Okay...Hitting in General

[Gary Thompson]

I don't like to fight people, not because I cling to some moral high ground or anything.

It's just, I've gotten my ass kicked before, it's quite embarrassing.
Also you could get killed fighting, I'd rather run or talk my way out of it.

 

[Candidus]

I use violence proactively when I'm threatened with violence or when men make transparent hierarchy-establishing jokes ("blah blah blah, or I'll kick your head in LOL j/k"). I used violence in junior school and secondary school after several years of consistent bullying from the same groups.

It worked for me, and if I had children I'd certainly encourage them to fight with the same ethic.

If you subscribe to victim-damaging zero-tolerance principles, if you're a subscriber to aberrant la-la-land pacifism (ie. If you think it works in the real world), then that's your business.

Edit: As age has become relevant to the discussion for some, I'm 28.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

This is a very interesting discussion and I want to comment on a few things. First, many have pointed out that this type of situation is very schoolyard in nature. Fair enough. I was merely using it as an analogy. Not one to be taken and then applied to your own experiences. The key point to note is this: During our lives, adult or child, we will come into contact with people who will refuse to be both logical and reasonable. At that point all possible verbal communication will shut down. If one refuses to be logical and reasonable how can a conversation carry on? It can't. Which at that point you have two choices. Fight or don't fight. In adult world WE DO THE SAME EXACT THING. We are just great at masking our evil. We use passive aggression as our tool. We don't call people things like "asshole, dickhead", unless stuff gets exceptionally heated. I would need an entire new post in order to go into passive aggression so I won't. Second, many have given examples of how a fight made things better and worse. We, for the most part, are all aware of the pros and cons of fighting. Prime result being that you lose. That is not what I'm addressing. What I note is that in EVERYONE's situation the bullying, argument, whatever you wanna' call it, was resolved on the spot. In most cases just indicating that the conversation is going into fight territory is enough to halt a bad situation. Everyone loves to watch a good fight, no one likes to be in one. Third, and most important, is that I'm not advocating violence ALL THE TIME. This is a philosophical discussion and in philosophy there are no constants. Using words like "All" can be considered generalizations. There will be situations when (personal opinion) fighting is necessary, and when words are better. What got me to open this discussion was that many have said that non-violence (except in self-defense) is better. I simply can't fathom that thought process which is exactly whey I'm interested in it. Continue.

 

[wulf3n]

Yet you write as if you have higher authority on the subject. Seems we're at an impasse here.

As do you, hence why I always preface what I read with IMO. Hopefully my suggestions will be added to HTML6 and all forum posts will have it attached automatically.

"Easily" dissuaded, my ass. My previous statement still stands here.

Regardless of the difficulty, they were. This is not an absolute unfortunately. I would love to live in a world where it was, but the fact of the matter is not all will be, and if they're not of that persuasion you're only going to make your own life much more difficult.

Your advice of rolling over and taking it is worse, in my opinion.And our opinions is all we have here, so we're at an impasse here too. I dunno what I expected from this forum though. Anything other than just rolling over would make one the bad guy here. It's disgusting.

My advice if it's purely verbal is to eat a bowl of cement and harden up. One's going to have a hard life if they get upset at being called names.

And for many, it does.

For the next reader to judge.

I never said I was special. No need to be condescending.

It was implied that you had knowledge that others did not by the term "but I know the feeling". I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find someone here who doesn't know the feeling.

Quite the contrary, in my opinion. The bruises heal. The mental scars might, but the mind is way more fickle than the body. It takes longer, and requires tremendous effort. You know, I should probably thank you. You made me realize how much worse the verbal abuse was to me. Now I have an answer the next time it comes up.

If physical abuse were only limited to physical trauma you'd be right. You're ignoring the psychological affects I mentioned that linger on after. If it were simply physical damage, like falling over and injuring yourself it wouldn't be a problem, but instead the visual indicators of physical abuse provide a visual cue for others of what has happened re-opening the wound so to speak.

Regardless, I'm done. It'll be the same exchange over and over,

True.

and that's not something I want to indulge in.

Fair enough.

Feel free to reply if you'd like, but you'd be wasting your time, and I don't intend to do the same.

It's would only be wasting my time if you were the primary target of my statements.

Neither of us will convince the other. If you want to think of that as me running away, feel free to do so, I couldn't possibly care less.

My goal was never to convince you that my position correct, but rather present the opposite position as I see it to give others who have yet to come to an opinion differing view points.

 

[Dimitriov]

Agreed. First world societies have turned the modern mail into a posturing, preening, pussified version of what they once were. "Men" nowadays are supposed to be perfectly behaved little darlings who never fight or roughhouse. If more guys spent some time in the gym and away from their computer screens I think they'd be better off. If someone provokes you, or relentlessly mocks you, then they deserve to get hit. Maybe they should learn a little respect instead of me having to exercise restraint when they obviously aren't.

Statistically, violent crime is at an all-time low in the Western world. For example, it's estimated medieval England percentage wise had 10 to 100 times more deaths by violence than the United Kingdom in the 21st century. Men have certainly become less violent over time, or 'pussified' as you put it, and that's absolutely a good thing in my opinion. What exactly would be the benefits to society of what you propose?

Just for the sake of argument: why is it better that more people don't die from violence now? I am not trying to change your mind, but this does really seem like a simple case of different people having different values.

I for one think that a violent death is at least more... honest? Having a physical body means that you are going to get injured sometimes, you are going to experience pain, and at some point you are going to die. Everyone is going to die eventually, and it's always going to be unpleasant. That seems like something that we should all learn to accept and live with. Violence is at least very straightforward, and it puts death and injury out in the open. To me it feels like our modern society has developed an unhealthy tendency to hide death away in hospitals, to try and not think about it for as long as possible, to sanitize what is in fact a part of life as important and significant as being born.

At any rate, a world filled with violence is in no objective way better or worse than one without. It may just appeal to different people.

Is it better to have a world where the physically strongest are able to dominate everyone else? Or a world where the wealthiest are able to dominate everyone else? Or one where those born into a privileged class are able to dominate everyone else?

The reality of the world seems pretty clearly to be that, no matter what, someone is going to get screwed over, and at least a system where the defining factor is violence seems the most natural and straightforward. Humans are after all living organisms, and generally speaking many if not most living organisms tend to die violently. Trying to hide from that fact just seems weird to me.

I guess my final point is that it is not logical or objectively true (whatever that means) to say that violence is immature. That statement already carries an inherent assumption that violence is wrong or bad. You may feel that way, but it isn't really any kind of argument.

"violence is immature, because resorting to violence is childish, because violence shouldn't be resorted to, because violence is bad." This would seem to be the line of reasoning behind it. That's fine as an opinion, but it's not an argument, or even an explanation of why you think what you do.

 

[wulf3n]

What got me to open this discussion was that many have said that non-violence (except in self-defense) is better. I simply can't fathom that thought process which is exactly whey I'm interested in it. Continue.

It's because for those who aren't delicate little flowers emotionally, being verbally insulted means shit all. Hence the response of physically attacking someone for it makes no sense, as you gain nothing, but risk so much. In the "adult" world attacking someone even if they provoked you verbally is still likely to get you charged with assault and battery, if they decide to press charges. This can potentially hinder you ability to find work or travel overseas, among other things.

To flip the question around, what exactly do you feel you get out of hitting someone?

 

[SanguiniusMagnificum]

Agreed. First world societies have turned the modern mail into a posturing, preening, pussified version of what they once were. "Men" nowadays are supposed to be perfectly behaved little darlings who never fight or roughhouse. If more guys spent some time in the gym and away from their computer screens I think they'd be better off. If someone provokes you, or relentlessly mocks you, then they deserve to get hit. Maybe they should learn a little respect instead of me having to exercise restraint when they obviously aren't.

Well then, Oh Great Masculine Icon of Masculinity, may I ask you why you just took your time to write this in front of your little computer screen instead of spending more time at the gym or "roughhousing" like a real "mail" does?

I don't mean any disrespect, I assure you! I just hope that I'm not one of those people that deserves to get hit by your magnificent fists drenched in pure masculine manliness!!!!

 

[chikusho]

There's no justification for using violence.

Frankly, the people who would turn violent in order to "teach someone a lesson" are probably not the people who should be teaching lessons in the first place.

 

[JoJo]

Agreed. First world societies have turned the modern mail into a posturing, preening, pussified version of what they once were. "Men" nowadays are supposed to be perfectly behaved little darlings who never fight or roughhouse. If more guys spent some time in the gym and away from their computer screens I think they'd be better off. If someone provokes you, or relentlessly mocks you, then they deserve to get hit. Maybe they should learn a little respect instead of me having to exercise restraint when they obviously aren't.

Statistically, violent crime is at an all-time low in the Western world. For example, it's estimated medieval England percentage wise had 10 to 100 times more deaths by violence than the United Kingdom in the 21st century. Men have certainly become less violent over time, or 'pussified' as you put it, and that's absolutely a good thing in my opinion. What exactly would be the benefits to society of what you propose?

Just for the sake of argument: why is it better that more people don't die from violence now? I am not trying to change your mind, but this does really seem like a simple case of different people having different values.

I for one think that a violent death is at least more... honest? Having a physical body means that you are going to get injured sometimes, you are going to experience pain, and at some point you are going to die. Everyone is going to die eventually, and it's always going to be unpleasant. That seems like something that we should all learn to accept and live with. Violence is at least very straightforward, and it puts death and injury out in the open. To me it feels like our modern society has developed an unhealthy tendency to hide death away in hospitals, to try and not think about it for as long as possible, to sanitize what is in fact a part of life as important and significant as being born.

At any rate, a world filled with violence is in no objective way better or worse than one without. It may just appeal to different people.

Is it better to have a world where the physically strongest are able to dominate everyone else? Or a world where the wealthiest are able to dominate everyone else? Or one where those born into a privileged class are able to dominate everyone else?

The reality of the world seems pretty clearly to be that, no matter what, someone is going to get screwed over, and at least a system where the defining factor is violence seems the most natural and straightforward. Humans are after all living organisms, and generally speaking many if not most living organisms tend to die violently. Trying to hide from that fact just seems weird to me.

If someone doesn't die from violence, they'll die from something-else... later. Later is the important part, less murders means a longer lifespan for the potential victims, which most people would consider a good thing. If you're looking for objectivity you won't find it here, morality is all based on subjective values. My argument is that a non-violent world would lead to greater happiness on average and that most people value happiness as a good thing.

Incidentally, I don't see death by violence from humans as any more 'natural' than death by illness (violence by microorganisms, or your own body turned against you) or death by accident, they're all equally death and all equally preferably minimized whenever possible, at-least from my point of view. But anyhow, naturalness is a subjective value and not a particularly attractive one in my opinion, I don't really see how something happening in the natural world gives that thing some kind of inherent value. I mean rape, cannibalism, inter-species mating etc are all very common in the natural world and you won't see many fans of natural products advocating those ;-)

 

[Dimitriov]

If someone doesn't die from violence, they'll die from something-else... later. Later is the important part, less murders means a longer lifespan for the potential victims, which most people would consider a good thing. If you're looking for objectivity you won't find it here, morality is all based on subjective values. My argument is that a non-violent world would lead to greater happiness on average and that most people value happiness as a good thing.

Incidentally, I don't see death by violence from humans as any more 'natural' than death by illness (violence by microorganisms, or your own body turned against you) or death by accident, they're all equally death and all equally preferably minimized whenever possible, at-least from my point of view. But anyhow, naturalness is a subjective value and not a particularly attractive one in my opinion, I don't really see how something happening in the natural world gives that thing some kind of inherent value. I mean rape, cannibalism, inter-species mating etc are all very common in the natural world and you won't see many fans of natural products advocating those ;-)

True enough, and I am not suggesting that I think everyone should go out and start killing people until there are none of us left. Just that I don't think there should be a systematic effort to end all violence completely.

Sometimes violence is appropriate. Sometimes a violent death is a good death. Sometimes getting punched in the face is actually the best result for both people. Certainly not always, but nevertheless I believe that those statements are sometimes true.

Incidentally I am not sure that happiness is really ever increased by that sort of thing. There seems to be a lot of depression and anxiety in our modern, less-violent society. Quite possibly more than there used to be, though I certainly wouldn't suggest that I think that is directly linked to less violence.

What I do think is that sometimes violence seems to be the most natural and appropriate response to certain stimuli, and to act otherwise seems distinctly unnatural. Humans are animals capable of reasoning and logic. I think we should embrace all aspects of who we are. Just as it's important to be physically healthy and to exercise, it's important to use your mind, your creativity, and exercise your reason. Sometimes it's best to restrain yourself, and sometimes it's best to hit someone. Any philosophy that disregards some aspect what humans are has always seemed inherently disordered to me.

Anyhoo, I like talking this sort of thing out with other people: it helps put my own feelings, opinions, and reasoning into a clearer frame.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Snip.

Maybe it would help if you provided situations where physical violence would be an appropriate and necessary response, and again don't just list self-defense examples.

You say that there are situations where you would view it as appropriate and you don't understand us who don't see said situations where it's appropriate. As the creator of this thread, the burden of proof lies on you to provide us with a situation in adult life where physical violence would be needed as a proper retaliatory position.

If you want to convince us that physical violence may be necessary, actually try and prove it. Don't just be vague and open-ended, hinting at situations that may or may not exist. Provide some substantial evidence to the claim that you're trying to make.

 

[Twattycake_Fancypant]

True enough, and I am not suggesting that I think everyone should go out and start killing people until there are none of us left. Just that I don't think there should be a systematic effort to end all violence completely.

I disagree. Let's see what you have to offer to support that opinion.

Sometimes violence is appropriate.

You know, practically speaking, I never in my life had to resort to violence, but I'm just gonna agree with you theoretically here.

Sometimes a violent death is a good death.

A "good death" is a funny concept. According to whom? To you? You're fucking dead. What's it to you?

Sometimes getting punched in the face is actually the best result for both people. Certainly not always, but nevertheless I believe that those statements are sometimes true.

Alright. We'd be talking about very extreme situations here, though. Yes, me getting punched in the teeth would be a better outcome than me not getting punched but proceeding to rape that person I just met. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and please do punch rapists, but it isn't a likely scenario in the grand scheme of all the scenarios people get to fisty-cuffs over.

Incidentally I am not sure that happiness is really ever increased by that sort of thing. There seems to be a lot of depression and anxiety in our modern, less-violent society. Quite possibly more than there used to be, though I certainly wouldn't suggest that I think that is directly linked to less violence.

All in all, I prefer people being depressed to people being killed or maimed.

What I do think is that sometimes violence seems to be the most natural and appropriate response to certain stimuli, and to act otherwise seems distinctly unnatural.

Really? I'm not even going to get into that debate of why "natural" and "unnatural" aren't words of any fucking meaning, when you're debating moral issues. Let me just say that snake poison is as natural as it gets. You still wouldn't want it in you.

Humans are animals capable of reasoning and logic. I think we should embrace all aspects of who we are.

No. We should acknowledge them and then stay the fuck away of the stupid aspects.

Just as it's important to be physically healthy and to exercise, it's important to use your mind, your creativity, and exercise your reason.

Exactly. I don't know about your kind of creativity and reason, but mine don't involve a lot of violence.

Sometimes it's best to restrain yourself, and sometimes it's best to hit someone.

Really? Apart from stopping someone from hitting someone else, I can't think of any reasons. Even then I'm not sure. Cally me a feminised pansy, though. I'm a pacifist.

Any philosophy that disregards some aspect what humans are has always seemed inherently disordered to me.

Funny how pacifism doesn't disregard the fact that humans are basically naked, dickish monkeys. It just tries to not encourage them to take up crude clubs.

Anyhoo, I like talking this sort of thing out with other people: it helps put my own feelings, opinions, and reasoning into a clearer frame.

Glad I could help.


Heeeeey. First post after ages of lurking. I've witnessed a lot of stupid arguments around here, but many of the posts in this thread just take the cake. I felt I had to say something. Also, for full disclosure, since those questions were asked earlier: I am 28, a pacifist, no, I never had a fight, yes, I was bullied for a while in school. Yes, it was pretty hard on me.

So... I guess I'm done.

 

[mecegirl]

When I was in grade school my dad had a policy. He always expected us (me and my siblings) to tell those in authority at school when someone bothered us. He also expected us to tell either him or our mother. He felt that it was important to keep a record of bulling. But also let us know that if the bully pushed things too far, and if the teachers never intervened, if we lost our tempers and lashed out that it would be okay with him. To him violence was a last resort, and an unfortunate byproduct of being pushed to far. He told us stories of his school life where classmates wouldn't leave him alone until he fought them, and I have had similar experiences in my childhood. As an adult not so much...

It is not that people don't pester you as an adult, it is just that it is usually less obvious. Generally your coworker or boss won't call you names or shove you around like the bullies in high school. The attacks will be more subtle and so the response will need to be subtle as well. And unless the entire system is corrupt, if someone does behave that way at work you can keep a record of it and show human resources. You are more likely to meet someone who uses such tactics randomly, so unlike school you are not trapped in an environment where you have to deal with that sort of abuse over and over. I mean...I would like to just walk up and punch every dude that says something rude to me on the street, but it's not really practical is it? But if, heaven forbid, I find myself in an abusive(verbally or physically) relationship and I end up starting a physical fight, while it isn't the best way to deal with the issue its a bit more understandable why I would resort to violence.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I tend to agree with the OP. I was forever getting into trouble in school because I'd beat people up for teasing me, which they did a lot of, fuck knows why, you'd think they'd learn. But here's the thing - most of the way through high school, and definitely now at University, nobody starts that kind of thing except lowlifes you see on the street occasionally. It's not even a problem for adults.

 

[JoJo]

If someone doesn't die from violence, they'll die from something-else... later. Later is the important part, less murders means a longer lifespan for the potential victims, which most people would consider a good thing. If you're looking for objectivity you won't find it here, morality is all based on subjective values. My argument is that a non-violent world would lead to greater happiness on average and that most people value happiness as a good thing.

Incidentally, I don't see death by violence from humans as any more 'natural' than death by illness (violence by microorganisms, or your own body turned against you) or death by accident, they're all equally death and all equally preferably minimized whenever possible, at-least from my point of view. But anyhow, naturalness is a subjective value and not a particularly attractive one in my opinion, I don't really see how something happening in the natural world gives that thing some kind of inherent value. I mean rape, cannibalism, inter-species mating etc are all very common in the natural world and you won't see many fans of natural products advocating those ;-)

True enough, and I am not suggesting that I think everyone should go out and start killing people until there are none of us left. Just that I don't think there should be a systematic effort to end all violence completely.

Sometimes violence is appropriate. Sometimes a violent death is a good death. Sometimes getting punched in the face is actually the best result for both people. Certainly not always, but nevertheless I believe that those statements are sometimes true.

Incidentally I am not sure that happiness is really ever increased by that sort of thing. There seems to be a lot of depression and anxiety in our modern, less-violent society. Quite possibly more than there used to be, though I certainly wouldn't suggest that I think that is directly linked to less violence.

What I do think is that sometimes violence seems to be the most natural and appropriate response to certain stimuli, and to act otherwise seems distinctly unnatural. Humans are animals capable of reasoning and logic. I think we should embrace all aspects of who we are. Just as it's important to be physically healthy and to exercise, it's important to use your mind, your creativity, and exercise your reason. Sometimes it's best to restrain yourself, and sometimes it's best to hit someone. Any philosophy that disregards some aspect what humans are has always seemed inherently disordered to me.

Anyhoo, I like talking this sort of thing out with other people: it helps put my own feelings, opinions, and reasoning into a clearer frame.

The world is unpredictable, indeed in retrospect sometimes violence leads to a better result. I stand by my personal code though that violence should only ever be used in self-defence, or in the defence of others. There are too many negative consequences of violence in my opinion to risk using it in situations where no violence has arisen. You have said violence can be appropriate quite a few times but never given any solid examples of situations where it would be, would you mind providing some outside of the obvious self-defence/defence of others ones we all agree on? I've asked it to a couple of other people on this thread so far and no-one has delivered yet :-/

 

[Britpoint]

Personally I would never want to throw the first punch. I'm not a complete pacifist by any means, but I look at violence as the last resort of somebody who doesn't have a good argument.

If somebody says or does something to me that really deserves a hit, I'd rather provoke them to attack me. That way I have the satisfaction of knowing I had the sharper tongue, the calmer head and only resorted to violence in self-defence. AND I get to hit the bastard. Win-win.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

I don't like using specific examples because people tend to latch on to it. Most personal experiences are just that, personal. And they are not good enough to stand as evidence. But since I like your avatar (And you have a valid point) I'll do this for you:

Grinning Cat

In New York city you have people who can be classified as the "Don't give a fucks." They vary in ages from younglings to adults and can be found mostly in the city. The most common examples take place on a bus, in a movie theater, or maybe even on a train. In my personal experience, the "Don't give a fucks" will be loud, obnoxious, and abrasive. They are somewhat aware of what they are doing and they dare you to say anything to them. They welcome the chance for a fight and the opportunity to whup someone in a fight. I've been in situations when someone has dared to say something, like "Will you please lower your voice?, Could you please be quiet?" Some have even got mad enough to tell them to "Shut the Fuck up." In all cases the response is usually met with, if it's a youngling "You ain't my momma nigga.", if it's an adult "Who da' fuck are you?" This goes back to the point I made about everyone's geographic location. I presumed most Escapists have never had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with adults who simply "don't give a fuck." Most black people in, and out of, the city have experiences with these type of people. Same goes for people in most countries around the world. On average it seems white people don't have to deal with this type of thing. Which is why my claim, that sometimes fighting is necessary, seems obvious to some while others not so much. I hope I answered your inquiry. If I haven't I will try again.

 

[Flames66]

This is going to sound really insulting to a certain demographic but I'm going with it. Hopefully I don't offend too many people here but I'm about to offend a bunch of people I'm sure

That's how children solve their problems. Your example of a High School setting perfectly demonstrates this for you don't see that kind of shit in the adult world. In my experience, you see adults coming to fistacuffs for one reason:

Alcohol (which gives them the mind of children)

I'm 28 years old. I can't think of any situation outside of an actual direct threat to myself or someone else where I would be willing to throw down.

So yeah, I stereotyped away here (keep in mind that there are going to be kids who are way smarter and adults who act like children) but I am curious how many of the "I would beat her ass if she slapped me!!!! She wants equal rights so that means I get to punch her teeth out if she hits me!" responses are under the age of 21...

I can think of several situations in my life where coming to blows was the appropriate response. They did not directly involve me, but if they had I hope I would have had the courage to break the guys jaw and accept the consequences.

One such incident involved a member of my family deciding they had had enough of a certain situation and walking for the door. Someone else in the room thought they should stay and blocked the exit in a somewhat threatening way. Personally, I would have said get out of my way, once, and jabbed them in the throat if they didn't (the person in question was large and physically imposing, not someone to be taken on with less immobilising methods).

Second that. Don't we all live in societies were assault is a crime?

Also...going by the OP wrote, I think we are allowed to beat up the OP if we don't like what they wrote. Not sure that's a good idea.

...

Now, coincidentally, I've been reading up on dueling, and maybe sorta that could make more sense, because both parties involved have agreed to the fight. Doesn't strike me as a good idea, though.

A duel is a matter of honour, not something to be taken lightly. It is using ones martial skill to protect and champion their beliefs, against those of their opponent. That is why trial by combat was a sacred thing in previous societies and should be now. The only problem is that if a challenge is made it must not be mandatory to accept, otherwise the strong will prey on the weak and so on.

 

[chikusho]

In New York city you have people who can be classified as the "Don't give a fucks." They vary in ages from younglings to adults and can be found mostly in the city. The most common examples take place on a bus, in a movie theater, or maybe even on a train. In my personal experience, the "Don't give a fucks" will be loud, obnoxious, and abrasive. They are somewhat aware of what they are doing and they dare you to say anything to them. They welcome the chance for a fight and the opportunity to whup someone in a fight. I've been in situations when someone has dared to say something, like "Will you please lower your voice?, Could you please be quiet?" Some have even got mad enough to tell them to "Shut the Fuck up." In all cases the response is usually met with, if it's a youngling "You ain't my momma nigga.", if it's an adult "Who da' fuck are you?" This goes back to the point I made about everyone's geographic location. I presumed most Escapists have never had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with adults who simply "don't give a fuck." Most black people in, and out of, the city have experiences with these type of people. Same goes for people in most countries around the world. On average it seems white people don't have to deal with this type of thing. Which is why my claim, that sometimes fighting is necessary, seems obvious to some while others not so much. I hope I answered your inquiry. If I haven't I will try again.

What, so when people go out looking for a fight, it's necessary to fight them?

 

[Twattycake_Fancypant]

I don't like using specific examples because people tend to latch on to it. Most personal experiences are just that, personal. And they are not good enough to stand as evidence. But since I like your avatar (And you have a valid point) I'll do this for you:

Grinning Cat

In New York city you have people who can be classified as the "Don't give a fucks." They vary in ages from younglings to adults and can be found mostly in the city. The most common examples take place on a bus, in a movie theater, or maybe even on a train. In my personal experience, the "Don't give a fucks" will be loud, obnoxious, and abrasive. They are somewhat aware of what they are doing and they dare you to say anything to them. They welcome the chance for a fight and the opportunity to whup someone in a fight. I've been in situations when someone has dared to say something, like "Will you please lower your voice?, Could you please be quiet?" Some have even got mad enough to tell them to "Shut the Fuck up." In all cases the response is usually met with, if it's a youngling "You ain't my momma nigga.", if it's an adult "Who da' fuck are you?" This goes back to the point I made about everyone's geographic location. I presumed most Escapists have never had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with adults who simply "don't give a fuck." Most black people in, and out of, the city have experiences with these type of people. Same goes for people in most countries around the world. On average it seems white people don't have to deal with this type of thing. Which is why my claim, that sometimes fighting is necessary, seems obvious to some while others not so much. I hope I answered your inquiry. If I haven't I will try again.

Seeing that I am white and you seem to identify yourself as black, I have a question. What keeps you from getting up and moving ten seats down, or popping your headphones in or telling the **** that you are death incarnate and, if he doesn't shut up, his balls will drop off in twenty minutes? If you find a reason for that, why doesn't that apply to me? I'm sure you're going to tell me about how it is living in big cities now, but rest assured, that the nature of big cities kinda implies that a lot of other people live in them.

Captcha: mister wilson.
Yes. I do feel like the wise neighbour whose face you never get to see.