While free will may be a myth, it is surely difficult to predict people's reactions to certain items.
Rewind a little bit - even before Ellen found the post, it was accused of 'victim blaming':
User "sad kant" agrees:
Then another (perhaps Ellen again?) adds:
Let's back up a bit.
Recall that reactions are often difficult to anticipate.
Sometimes, differences amount to problems of perspective or semantics.
Not too long ago, a simple question was asked - is this social justice?
The short version of the story - while all parties were travelling on a bus, a man directly labelled a woman (Sam) in his proximity using a racial slur. A friend of the woman (Ellen) physically hit the man.
The post asked the question, is this appropriate? What actually happened?
It was not directly shared with anyone involved, as doing as much as tweeting a link to someone is usually represented as harassment and obsession by 'feminist' thinkers. At the very least, it would be labelled "mansplaining" by people that eagerly assume gender.
It was not directly shared with anyone involved, as doing as much as tweeting a link to someone is usually represented as harassment and obsession by 'feminist' thinkers. At the very least, it would be labelled "mansplaining" by people that eagerly assume gender.
It turns out that the parties present have found the post anyways:
A shit blog about @SamAmbreen and I http://t.co/cVnIhEkT5c
— Ellen (@Ellwynnnnn) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen are you both ok? Do I want to know?
— Alice Sheppard (@PenguinGalaxy) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen what. the fuck. did I just read.
— Stilli (@stillicides) June 27, 2013
@PenguinGalaxy@SamAmbreen Yeah we're fine, but that's a damn stupid blog
— Ellen (@Ellwynnnnn) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen I hope you'll forgive me if I don't look at it tonight . . . I want to sleep happily *hugs*
— Alice Sheppard (@PenguinGalaxy) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen sorry to hear people are damn stupid anyway :P
— Alice Sheppard (@PenguinGalaxy) June 27, 2013
@stillicides@SamAmbreen I know...so stupid.
— Ellen (@Ellwynnnnn) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen "The racist man may have been the second coming of Christ, on a mission of peace and love! Let's assume he was..."
— Meowski Catovitch (@realnudel) June 27, 2013
@ellwynnnnn who is uberfeminist? What a horrible blog with zero bearing reality.
— ding dong (@katabaticesque) June 27, 2013
@katabaticesque no idea, I'd like to know if they are on Twitter.
— Ellen (@Ellwynnnnn) June 27, 2013
@realnudel@SamAmbreen I put a comment on it now, although seems like a generally douchey website
— Ellen (@Ellwynnnnn) June 27, 2013
@Ellwynnnnn@SamAmbreen Well said. Seems like they are convinced whatever you do is wrong & whatever is done to you is right. Le sigh.
— Meowski Catovitch (@realnudel) June 27, 2013
@realnudel@Ellwynnnnn did you see the nonsense on there? being called a paki isn't as bad as being walloped apparently
— Sam DingDong Ambreen (@SamAmbreen) June 27, 2013
@realnudel@Ellwynnnnn calling someone a paki is actually against the law. and the law supports self defence, to a degree
— Sam DingDong Ambreen (@SamAmbreen) June 27, 2013
Rewind a little bit - even before Ellen found the post, it was accused of 'victim blaming':
JaraEllen then arrives:
You use the same kind of language as rape apologists when shedding "doubt" on survivors stories. Your victim blaming might be what causes you to all but completly overlook the massive rasism in the described attack. Maybe pay some attention to what's actually going on?
Anonymous
Hi, this is Ellen, the one whose tweets you've published without asking and who was actually there with Sam when she was racially abused on the bus. Firstly- your blog has a horribly victim blaming tone to it. Is there any excuse for these men to have harrassed us, racially or otherwise? They interrupted because of entitlement. We were two lone women, whose time they decided was theirs to waste. We asked politely for them to leave us alone, they didn't. Why is this acceptable to you? Why must we justify our feelings about being spoken to when we wanted to chat alone together? Why do you assume I insulted him? I did insofar as telling him not to talk to me was an insult, and getting back to our own conversation. In fact, weirdly, this did not work. It's almost as if they had no respect for us or out autonomy to exist on a bus without unwanted attention from sniggering men.
As for the bus full of people, they defended the actions of 2 men who were harassing women, before any racist remarks had been made. They yelled for us to sit down and shut up, baying at the women to stop making a fuss. When he called Sam a paki the bus cheered- have you any idea how fucked up that is?
My actions were what they were, a reaction of fear and anger and righteous indignation that this straight, white man felt it ok to harass us in a sexist, racist way. I don't think what I did was wrong, he deserved a slap.
User "sad kant" agrees:
sad kant
Er, no. Anyone who is racially abused and sexually harassed has a right to defend themselves and respond. It is not "more fucked up" to hit your aggressor than to racially abuse them. Kindly fuck off.
Then another (perhaps Ellen again?) adds:
Anonymous
Must not have black women standing up for themselves; up would become down, white people might actually be held accountable for their coercive powers all over the world.
You menz make me laugh. Quaking in your boots as you are. You obviously have far too much time on your hands. Get a life.
Who the fuck are you to say how racist abuse if felt and whether it is minor or not? I class that as a serious incident of abuse and for the record, don't know where you are in the world, but use of that word is illegal in the UK and a pre-emptive strike to defend oneself whether it be verbal or physical, is our right by law.
I have a feeling you're in the States where lynching of PoC is the norm and for you, that's when PoC can justify any defence. Well, it's commonly known that America actively encourages racial segregation so who knows, you might be right when it concerns the people in your own back yard. Here though, nah, for what it's worth we have an illusion of caring for our non-whites.
Let's back up a bit.
Recall that reactions are often difficult to anticipate.
Sometimes, differences amount to problems of perspective or semantics.
And then occasionally, some things are so far out in left field that reconciliation might not happen.
Items of possible agreement
If you feel threatened, you may preemptively strike. You may have misjudged the situation, and overestimated the threat, but it doesn't change that you were right to strike. If you think you will be attacked or that things will escalate out of control if you don't intervene, you may use force.
Items of possible agreement
If you feel threatened, you may preemptively strike. You may have misjudged the situation, and overestimated the threat, but it doesn't change that you were right to strike. If you think you will be attacked or that things will escalate out of control if you don't intervene, you may use force.
Points of contention
Racist slurs are not worse than physical abuse. The law does not state and logic does not support the idea that hearing a racial slur is worse than being hit in the face. Generally, the only countries that think insults are worse than assault are the ones where blasphemy and apostasy are illegal.
Being offended is not a terribly good reason to slap someone. It boggles the mind that this needs be said.
Imagine for a moment that a wife labelled her husband with some insult of a sexual nature. "Impotent", "small penis", or perhaps it's a mixed race relationship and she drops the n-word. How many times could the husband strike his wife before both parties are equally wronged?
From the aforementioned discussion - "being called a paki isn't as [bad as] being walloped apparently."
Perhaps there is a word mix-up here - does "walloped" mean something else in the United Kingdom?
Under no legal system is it legal to use a preemptive strike to prevent verbal abuse.
This statement:
The man on the bus may have committed a crime. Physical intervention to prevent crimes is sometimes warranted. Is someone pointing a gun at you? Do something.
Being offended is not a terribly good reason to slap someone. It boggles the mind that this needs be said.
Imagine for a moment that a wife labelled her husband with some insult of a sexual nature. "Impotent", "small penis", or perhaps it's a mixed race relationship and she drops the n-word. How many times could the husband strike his wife before both parties are equally wronged?
From the aforementioned discussion - "being called a paki isn't as [bad as] being walloped apparently."
Perhaps there is a word mix-up here - does "walloped" mean something else in the United Kingdom?
Under no legal system is it legal to use a preemptive strike to prevent verbal abuse.
This statement:
"use of that word is illegal in the UK and a pre-emptive strike to defend oneself whether it be verbal or physical, is our right by law."Is simply nonsense.
The man on the bus may have committed a crime. Physical intervention to prevent crimes is sometimes warranted. Is someone pointing a gun at you? Do something.
However it does not follow that there would be a judge in the land that would agree that assaulting someone to protect your honor or frail sensibilities would be legal without question.
If it were, then if Ellen loved using the c-word in "real life" as much as she loves to use it on Twitter, then presumably she would spend most of her day dodging the fists of fellow noble Britons.
White people have no magical coercive powers by virtue of being white.
The quote, presumably from Ellen again:
Must not have black women standing up for themselves; up would become down, white people might actually be held accountable for their coercive powers all over the world.
It would seem that the biggest mistake Rosa Parks made was to immediately strike the bus driver in the face. He may have been a lowly bus driver, but acts like this would indeed be a fatal blow to white supremacists everywhere.
If every black woman took it upon themselves to assault every bigoted white person they come across surely racism would soon be over.
This blog did not publish nor "leak" the details of this incident. It's strange to find people claim it's improper to link to tweets online.
Do people not understand that Twitter is public?
If you care to share that you assaulted a stranger on a bus on Facebook, by Twitter direct messages or by email, then you have some reasonable expectation of at least a little bit of privacy.
Someone that simply live-tweets everything that happens to them cannot have the same expectation of privacy. There is no walled garden of data that was circumvented here.
What we have is someone that announced to the world, putting no constraints on this information, that they had hit another individual.
It cannot be that speaking of this event is now an impolite invasion of privacy.
Describing one's feelings is not the same thing as describing facts about the event.
Ellen goes to great lengths to generally describe how vile the man was, and how awfully offended both her and Sam were, but none of this actually adds any details about the incident.
In fact Ellen's comments clarify details that really makes one wonder just what was going on. Before the man said anything racist, which one assumes means before Ellen struck him, the bus "defended the actions" of the "interrupting" men. Why?
Is everyone in London a bunch of jerks?
Let's hit on what this story is really about.
This is a story about entitlement.
A criticism often leveled at males by 'feminists' is that the males are prone to 'mansplaining'.
Generally the accusation is given after the male has attempted to explain a situation that a person, man or woman, finds sexist.
'Mansplaining' is shorthand way to say that what the man is doing is attempting to selfishly defend his entitlement while making a completely unconvincing argument.
Similarly, let's assess the arguments made by 'feminists' in these 'incidents'.
In Ellen's bus incident, the victims were truly two "lone women" that were interrupted "because of entitlement".
There are other stories to be told here.
Such as the story about the "lone adulterer and his friend" that were sharing stories, that had their photo placed on Facebook because of 'feminist' entitlement.
And the story of the "two lone programmers" that shared a dongle joke with each other, that had their photo put on Twitter because of 'feminist' entitlement.
Finally, there is the story of a man who used a racist slur, out of rage or bigotry, against two young women on the bus. For that he was assaulted because of 'feminist' entitlement.
One more answer.
Everyone need not worry - @uberfeminist was blocked long before assaulting people on buses was in fashion.
Do people not understand that Twitter is public?
If you care to share that you assaulted a stranger on a bus on Facebook, by Twitter direct messages or by email, then you have some reasonable expectation of at least a little bit of privacy.
Someone that simply live-tweets everything that happens to them cannot have the same expectation of privacy. There is no walled garden of data that was circumvented here.
What we have is someone that announced to the world, putting no constraints on this information, that they had hit another individual.
It cannot be that speaking of this event is now an impolite invasion of privacy.
Describing one's feelings is not the same thing as describing facts about the event.
Ellen goes to great lengths to generally describe how vile the man was, and how awfully offended both her and Sam were, but none of this actually adds any details about the incident.
In fact Ellen's comments clarify details that really makes one wonder just what was going on. Before the man said anything racist, which one assumes means before Ellen struck him, the bus "defended the actions" of the "interrupting" men. Why?
Is everyone in London a bunch of jerks?
Let's hit on what this story is really about.
This is a story about entitlement.
A criticism often leveled at males by 'feminists' is that the males are prone to 'mansplaining'.
Generally the accusation is given after the male has attempted to explain a situation that a person, man or woman, finds sexist.
'Mansplaining' is shorthand way to say that what the man is doing is attempting to selfishly defend his entitlement while making a completely unconvincing argument.
Similarly, let's assess the arguments made by 'feminists' in these 'incidents'.
In Ellen's bus incident, the victims were truly two "lone women" that were interrupted "because of entitlement".
There are other stories to be told here.
Such as the story about the "lone adulterer and his friend" that were sharing stories, that had their photo placed on Facebook because of 'feminist' entitlement.
And the story of the "two lone programmers" that shared a dongle joke with each other, that had their photo put on Twitter because of 'feminist' entitlement.
Finally, there is the story of a man who used a racist slur, out of rage or bigotry, against two young women on the bus. For that he was assaulted because of 'feminist' entitlement.
One more answer.
"I'd like to know if they are on Twitter."@uberfeminist is indeed on Twitter.
Everyone need not worry - @uberfeminist was blocked long before assaulting people on buses was in fashion.