I TOLD YOU NO TO FUCK WITH ME

I never though I'd say this, but: AI's leaking


vvvv touché

Retards from the rest of the site leak into AI too, it's only fair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srsinternets

Well before you get even more upset listen to the very first fucking thing the old guy says in the video:

"How much would you charge me for a spitshine?"

And then he says:

"YOU OFFERED!"

---

This is what I figured. I shouldn't have said it was obvious because looking back on it it isn't. The first thing I heard was the white guy saying how much would you charge me for a spitshine. If that was the first thing that was said then I think it was a blatantly racist comment that was undeserved. If the situation occurred like anonymous d said then I would think the black guy is in the wrong. Assuming my original theory was true, it doesn't matter what the white guy said or did after, he completely instigated the entire thing. He would have been picking on someone who he determined wouldn't let that comment go in an effort to start a conflict and moving to the front of the bus doesn't change anything.

I know am jumping to some conclusions by thinking this and what made me do that was hearing about the guy starting trouble before(getting tazed at a baseball game, the clip of him after he got off the bus). It seems more likely that this guy was just starting trouble again and I don't see why we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of someone who has no history of this kind of stuff(that we are aware of at least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

It seems more likely that this guy was just starting trouble again and I don't see why we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of someone who has no history of this kind of stuff(that we are aware of at least).

---

In the video in question, you can see him decide to escalate a verbal argument to physical violence AFTER the other party to the argument walked away, so I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that he's the one deserving the benefit of the doubt. Also, didn't he turn out to be a convicted murderer who was violating his parole by carrying a knife? And didn't he threaten the other guy with it? I don't know what exactly you mean by "this kind of stuff", but if that's true, it's also probably not fair to say that he had no history of instigating altercations.

Ok guys. This is what happened.

White guy is sitting with his feet in the aisle.

Black guy makes a comment to the effect of "Hey man move yo feet, what, you want me to spit shine yo shoes or sumthin?"

White guy says yes, and goes with it.

Black guy calls for amber lamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

In the video in question, you can see him decide to escalate a verbal argument to physical violence AFTER the other party to the argument walked away, so I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that he's the one deserving the benefit of the doubt. Also, didn't he turn out to be a convicted murderer who was violating his parole by carrying a knife? And didn't he threaten the other guy with it? I don't know what exactly you mean by "this kind of stuff", but if that's true, it's also probably not fair to say that he had no history of instigating altercations.

---

Yes the black guy decided to continue confronting the white guy after he had made a blatantly racist remark and moved to another spot on the bus like that would make it ok that he had said that. So if I went up to someone and said something derogatory to them but then I walked 10 feet away and sat down, it would be ok? The guy shouldn't have resorted to violence but I can see how it happened. Again remember I am basing this off of the assumption that the first thing that was said was what the guy said on the video. I haven't heard anything about the guy turning out to be a convicted murderer who was violating his parole, nor did I hear anything about a knife being involved(and I think that was clear by my saying "that we are aware of at least"). I only watched the video 2 times though so I very well could have missed it. When I said "this kind of stuff" I obviously meant a history of instigating altercations, and I know you knew what I meant.

Really I shouldn't be giving either of them the benefit of the doubt. The black guy was clearly in the wrong for actually resorting to violence first, but the white guy was nearly as guilty in my opinion. The black guy pushed/hit him one time and the other guy just pummeled him to the ground, he could have stopped after he threw the first or second counter punch. Instead he continued to hit him right in his face, knowing he was in no real danger from the guy. How is that justified? Then he proceeded to go off the bus and run around ranting "I am a motherfucker" and you are trying to defend this guy? The whole I told you not to fuck with me part also led me to believe that he had started this knowing it was going to result in some kind of physical altercation that the white guy was confident in winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Ok guys. This is what happened.

White guy is sitting with his feet in the aisle.

Black guy makes a comment to the effect of "Hey man move yo feet, what, you want me to spit shine yo shoes or sumthin?"

White guy says yes, and goes with it.

Black guy calls for amber lamps.

---

If this is what happened then I will be glad because I will be able to enjoy that video even more.

Don't talk shit bout my epic beard man.

bottom line is both of them are useless piece of trash

where's the motivation to discuss instigation and awkwardly dance around ulterior racist arguments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

The black guy was clearly in the wrong for actually resorting to violence first, but the white guy was nearly as guilty in my opinion.

---

You seriously think physical assault is only slightly more reprehensible than insulting remarks? If you see so little difference between words and blows, that's your business I guess, but the law disagrees for a quite good reason (as do most reasonable people, I think). Offending someone verbally is not "nearly" as bad as attacking them physically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

The black guy pushed/hit him one time and the other guy just pummeled him to the ground, he could have stopped after he threw the first or second counter punch. Instead he continued to hit him right in his face, knowing he was in no real danger from the guy. How is that justified?

---

No, I don't think that would have been a good idea. When someone assaults you, it's probably not wise to punch them back once and then stand back and be like "there, now we're even!" and expect the other guy to drop it. This isn't a couple of pre-adolescent siblings trading kiddie punches iin their backyard; this is a guy being assaulted by a violent stranger. When someone assaults you and you have to defend yourself, you should end the fight conclusively. This is not only common sense, it's legally defensible. Maybe his last few punches weren't strictly necessary since the guy was already on his way to the floor, but it's not like he got him on the ground and then started kicking/stomping him, and certainly he was justified in throwing more than one or two punches. The exchange of blows only lasted a couple seconds and the old guy didn't cross the line of justifiable defense against a physical assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Then he proceeded to go off the bus and run around ranting "I am a motherfucker" and you are trying to defend this guy?

---

I dunno, it guess it depends on what you mean by "defend". I'm not saying he's a civic hero, or a good person in general, nor am I trying to defend his verbal sparring with the other guy (that was irresponsible) or the way he rants and raves after he gets of the bus (though I can understand why he's worked up into an emotional state). So please don't try to suggest that I'm a fan of his behavior. But yes, I would defend him from charges that he is responsible for initiating the fight (the only one responsible for that is the guy who threw the first punch), and I would say that the way he finished the fight is perfectly defensible in every way. Unless a person can throw a pretty ridiculous punch, or gets really lucky and knocks out some teeth or something, hitting someone only once or twice is unlikely to take the fight out of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

The whole I told you not to fuck with me part also led me to believe that he had started this knowing it was going to result in some kind of physical altercation that the white guy was confident in winning.

---

I think this is a pretty baseless assumption, it seems perfectly reasonable that someone would yell this when they're in a keyed-up, adrenalin-filled state after being physically assaulted by someone who they warned to leave them alone and tried to walk away from. That's no good grounds to assume that he was trying to bait the dude into a fight. If anyone besides the black guy himself bears responsibility for that, it was the idiots on the bus encouraging him to "beat his ass".

I TOLD YOU NO FUCK WITH SYME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

You seriously think physical assault is only slightly more reprehensible than insulting remarks? If you see so little difference between words and blows, that's your business I guess, but the law disagrees for a quite good reason (as do most reasonable people, I think). Offending someone verbally is not "nearly" as bad as attacking them physically.

---

I think it depends on the things that were said. If he said something blatantly offensive that could start a physical confrontation then it is at least partially his fault. I do appreciate the snide "as do most reasonable people, I think" remark being tossed in. Clearly the difference verbal and physical confrontation is entirely cut and dry and one would never inevitably lead to the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

No, I don't think that would have been a good idea. When someone assaults you, it's probably not wise to punch them back once and then stand back and be like "there, now we're even!" and expect the other guy to drop it. This isn't a couple of pre-adolescent siblings trading kiddie punches iin their backyard; this is a guy being assaulted by a violent stranger. When someone assaults you and you have to defend yourself, you should end the fight conclusively. This is not only common sense, it's legally defensible. Maybe his last few punches weren't strictly necessary since the guy was already on his way to the floor, but it's not like he got him on the ground and then started kicking/stomping him, and certainly he was justified in throwing more than one or two punches. The exchange of blows only lasted a couple seconds and the old guy didn't cross the line of justifiable defense against a physical assault.

---

Yea I suppose his little beating was justified, putting myself in his position I would have wanted to do the same thing. Watching the video just made it seem a bit over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I dunno, it guess it depends on what you mean by "defend". I'm not saying he's a civic hero, or a good person in general, nor am I trying to defend his verbal sparring with the other guy (that was irresponsible) or the way he rants and raves after he gets of the bus (though I can understand why he's worked up into an emotional state). So please don't try to suggest that I'm a fan of his behavior. But yes, I would defend him from charges that he is responsible for initiating the fight (the only one responsible for that is the guy who threw the first punch), and I would say that the way he finished the fight is perfectly defensible in every way. Unless a person can throw a pretty ridiculous punch, or gets really lucky and knocks out some teeth or something, hitting someone only once or twice is unlikely to take the fight out of them.

---

Listen, I'm going to make something perfectly clear right now. I am not saying that the white guy should face any kind of legal charges. I was thinking about this whole thing in terms of morality and not strictly what is or isn't legal. I never said anything involving criminal charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

this is a pretty baseless assumption, it seems perfectly reasonable that someone would yell this when they're in a keyed-up, adrenalin-filled state after being physically assaulted by someone who they warned to leave them alone and tried to walk away from. That's no good grounds to assume that he was trying to bait the dude into a fight. If anyone besides the black guy himself bears responsibility for that, it was the idiots on the bus encouraging him to "beat his ass".

---

I agree that the people on the bus were irresponsible as well and only helped instigate the situation. Have you watched any of this guys videos though? He wasn't a regular guy in an adrenaline filled state, he looks to me like he is mentally unstable and I think every one of his videos support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

I think it depends on the things that were said. If he said something blatantly offensive that could start a physical confrontation then it is at least partially his fault. I do appreciate the snide "as do most reasonable people, I think" remark being tossed in. Clearly the difference verbal and physical confrontation is entirely cut and dry and one would never inevitably lead to the other.

---

I didn't say one couldn't lead to the other, obviously they can. I'm saying that when the former leads to the latter, it's a significant escalation--a major change in the situation, not just the natural next step--and the responsibility for the escalation rests with the person who said to themselves "Well this guy has offended me with what he's said so I think I'll go rearrange his face". I don't think it's reasonable to say that the person who uttered those offensive words is "nearly as guilty" (your exact phrase) in the confrontation as the guy who decided to express his indignation by clobbering whoever insulted him. I wasn't being snide, I was being quite earnest about what views I think are reasonable and unreasonable. If someone says to me (as you did) that a victim of assault is "nearly as guilty" as their attacker because they said something to piss the attacker off, I tend to think that person is being unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Listen, I'm going to make something perfectly clear right now. I am not saying that the white guy should face any kind of legal charges. I was thinking about this whole thing in terms of morality and not strictly what is or isn't legal. I never said anything involving criminal charges.

---

I know what you're saying. I'm talking about moral responsibility just as much as I am about legal responsibility. I disagree that the older guy was "nearly" as guilty of instigating the fight, in moral terms, as his attacker. He isn't totally blameless but I think that a substantially larger portion of the blame has to go to the guy who decided to resolve a stupid verbal spat by throwing punches, especially since he chased after the old guy to do after the old guy walked away. Offensive words aren't enough to justify claims of "nearly" equal guilt. And I think that the way he handled the physical fight was perfectly defensible in moral terms as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

I agree that the people on the bus were irresponsible as well and only helped instigate the situation. Have you watched any of this guys videos though? He wasn't a regular guy in an adrenaline filled state, he looks to me like he is mentally unstable and I think every one of his videos support that.

---

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that "I told you not to fuck with me" is a fairly reasonable thing for a keyed-up person to say after defending themselves against an attacker who they had already warned to leave them alone, so I don't think you are right in concluding that the guy must have been trolling for a fight because he said that. Maybe he WAS trolling for a fight, but the mere fact that he said "I told you not to fuck with me" doesn't support that conclusion.

agh jesus christ killuminati you are such a douchebag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

bottom line is both of them are useless piece of trash

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I didn't say one couldn't lead to the other, obviously they can. I'm saying that when the former leads to the latter, it's a significant escalation--a major change in the situation, not just the natural next step--and the responsibility for the escalation rests with the person who said to themselves "Well this guy has offended me with what he's said so I think I'll go rearrange his face". I don't think it's reasonable to say that the person who uttered those offensive words is "nearly as guilty" (your exact phrase) in the confrontation as the guy who decided to express his indignation by clobbering whoever insulted him. I wasn't being snide, I was being quite earnest about what views I think are reasonable and unreasonable. If someone says to me (as you did) that a victim of assault is "nearly as guilty" as their attacker because they said something to piss the attacker off, I tend to think that person is being unreasonable.

---

This victim of assault was taunting his soon to be attacker by saying "I'll slap the shit out of you". The guy moved to the front of the bus and continued goading this guy on. Now I want to make it clear that I am not saying that taunting or continuing an argument is justification for hitting someone because it absolutely is not. I shouldn't have said nearly because they are definitely an order of magnitude apart. However, that doesn't just clear him of responsibility. I also took that to be a snide comment but if it legitimately wasn't then sorry for saying that. It seemed like one at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I know what you're saying. I'm talking about moral responsibility just as much as I am about legal responsibility. I disagree that the older guy was "nearly" as guilty of instigating the fight, in moral terms, as his attacker. He isn't totally blameless but I think that a substantially larger portion of the blame has to go to the guy who decided to resolve a stupid verbal spat by throwing punches, especially since he chased after the old guy to do after the old guy walked away. Offensive words aren't enough to justify claims of "nearly" equal guilt. And I think that the way he handled the physical fight was perfectly defensible in moral terms as well.

---

I'll admit that nearly wasn't the right word to use and you are right offensive words aren't enough to justify claims of nearly equal guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that "I told you not to fuck with me" is a fairly reasonable thing for a keyed-up person to say after defending themselves against an attacker who they had already warned to leave them alone, so I don't think you are right in concluding that the guy must have been trolling for a fight because he said that. Maybe he WAS trolling for a fight, but the mere fact that he said "I told you not to fuck with me" doesn't support that conclusion.

---

Really all I was getting at was that he was trolling for a fight and it seemed that way based on all of his videos, not just the one after the fight. I agree that that "I told you not to fuck with me" is a reasonable thing to say in that situation but in combination with his responses to the guy on the bus, as well as his other interviews made me support that conclusion.

I did just read the transcript of the interview as well and it does seem that the black guy started it by wrongly suggesting that the white guy was talking about a black person when he said boy.

What all of this comes down to is that I pity both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

agh jesus christ killuminati you are such a douchebag

---

What did I say here that made me a douchbag? I don't care if you think I am a douchebag but I am genuinely curious as to what I said in this thread that made you think that. I was even going to quote faesces post and make it a tl;dr to my post but chose not to because of his second comment in that post. I don't think there needs to be a motivation to discuss instigation, I am just doing this for fun.

i should clarify: the faesce excerpt was aimed at the discussion, not specifically you. only the douchebag comment was aimed at you.

you're a douchebag because your argument is dumb, and you're being an irritating, persistent curmudgeon.

i mean i'm a little surprised syme is lowering himself to even argue with you peons, but then he always has been one who can't walk away from stupidity on the internet, bless him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

i should clarify: the faesce excerpt was aimed at the discussion, not specifically you. only the douchebag comment was aimed at you.

you're a douchebag because your argument is dumb, and you're being an irritating, persistent curmudgeon.

i mean i'm a little surprised syme is lowering himself to even argue with you peons, but then he always has been one who can't walk away from stupidity on the internet, bless him.

---

Oh ok. That's pretty reasonable.

fun would be your motivation then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Yes the black guy decided to continue confronting the white guy after he had made a blatantly racist remark and moved to another spot on the bus like that would make it ok that he had said that. So if I went up to someone and said something derogatory to them but then I walked 10 feet away and sat down, it would be ok?

---

Legally speaking (in most US states) verbal provocation does not justify force.


Yes, it would be OK, because adults do not go attacking eachother over words.

Quote:

---

i mean i'm a little surprised syme is lowering himself to even argue with you peons,

---

Oh god LOL.


LOL so hard.

Someone give cliff notes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Someone give cliff notes.

---

black ppl rnt very tuff ppl fyi

old white ppl are pretty tough ppl fyi*


* If they have a beard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

i should clarify: the faesce excerpt was aimed at the discussion, not specifically you. only the douchebag comment was aimed at you.

you're a douchebag because your argument is dumb, and you're being an irritating, persistent curmudgeon.

i mean i'm a little surprised syme is lowering himself to even argue with you peons, but then he always has been one who can't walk away from stupidity on the internet, bless him.

---

lol wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozzy

lol wow

---

lol wow

mr. e can't find this thread cause he's too busy irl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

mr. e can't find this thread cause he's too busy irl.

---

qft

I now refuse to watch this video at any point in my life ever

The followup interview with "Slick"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csQjo6iInIU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozzy

lol wow

---

I forgot about this and said, "Oh Jesus Christ!." Then, I LOL'd again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

I forgot about this and said, "Oh Jesus Christ!." Then, I LOL'd again.

---

you are literally the worst poster on CASUAL DISCOURSE DOT COM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaiTengu

The followup interview with "Slick"

YouTube- Thomas Bruso aka Epic Beard Man EBM Interviewed

---

First page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

First page.

---

what, you expect me to read this whole thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

I forgot about this and said, "Oh Jesus Christ!." Then, I LOL'd again.

---

what i really don't understand about your posts is that they always seem to suggest you think that someone, somewhere, is on your side about anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaiTengu

what, you expect me to read this whole thread?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

what i really don't understand about your posts is that they always seem to suggest you think that someone, somewhere, is on your side about anything

---

Quote:

---

i mean i'm a little surprised syme is lowering himself to even argue with you peons, but then he always has been one who can't walk away from stupidity on the internet, bless him.

---

ITT: your "no one likes you on this internet" makes me LOL even harder.

this or any

they should make an operatic version of this. the black guy would be a tenor and the white guy would be a baritone or bass. the older lady who's trying to keep these guys apart would be a contralto. and the dumb girl recording this would be a mezzo-soprano.


amirite?

It would depend on how you wrote for the tenor whether or not it would properly mesh with the contralto, and if you've got a contralto and a tenor you definitely want the other guy to be a bass not a baritone.