a victim. that may be true. you are saying that political movements with at least the threat of violence may have been necessary to affect whatever small gains have been true. that is probably also true.
but pummeling a guy who annoyed you on a plane is not how you affect change. no positive political change can come from this. mike tyson hitting people who annoy him doesn't make him a black panther. if you're certain that protests and riots and the threat of violence is the the best path to affect change, then i think the targets of such actions can be chosen better than a belligerent and disruptive drunk on a plane
i agree, my choice of the word "annoy" was not idealI would argue that 'guy who annoyed you' is an intentionally bad misread though; we know Tyson treated the man with kindness and posed with him, we know him and his friend were intentionally filming it and egging him on to apparently post it on the internet(the live commentary) while insulting him. We also have an unconfirmed but likely claim he threw a bottle at Tyson (hence the 'selfies to punches in the end). We also know that a month earlier a similar situation happened with an even bigger escalation (a gun) and Tyson talked it down.
Guy Challenges Mike Tyson to Fight, Pulls Gun at Comedy Show
Mike Tyson kept calm and carried on in one of the most terrifying of incidents involving a live gun at a comedy show.www.tmz.com
To say it was annoy is disingenuous, and is a slipperier slope than whatever violence happens.
why not quote me instead of subtweeting me?. is this request that i stop using the word "'murican" said in your capacity as a moderator? i will take a lack of an answer to this question as a noThe person constantly using the label 'murica while displaying a significant and demonstrated ignorance of the very culture they original pitched themselves to be somewhat versed in... Should probably stop.
Wow people going to bat for a rapist in this thread Era is weird.
why not quote me instead of subtweeting me?. is this request that i stop using the word "'murican" said in your capacity as a moderator? i will take a lack of an answer to this question as a no
i use that word to distinguish usa from the rest of america, which isn't rotten to the core to the same degree. i think it's bullshit that one country has made itself synonymous with two continents. using america in place of usa erases everyone else in the americas
if this is a mod request for me to change my language, i guess i could use USA in place of 'murica/america, but which word should i use in place of American? USAian is not a word. i find that the words 'murican and 'muricans fill an unfilled semantic niche
Wow people going to bat for a rapist in this thread Era is weird.
Well this is the dumbest post in the thread so far.I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
At no point did it cross your mind that invoking babies being beaten to death was an unnecessary thing to do huhI hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
Same folks condemning Mike would also condemn someone at school for defending him or herself with pepper spray when being attacked....
Because the actions of a newborn are equivalent to a drunk-ass grown man? Come the fuck on.I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
I have a feeling this post was not fully thought through.I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
How would you respond to a drunk asshole fucking with you for 15 minutes?I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
why not quote me instead of subtweeting me?. is this request that i stop using the word "'murican" said in your capacity as a moderator? i will take a lack of an answer to this question as a no
i use that word to distinguish usa from the rest of america, which isn't rotten to the core to the same degree. i think it's bullshit that one country has made itself synonymous with two continents. using america in place of usa erases everyone else in the americas
if this is a mod request for me to change my language, i guess i could use USA in place of 'murica/america, but which word should i use in place of American? USAian is not a word. i find that the words 'murican and 'muricans fill an unfilled semantic niche
I hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
EDIT: I was made aware that the guy Tyson punched was accused of getting physical with Tyson first (throwing a water bottle, etc.), in which case Tyson would be justified in retaliating physically. I still stand by my belief that "talk shit, get hit" is not an acceptable philosophy, though, and that violence is only justified when used in self-defense.
I don't really care who did the punching, it's not about tyson, i never liked violence and i don't like how it's always praised on this forum... i'm not saying you can NEVER use violence, sometime it's pretty understandable even if i don't condone it, but to me this one wasn't a situation where it was warranted
Now try to imagine the same situation but the annoying drunk guy was a woman... would it still be okay to punch them in that situation? i doubt anyone here would support that... So why is it okay if it's a guy? Is it just okay because a man supposedly can take a punch?
Even though we know a simple punch can kill someone too, it happened already
Again i understand why anyone would be tempted to punch annoying little shits like that, and sometime it happens despite all the selfcontrol you have...
What i don't like is how many people are chearing on the move like it should always be done in these situations
Some of you should be posting on Instagram with the amount of ass you seem intent on showing.
i agree, my choice of the word "annoy" was not ideal
i will edit my post to change the word "annoy" into "antagonize"
If it's on insta I'll take a whole loaf 😌#OOP
Now LISTEN...
Ain't nothing wrong with posting a little bit of ass on Instagram!
Just a crumb of ass.
Dude fucking with Mike was no angel.
Mike did his time and mellowed the fuck out. Dude deserved that fist.
Not sure if shit postI hope all the people in this thread who thinks it's legit and justified to lash out and destroy the face of a guy just because he was an annoying drunk piece of shit for 15 mns instead of responding appropriately to the situation like grown ups are supposed to will never have children.
Because the poor newborns would problaby beaten to death within their first six months
I must've missed the seminar that said I'm allowed to harrass people and throw bottles at them free of consequence