You must log in or register to comment.
Then that hockey game wasn’t valuable. Fuck toxic enviroments as these that ban the ones who do the only correct thing to do.
Hey, violence isn’t the answer, let alone “the only correct thing to do”.
we had an ‘airforce’ player in our team. he usually was only on the field, if the other team played dirty. the most dirty opponent would have a painful clash with our ‘airforce’. the game usually was a bit more civilised after that.
was it the right thing to do? probably not. would we have sent the ‘airforce’ if the referee had stopped dirty plays earlier? definitely not! did it protect other players from going home with injuries? yes!
so no, violence is not the only correct thing to do. but it is a way to achieve certain goals. sometimes fire has to be fought with fire.
Was bro flying around?
he made sure we controlled who went flying and who not.
guess he could also have been called “Air Traffic Control”…
Hockey is weird, its sort of expected that the players use violence to keep each others behavior in check.
the concept may be more established for ice hockey. but it is present in all sports or possibly in life: we hope there is a referee to punish bad behaviour. but if there isn’t, we have to take things into our own hands.
i am not necessarily talking about violence here. if at your job someone constantly tries to sabotage you, violence may not be the best approach. but some dirty play on your side, might just discourage the behaviour enough. obviously that should only be considered, if theere is no sort of referee to stop the behaviour traditionally.
Are you trying to say enforcer? I’m plenty familiar with the concept but your word choice is confusing.
Lmao, “violence is not the answer”. It is. When other people like that fucking asshole kiddo were, then it’s the only acceptable thing to do. “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done unto yourself”.
They need to understand that their shit has consequences, or else bigotry will never end.
Bigotry is as old as humanity.
It will never end. I would bet that you’re bigoted against a variety of people, too. It’s all around us; most people have a “narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them”.
Especially here on Lemmy.
None of that makes it wrong to oppose bigotry.
Id disagree with you if we were talking about an adult but as we are talking about a kid I would say you are outting yourself as some sort of predator or abuser with that mentality. There can be consequences that are non-violent, violence just propagates more violence. Interesting that you took a popular phrase, changed it so that it has a different meaning, then tried to use it as evidence for your case. Get support, you don’t have to be so violent.
All these clowns in this thread supporting the kids actions when I know none of you are doing shit like this in your daily life. Put your ass on the line next time someone insults someone else if you really think this is appropriate retaliation. In fact I would say you’re either a hypocrite or a liar if you don’t throw hands next time you hear a insult.
Violence was the wrong answer. But a swift and strong reaction to defend someone being bullied is something to praise. At a time when a large portion of society is actively trying to demote women to the position of being property instead of people with equal rights, that instinct is even more important to encourage.
So, while violence would normally be something that is met with swift punishment of its own to try to correct the child’s behavior, in this case, the balance tips a bit the other way. In this case the kid was already ejected from the gameNo, it was the correct answer
Its a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated. Taking them seriously is the wrong move. The girl in this situation already has a team, and team mates, and its none of them that are harassing her. She should be able to brush it off just as easy as any of the guys, and acting like she needs a defender isnt automatically the right move just because she’s a girl.
All this to say, clearly this is just a dumb social media mother attempting to brag about their impulsive and violent child as if it were a good thing.
Its a bit different when its an opponent in a competitive game. They could shout any random mean thing at anyone just because they are frustrated.
Things only said by people who use racial slurs in online games.
No, I don’t like to speak or act for others without permission first. I won’t assume my team mate is offended unless they say so, and won’t jump to their defense unless they ask. I consider that to be a minimum level of respect and I would expect others treat me the same way.
This user has definitely dropped N bombs in voice chat while playing a FPS.
Okay troll.
Huh? Why does supporting this kid’s actions necessarily imply one would do the same? Why are you so bitter?
Why wouldn’t you do actions you support? Either lying or hypocritical like I said.
“I’m going to climb Mount Everest.”
-“That’s a great goal! I support that.”
“Then get your fucking climbing gear, you little bitch. Or are you a lying hypocrite?”
Yeah, this is definitely a rational line of thought.
I don’t get to hear that shit in my daily life. The moment I do, I will find out whether I am as awesome as this kid.
You also just publicly admitted you don’t attend you kids games, shitty parent.
Shitty comment
Oof, a proud shitty parent here.
Sure, because people never work hourly jobs that they can’t get days off from, and they never have multiple children who have events on the same night, and they never have younger kids they have to stay home with while the other parent go to the event.
And that’s assuming this parent wasn’t at the hockey game. It’s totally possible that she was, but she couldn’t hear why the punch happened because she was too far back and the comment was too quiet.
I didn’t attend every single one of my kid’s games. I attended most, but not all. Things happen.
The white knight.
Ref: “what are you, as his parent, going to do about it?”
Parent: “well, he really likes the movies, so I think I’ll take him to see the lastest blockbuster.”
Have a good about when it’s acceptable to use violence, and then buy him icecream.
I think the kid has already it out.
Lol, I think you a word
Ugh this is become such an issue when typing anything on a smartphone; it sure really likes to put words in for you… or leave them out.
I don’t know if it’s voyager or my keyboard app but I’ve noticed sometimes when I swipe type a word, it inserts the desired word but then sticks the cursor in front of the word instead of after it so any new text would go before the word and it gets pushed to the end of the message if I don’t catch it.
*accidentally
the whole can?
The bottle, even.
The whole cake.
Yeah, Its a common problem for me… Me not word well
Yes violence against people i dont like is acceptable. At least until the violence quotient normalizes.
Conflict is solved only through domination, forgivness, or avoidance.
Forgiveness only resolves conflict if both sides acknowledge the wrongness of the action and the victim accepts it enough to move on.
Do you think this little girl should accept being dominated and be treated as second class person or receive verbal abuse or should she be ostrizied from society in order to avoid that abuse?
Best case, the authority figures caught the abuser and punished him before further escalation happened, they failed to reprimand him for his sick behavior and thus codoned it, forcing the victim or her friends to decided for themselves when on the conflict continuum they were going to be.
No, Im saying violence is the answer
I’m positive a strongly worded letter would have made all the difference.
No… violence is acceptable…
It’s fun watching people discover the paradox of tolerance in real time.
Women are sexually assaulted at rates that are fucking disturbing.
I’d punch you in the face in a heartbeat if you called my wife a whore. We don’t tolerate intolerance. Get with the program.
The funny thing is that there is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Contracts only protect people who are party to them. If you are bigoted or intolerant, you are not party to the social contract, and thus are not protected by it. There never was a paradox, it is just another thing that bigoted asshats use to try to muddy the waters.
As an aside; safety, tolerance, inclusion, and peace are all social contracts. These fuckers are not part of any of those contracts and thus deserve none of those things.
Yep, and apparently we have to scream it louder.
Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance? Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.
- It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
- They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems. Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
- The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.
Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant. Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance. Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to reject it.
To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society. That’s it. When intolerant people abandon reason, you can no longer tolerate them in society.
You’re a fart sniffing social media philosopher I see
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.
It’s literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn’t make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.There’s a Wikipedia article quoting part of it
[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.background: book promotes intellectual freedom
The book’s thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism.
They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strengthOnly democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters
and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.
Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage.
Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determineHow can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?
They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.
They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.Unsurprisingly, you shouldn’t expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn’t the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn’t tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren’t winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that’s flat out wrong unless that argument is “How dumb is social media? Very.”
Oh you think im joking?
Must be american. Surely violence is the right solution to insult, right?
Have you seen a hockey game? Mostly Canadians and this is a completely reasonable thing to happen in hockey.
I would not celebrate physical violence in response to words. If it were two adults, there would be charges of assault.
Bro this is hockey
Oh no a assault charge. If it was my son I’d be fucking proud.
These misogynist manosphere boys need to fkn learn . And more dads need to step the messaging to them to respect women
And more dads need to step the messaging to them to respect women
unless it’s trans women apparently.
I fully respect women. Does our law condone punching someone in the face for words?
Oh Mr. Cop here says we should respect the law and let the misogyny continue. Oh, sorry he FULLY RESPECTS the women his support of misogyny hurts.
That’s what I’m talking about, just keep escalating untill someone draws a gun!! Pride and ego RULEZZZ!! FUCK YEAH, VIOLENCE! /s
Why in the flying fuck would you ever care what some fuckstick in the opposite team shouted at you or your friends? Responding to words on the field with violence is so fucking dumb and this whole appreciation thread feels even dumber. Just shout back that his mom was a whore in retaliation if you really need to reciprocate, and then proceed to score more points than the opposite team.
Are you… Not familiar with hockey? It’s a very physical sport where fighting is often allowed by referees. Even at levels where they don’t tolerate fighting, it’s still very very physical.
It’s a violent team sport. To the point where teams have “enforcers” who are specifically used to retaliate against the other team when they do something fucked.
Nobody has ever drawn a gun on the ice, that I’m aware of. Usually a fight is enough to get it out of their system. There’s no reason to believe this would ever escalate to gun violence, it’s just an accepted (and possibly integral) aspect of the sport.
In hockey, fighting exists to enact justice when the refs fail to achieve that. Usually it’s for missed calls or intentional harm. It’s my personal opinion that calling an underage girl a whore is verbally abusive which translates to intentional harm enough to justify beating the brakes off that little fucker. The refs should’ve thrown the insulter out for that shit, and if that were my daughter, I’d be after that ref’s job for doing nothing AND punishing the kid who had the courage that the ref didn’t. Yeah, the kid sucks, but his behavior is the product of bad parenting and a lack of education and discipline; that ref should’ve fucking known better.
If you think calling someone a name during a competitive sport is intentional harm, then you probably shouldnt partake in any sports. Its also pretty clear that most of the reason you are upset is because the “victim” was a girl. If you replace the story with a boy, the reaction you have is entirely different, isnt it?
- These are children. That shit is unacceptable.
- Who said I play sports?
- Yeah, I guess I feel like there is a difference between calling a girl a whore and calling a boy a whore, and it’s because the intention is different. Both are wrong because, again, these are children, but yeah I think it’s significantly more socially and psychologically damaging for a young girl to have that word thrown at them. I don’t know for sure, but I’m capable of attempting to check my male privilege to empathize with the experience, and maybe that’s because I have friends who have stories about being treated so creepily by boys and men and even weird ass women bringing up sexual shit with them and about them while they were children. The normalization of that is fucking bonkers, and it’s gross to try to defend it.
Well I just disagree with 3 altogether, but if you really believe its harder for women to deal with insults than men, I’m not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise.
Words are what ruined this country; made a generation of Christians hateful of empathy and compassion.
I am tired of words being viewed as universally humble and peaceful. They are rarely so strong as to deserve violent retribution, but rare is not never.
Sometimes, horrible little fuckers just need a punch in the mouth
Yeah, these people are just so fucking mononeuronal that they won’t understand words, they just go oonga boonga and they only understand fists.
And if they always did get punched in the mouth maybe the world would be just a little less fucked up than it is.
When they get away with it from the start, they do not learn the important lessons. Kids need to be taught these things, when they are little, so they do not become fucking assholes, who start insulting, and even assaulting other people in the first place. But once they are past that, the sooner someone gives them some immediate consequences, the sooner they are going to learn the important lessons - the hard way. Obviously violence should always be avoided, but at some point, if they get away with it long enough, it becomes the only thing bullies understand.
Also, if someone bullies you, defend yourself from the start, even if you get trouble for it. It makes them more likely to choose another target and maybe even stop bullying, and keeps your self-respect intact. And that last part matters a lot, especially considering how the bullying will affect you in long-term.
Imagine the utopia where everyone just punches people who violate their moral standards
Yeah, that would be much worse than the world we live in now. Where everyone who can, just enslaves and coerces people for 8 hours a day, regardless of whether they violate their moral standards. (/s)
The amount of violence already normalized in this world, is enormous. Calling someone a “fucking whore”, is a serious gendered insult, in a world that seriously allows and ignores the assault, rape, and murder of women, as well as their economical life being lived on a short leash. He was reminding her her place.
But when the violence is turned against the not-woman, don’t worry, institutions will be there right away! (/s)
All violence is violence, don’t selectively ignore shit.
Punching someone in the face for being misogynistic is a kindness that may correct him from going irreversibly down that road.
Hey whore.
Pacifism is surrender to every bully you’ll ever encounter. Teaching kids horseshit like this is how you make a generation of slaves who’ll never revolt. Which explains why every kid is repeatedly told that violence is bad and only bad people are violent (except the cops and soldiers, because state-sanctioned violence is different).
May you and every other person who disapproves of this kid’s actions never again know any peace you haven’t had to fight for and don’t constantly have to fight to defend.
I’m on the fence. On the one side I despise a society that resorts to violence to solve problems. This is primitive. Then again it sure feels like some people don’t learn another way. Doesn’t mean it’s good.
Mhm, a story to remember for sure.
Disagree, sometimes we have go go back to the fundamental. Looks around, shitty people aren’t get punched enough.
Then again it sure feels like some people don’t learn another way.
That’s because they don’t. Because the lesson they need to learn isn’t “people don’t like that behavior” it’s “that behavior will have swift and severe consequences”.
To renounce the use of violence as a method of conflict resolution is to utterly surrender to those who have not and will not.
We all had history classes.
Violence is the most effective tool the working class has by a country mile so they don’t get devoured by the wealthys politics and bullshit.
Regulations for business are quite literally often written in blood.
Violence is the last thing some people even understand. Sure it should be a last resort most of the time.
On the other hand Cornell, frats, and the fact that women are sexually assaulted at disturbing rates.
I’d punch an openly misogynistic person too. We’ve spent too many decades not punching shitty people, now we have fascists popping up all over again.
Consequences are measuring levels of controlled violence. Both human and not.
If one assumes violence is an unnecessary tool, then we would’ve resolved the issue with actual criminal syndicates both high and low by now. Alas, that’s not happening when said syndicates can and will use their own levels of controlled violence against everyone else.
It’s anecdotal, but I was bullied mercilessly when I was a big, fat sixth grader by this pack of fifth graders who would run up behind me during lunchtime in the playground, kick me, and run away. This went on for some time until one day I happened to turn around at just the right second and caught this little shit by the name of Cory Rodgerson.
I took a big, wide swing and smacked him upside the head as hard as I could. One punch. I vividly remember (probably partly falsely given the forty years that have passed) him spinning, falling over, and then bawling his eyes out. I felt horrible about it, but you know what? Him and his group of cronies never bullied me again.
He learned that actions have consequences, and I learned that violence sucks, but sometimes it does solve problems. Was there a better solution? Probably, but telling my teachers and parents had had no effect, so what else was I supposed to do about it? I also did not grow up to be violent, and in fact have never gotten into any kind of physical altercation as an adult, so maybe it was a good lesson for me, too.
Fucking Cory! Classic
It’s hockey. Punching someone in the face is how you express your feelings.
Sure, when your son punches someone on the opposing team during a kid’s hockey game he’s “defending his teammates honor”, but when I do it I’m “assaulting a minor” and “not allowed within 300 feet of a school” by a so-called “judge”.
I thought this was America!
You might need some Sephora to blend in as a kid
In highschool an opponent coach called one of my team mates the n word. I told the coach I was going to kill him. Referee decided the fouls canceled one another. Wish I had drop kicked that fucking cunt instead.
what does the law say about any of those offences ?
Depends on the kids parents wealth.
Some states have “fighting words” clauses in their statutes or case law that stipulate when someone’s held less accountable for an otherwise clear-cut Assault/Battery.
If what you say is obviously an attempt to get under someone’s skin to make them throw the first punch it essentially blames you for the fight.
Of course the devil’s in the details, but rumor has it those exceptions exist.
If it were me, I’d hope I’d have the courage to risk my job to use some Discretion in an event like that without clear statute/case law backing up a Fighting Words issue, but I never handled a case like that so we can never be sure.
- Ex-cop
Just mentioned “fighting words” in another comment. But those words weren’t directed to the attacker, so would that still count?
That question exceeds the scope of my training, experience, and rumor I heard on the job from other cops, so your web search would be as good as mine.
I’m 99% sure I was never trained on it, 100% sure I never saw it applied, and such a scenario never came up in the rumor mill.
The insulter didn’t threaten the girl, so he’s clear. The boy is guilty of battery, no defense of others here.
OTOH, “fucking whore” could be considered “fighting words”, but I have no idea how that works if directed at another person. 🤷🏼♂️
Being legal doesn’t me being right. Some crimes are worth the punishment.
That’s nice. This part of the discussion is about how the law views this event.
And fuck the guy that asked! Typical lemmy, downvoting questions.
Idk i was 17 and the coach was old. I’m glad it didnt go much further because it would have not ended at all well.
Drop kicking someone while on skates would be fucking impressive.
Why did he even get kicked out? It’s hockey. Fighting is only 5 minutes in the box.
I watched a fight once, and suddenly a hockey game broke out.
Might be field hockey though
Lol, he didn’t get kicked out…UnfilteredMama posted it on twitter. It never happened to begin with.
Not every league allows fighting, some leagues don’t even allow checking
Youth hockey leagues are pretty strict about no fighting. Younger leagues have no checking, for obvious reasons. As you get older, it gets more physical.
Personally, I disagree with the punch. Takes you out of the game when you and the rest of your team can just mark that guy as an asshole and make his day absolutely suck. For everyone saying, but he won’t know why: he’ll know. Plus, you can simply call him a whore every time you hit him. A dirty hit when he has the puck is 2 or 4 in the sin bin, and you get to hit him again later. A single punch is just that, and it’s all over.
Its also absurd because its heavily gendered. If someone called a male teammate a fucking whore we would laugh at them, take note that they are clearly salty, and fuck with them the rest of the game. If it was the girl who punched the guy in the face it would at least make more sense.
Personally, I wouldnt cheer my own kid on for punching someone in the face and getting kicked out of the game. That type of problem solving shows a lack of creativity and compassion.
Agreed. The more I’ve thought about the more I think the comments are mostly a bunch of neck beards proud the kid “defended her honor.” As if she ever asked him to do that. What if it had been a girl on the other team calling his teammate the same thing? Girls can be brutal in their chirping. “Fucking whore” is pretty tame compared to what I’ve heard collegiate female rugby players call one another. Im all for the team ganging up on an asshole player playing like an asshole, but players in just about any team sport constantly shit talk their opponents. Somehow the other guy crossed a line by treating a girl the same as he presumably would any other player on the ice? If he singled her out, fine. Chirp back, or ignore it. And the one comment calling it bullying? Gimme a break. It wasn’t even said to her. Tell the guy to fuck off, score on him and give him a good hip check next time you can get away with it.
For the pros, yes. But for all youth hockey (at least in the US) it’s an immediate game misconduct.
When my nephew was a little kid he got suspended from school. My sister and her husband were working, but I was still in university so I offered to go pick him up. Turns out he’d done exactly this on the playground so I took him to McDonald’s and bought him Lego on his day off.
tell the child to apologize to the family member or relative he stole from.
