>> ^Skeeve:

While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.


This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.

The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.

I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

An absolutely disgusting display, but I can only upvote and agree with this.
>> ^Skeeve:

While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.


>> ^Skeeve:

While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.

Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

I found that apology to be more of an indirect insult, so i can't in all fairness accept it.

I made my second post after you made your tirade against me, and before you made this post. It was not meant to stir anything further.

Regardless, i'll leave it alone if you do.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
is that what you feel i am doing?
then i apologize.
because normally it is not something i tend to worry about.i really dont care.i post what i like.if you like it..great..if not? meh../shrugs.no biggy.
maybe it is my fault for not actually posting the backstory (which i did in comments) which may clear up my reactionary response.
i have a very strong connection with that woman and tend to be extremely protective,always have been of people i love but her especially.the reasons should become clear when you read the backstory.

i tend to side with you in the sense that you were just commenting on the video.taking the opportunity to take a shot (an easy one,lets be honest) at the video while not making it a direct comment on the poster.

i agree with that policy but i did state that i had a personal connection with this young woman,but it seems i should have not been lazy and explained the backstory.

so again,i apologize if it appears im putting the "squeeze" on you.
but i hope i clarified my protective nature concerning this young woman.i really should have anticipated this.i just wanted to share cuz i thought the whole video is funny and it brought back good memories for me.
ah well.epic fail on my part i guess.
we good?

Thanks, buddy.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*promote this amazing and more than necessary tirade.

*promote this amazing and more than necessary tirade.

I actually agree with the Prius driver on most of her points, but thumbs up to the bigrig driver for remaining reasonable throughout the tirade.

After that cussing tirade, I would have been tempted to rev the engines. Watta maroon.

@MilkmanDan

Urm, he never said he was actually there when people were beaten. He did say, which heavily implies, that he "saw" them beaten, but then again, I "saw a Marine screaming at the cops while at Occupy Wallstreet. (That implied I was at Occupy Wallstreet but of course I was not--he was at Occupy Wallstreet when I saw him. And I did see him, from my computer.)

I bring this up because people, especially in the heat of a Kill/Battle mindset, especially those that fought and most likely killed people (Some who are just defending their own nation and beliefs,) tend to say things without thought--like, "Hrm, I wonder if people will misunderstand what I say."

One thing that leads me to the conclusion that he mispoke, that he wasn't physically there when it happened, that he only took he/said she/said context, was that apparently, as he witnessed innocent people being beaten near to death, unlawfully if his words are true, he just shut his mouth like some coward and didn't lift a finger to help. Big stuff for a man now talking so much shit huh? Talking about how the cops are scared...

So either way, he is a lair or a coward--you take your pick Milkmandan...

Yes, the context is important. Yes, it is possible (even likely I hope) that the policemen seen in the video were doing nothing wrong. But he was asked near the end of the clip what got him all riled up, and he stated that he was pissed off to come home and witness people that weren't doing anything get yanked out of crowds and whacked with clubs / tazed / pepper sprayed etc. We've seen that happen in other clips as well, so I believe him when he says he saw it in person -- and I think that is sufficient justification for getting upset and loudly exercising one's right to free speech.

Even if the policemen that he was yelling at had done nothing wrong themselves, I am glad that he put some in-person heat on them. If they are good cops, they needn't take any offense to his tirade, but they should be disappointed with the actions of their fellow officers that so upset this man.

Watching this made me wish I'd been there so I could shake that man's hand, clap him on the back, and call him brother.

Yes, the context is important. Yes, it is possible (even likely I hope) that the policemen seen in the video were doing nothing wrong. But he was asked near the end of the clip what got him all riled up, and he stated that he was pissed off to come home and witness people that weren't doing anything get yanked out of crowds and whacked with clubs / tazed / pepper sprayed etc. We've seen that happen in other clips as well, so I believe him when he says he saw it in person -- and I think that is sufficient justification for getting upset and loudly exercising one's right to free speech.

Even if the policemen that he was yelling at had done nothing wrong themselves, I am glad that he put some in-person heat on them. If they are good cops, they needn't take any offense to his tirade, but they should be disappointed with the actions of their fellow officers that so upset this man.

Watching this made me wish I'd been there so I could shake that man's hand, clap him on the back, and call him brother.

@NetRunner
right on. true enough, it is certainly where we are at.
I'm not an obama hater. (dissapointed, yes!), but i spent many years as a lawyer, working inside the system, trotting on the hamster wheel and even spending some time in the fed judiciary. I could go on a long tirade about how things are done in the legal world, but i'll just say that i'm an ex-attorney for a reason. Obama, like all presidents before him, has gladfully continued executive power-grabs created by the prior presidents. Balance of power is a joke. And the people have been completely left out of the political process. Decisions are made, and then the propaganda machine goes to work.

There is really no doubt we are in violation of international laws. but we do it all the time, cause hey, we're america and we do whatever the fuck we want.
legalities.... meh. the law is for sale.

i'm looking more at the overall mindset and complacency of a populace that is arguing about the legal semantics of killing it's own citizens in sovereign nations, while the rulers of this country blatantly run it into the ground.

and doesn't anyone recall how our government lied its way into Iraq? Have things really changed?

thanks for the well thought and written posts.

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

THIS.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.
Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.
On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.

Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.

On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.