BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Is abuse/assault ever justified?

  
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:59 / 24.09.03
OK, so over in Conversation we have some BarbeHeavyWeights arguing that throwing eggs and hurling abuse at a perfect stranger is fine and acceptable.

The basis of this argument appears to be that the person being assaulted, physically, verbally and mentally, has deliberately attracted attention to themselves with an act of gratuitous self aggrandisement and PR. Hence, since they are keen to attract attention to themselves, they are essentially 'asking for it' if the attention they thus attract is not the sort they were expecting. We the people have an inaliable right to respond to their act of attention seeking in any manner we see fit, including 'oviprojection' and hurling of insults.

Is this really acceptable? How does David Blaine's act of self promotion differ from that of a cross-dresser venturing out in public? Or a goth in full regalia on Camden High Street? Surely these are all acts of self expression designed, at least in some way, to attract attention and 'be noticed' for ones individuality?

And, taken to a harsh, perhaps unrealistic extreme, how does the argument itself differ from the rapist defence in court "She dresses like an absolute tart. She wanted it. It was consensual" and a jury agrreing on the basis that, if you wear micro miniskirts and bra-tops, you are an attention seeking slut, and don't come crying to the courts when the attention you receive is not what you were expecting?

Is abuse and assault really ever justifiable?
 
 
Unencumbered
09:29 / 24.09.03
I've thought long and hard about this and, despite a great deal of effort, I can't come up with a single satisfying, logical justification for my desire to hurl eggs at David Blaine. I must, therefore, and with a certain regret, restrain myself from doing so.

I can't think of any circumstances under which abuse or assault are justified. Understandable, yes, but not justified. An example:

Some years ago a friend of mine met a fellow who was walking home through a park late one night when he heard a noise. On investigating he found a man attempting to rape a young girl. He pulled the guy off her and beat the crap out of him, and for his efforts went to prison.

Now I can't honestly say that I feel at all sorry for the rapist, but I also can't consider that acting as judge, jury and executioner was a justified response, although I do think it's understandable.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:17 / 24.09.03
OK, bit of a wild introduction of the law into the debate, but OK. Did the rapist get prison also? Do you understand why your friend went to prison (I mean 'Is it understandable?'). Is the law justified sending your friend to prison for his efforts?
 
 
Ganesh
10:25 / 24.09.03
I think it's worth

a) making some attempt to differentiate the various types of 'physical, verbal and mental assault' under consideration here. Do they really exist along the same sort of 'abuse continuum', or are they qualitatively different?

and

b) taking account of the 'barrier factor'. I'd argue that Money $hot's examples all include elements of engagement with the greater public, but that the deliberate placing of oneself very visibly in public space but behind a barrier (as well as the additional distancing of being hoisted off the ground, fenced off, guarded and adopting a specific attitude of disdain) sends out different messages.
 
 
w1rebaby
10:30 / 24.09.03
Well, first of all, you're misrepresenting the arguments being made for the reasonableness of Blaine-egging here. There are obviously degrees of public display, and I would venture to suggest that dangling yourself in a roped-off area of public space with a massive media campaign is particularly invasive and goes beyond "self-expression". This is not a man innocently walking down the street, this is a man screaming "worship me" while simultaneously giving two fingers.

I suspect the main point here, though, is held in your abstract and last sentence - Is abuse and assault really ever justifiable?. To which I say, yes, of course it is. If someone calls me a wanker I reserve the right to call them one back. I feel I am justified in calling the President of the USA a lying bastard, or shouting "Nazi scum" at the BNP. I would have little hesitation in committing assault to help someone being attacked. Unless you are both a pacifist and a... well, I don't know that there is a word for it, someone who philosophically believes you should never say anything nasty to anyone, there are justifications.

and with that I will leave it because tradition requires that the first few posts on any Head Shop thread are ignored anyway
 
 
Unencumbered
10:45 / 24.09.03
Money $hot: Did the rapist get prison also?

Yes.

Do you understand why your friend went to prison (I mean 'Is it understandable?').

Absolutely.

Is the law justified sending your friend to prison for his efforts?

I'm not sure that prison was warranted in this particular instance, although some form of punishment clearly was.

fridgemagnet: I would have little hesitation in committing assault to help someone being attacked.

I fully agree that violence is justified under some circumstances, although I'm not sure that the term 'assault' is entirely appropriate under those circumstances due to its association, rightly or wrongly, with unprovoked and unwarranted violence. However, an extended discussion of semantics isn't required in this thread, I think.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:55 / 24.09.03
I think that the people arguing for David Blaine are doing a marvellous job of ignoring the absurd nature of this project and an even better job of being altogether too subjective. Ganesh has pointed out that David Blaine is behind a barrier, that he has purposefully put himself on show for no reason other than putting himself on show. That barrier gives us a way to express our feelings towards the event and disassociates us from the person. Thus the question in his particular case is not, for me, one of abuse but rather one of reaction. What precisely is it that really bothers me about this because it does really get my goat... how does it relate to a show like Big Brother and why are so many people fascinated by it?

I believe that the abuse towards Blaine is really directed towards the entire concept of this man in this box. Absolutely everything behind it has led people to throw things at him. There's a carnival mentality there but the assumption that it is directed towards him as a specific individual seems wrong to me.

Abuse and/or assault aimed at one individual because of the way they look- not their actions necessarily- is always wrong and unjustifiable but I don't think that David Blaine's time in a glass box works as an example.
 
 
Ganesh
11:07 / 24.09.03
If David Blaine were merely sitting on the ground starving himself, I don't think people would be throwing food. Offering him food, maybe, but not chucking it at him.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
22:27 / 24.09.03
differentiate the various types of 'physical, verbal and mental assault' under consideration here. Do they really exist along the same sort of 'abuse continuum', or are they qualitatively different?

That's a really good question...I tend, at the moment, to see just that - there is only a matter of degree, partly regulated by cultural and social acceptability, and partly regulated by a host of other factors such as core prejudices/beliefs etc. regarding the 'subject'...hence, if you feel that hurling physical objects at an individual to express any sort of disapproval or dissatisfaction at that person's conduct or self-expression is a valid protest/self-expression of your own, then the matter of degree to which you pursue that expression is dictated largely by

a) your personal emotive involvement
b) the accepted moral and legal 'norm' within which you can make the expression without fear of jeopardising your own life and liberty.
c) the consensual, mean-average form of self expression of your peers

So, with Blaine, even in a culture which accepted stoning as reasonable reaction to trangression of accepted whatevers, you may still only hurl eggs/tomatoes etc. because your personal emotive involvement is low, even though b) allows you to be more, er, dangerous.

On the other hand, as with the xenophobic kind of dude who really went AWOL on the whole rope cutting, water supply cutting thing, HE may have hurled rocks, if it were more culturally and socially (and legally) acceptable to do so. He was arrested for his relatively minor, though disturbing, actions anyway.

Or, you may only feel like hurling eggs, but turn up to do so, notice that everyone else is chucking stones, and decide that, yeah, stones are more like it. What a cunt!

Also, I guess you are saying that objecting to a 'media stunt', conceived and executed from the outset for personal kudos and financial return, and the surrounding media circus, is different to objecting to someones apparel, or haircut, or sexuality, whatever, which is a far more personal, and 'intrinsic', or 'genuine' (for want of a better term) trait - and the form of response to such objections may be qualitatively different...hmmm....

Not sure on that count, have to mull it over more...Does book burning exist on the same continuum as persecution of a particular race/social class/whatever? Blaine and his stunt are a media product for the enjoyment of entertainment consumers, so are books...Obviously we are not cremating Blaine, but I tend to see, at the moment, both acts (egging and burning) as similar in meaning and intent (???)

What do you think, Ganesh? Are 'they' qualitatively differnet? (not necessarily the above example, but your initial question regarding differentiating the various sorts of abuse).

taking account of the 'barrier factor'. I'd argue that Money $hot's examples all include elements of engagement with the greater public, but that the deliberate placing of oneself very visibly in public space but behind a barrier (as well as the additional distancing of being hoisted off the ground, fenced off, guarded and adopting a specific attitude of disdain) sends out different messages.

I agree, but wonder if Blaine had done his 'on a pole high up for 48 hours' stunt in London as well, would the egg chuckers not have turned out in force??? Idle speculation of course, because he didn't, but I know what I suspect - he'd have been an unborn omlette if only people had the throwing strength. Still, who knows??

fridge says

If someone calls me a wanker I reserve the right to call them one back. I feel I am justified in calling the President of the USA a lying bastard, or shouting "Nazi scum" at the BNP.

This is interesting, but the question in the abstract deals more with the guy calling you the wanker in the first place rather than your response to that...OK, it's reductio ad absurdum, so in the real world, is returning an insult to an abusive person abuse? I'm not sure it is, in the same way that I agree with matey above (sorry forgot your suit) that attacking a man in the process of raping a girl is not really 'assault', per se...

If you are assaulted (phyically, verbally, mentally, etc.,), then self defence is a natural response - but Blaine has not committed any sort of assault of abuse of anyone in his present endeavour - you have every opportunity to just pay no attention whatsoever - so I'm not really feeling the 'If someone calls me a wanker I reserve the right to call them one back' argument...In this case, the initial abuse is froma third party, and its abuse we are talking about...sorry, not that coherent I don't think, but I hope you know what I mean...

As for the Pres of the USA, have you called him a lying bastard?? I mean, to his face, or some other way directly to him? Cos I don't think chatting to a mate, or posting on a message board, about a third party who is totally ignorant of your opinion constitutes abuse...

And, I would say, if you defend your right to call the BNP "Nazi Scum" you are defending their right to call black people "Niggers" or Arab people "Towel Heads" and so on...Am I missing something? Or do you defend their right to this freedom of speech?

Thanks for replying, anyhoo.
 
 
Ganesh
23:09 / 24.09.03
That's a really good question...I tend, at the moment, to see just that - there is only a matter of degree, partly regulated by cultural and social acceptability, and partly regulated by a host of other factors such as core prejudices/beliefs etc. regarding the 'subject'

So... you appear to be saying at the outset that all instances of (what you'd consider) assault/abuse - whether physically attacking their person, shouting at them or, um, 'mentally' assaulting them (thinking about them in an aggressive way?) are of the same continuum, albeit moderated by a myriad social, cultural and personal factors. Yes?

...hence, if you feel that hurling physical objects at an individual to express any sort of disapproval or dissatisfaction at that person's conduct or self-expression is a valid protest/self-expression of your own, then the matter of degree to which you pursue that expression is dictated largely by

a) your personal emotive involvement
b) the accepted moral and legal 'norm' within which you can make the expression without fear of jeopardising your own life and liberty.
c) the consensual, mean-average form of self expression of your peers

I'm not sure I understand this, but I'll give it a shot. Essentially, yes, although c) is a factor of b) and may or may not be relevant. Also, the term "emotive" in a) is itself emotive; one's urge to critique might equally be motivated by intellectual or absurdist principles.

So, with Blaine, even in a culture which accepted stoning as reasonable reaction to trangression of accepted whatevers, you may still only hurl eggs/tomatoes etc. because your personal emotive involvement is low, even though b) allows you to be more, er, dangerous.

I cannot answer from experience, as I do not presently live in an adulteress-stoning country. I would imagine that the absurdist/silly nature of Blaine's 'stunt' would lead me to respond in like vein, so I would choose ('soft') comedy projectiles (eggs, sausages) over rocks or bottles. Similarly, if I lived in a country with greater firearm availability, I doubt I would be inspired to attempt to shoot him; chucking eggs would be enough.

On the other hand, as with the xenophobic kind of dude who really went AWOL on the whole rope cutting, water supply cutting thing, HE may have hurled rocks, if it were more culturally and socially (and legally) acceptable to do so. He was arrested for his relatively minor, though disturbing, actions anyway.

Not knowing much about the psychological make-up of this individual, it's difficult to comment; I certainly cannot say to what extent he represents 'Britain' in general, or any sort of 'mob mentality'. His attempts to sever Blaine's water-supply tube were fairly puerile (even if he'd succeeded, what then? The tube would be replaced asap) as were his rather more successful attempts to 'rock' Blaine's box. I don't believe he attempted to cut the cable (surely stronger than "rope") holding the box aloft.

So, no, it doesn't automatically follow that this individual's aim was to kill or injure Blaine, and he'd have thrown rocks if that were possible. We simply don't know.

Or, you may only feel like hurling eggs, but turn up to do so, notice that everyone else is chucking stones, and decide that, yeah, stones are more like it. What a cunt!

This would depend on my perception of the strength of the perspex, I guess.

Also, I guess you are saying that objecting to a 'media stunt', conceived and executed from the outset for personal kudos and financial return, and the surrounding media circus, is different to objecting to someones apparel, or haircut, or sexuality, whatever, which is a far more personal, and 'intrinsic', or 'genuine' (for want of a better term) trait - and the form of response to such objections may be qualitatively different...hmmm....

You guess somewhat inaccurately; 'genuineness' doesn't come into it. What is relevant to me is how one invests in (and is seen to invest in) public space, and the nature of one's engagement with the rest of humanity. Placing oneself squarely in public space yet sealing oneself off from all and sundry (through perspex, through suspension, through fencing, through guards, through telegraphed disdain) is a singularly intrusive act. It says "I'm here, in your space" but also "I am apart from you, and you may not communicate with me". I believe this is fundamentally different from the vibe transmitted by clothes, hairstyle, blah de blah de blah.

Not sure on that count, have to mull it over more...Does book burning exist on the same continuum as persecution of a particular race/social class/whatever?

I'd say the answer was a whopping great 'depends'. Depends on the nature of the persecution. If one were persecuting said race/social class by burning its reading material then yes, there would be similarities.

Blaine and his stunt are a media product for the enjoyment of entertainment consumers, so are books...Obviously we are not cremating Blaine, but I tend to see, at the moment, both acts (egging and burning) as similar in meaning and intent (???)

Erm, except that books are inanimate and Blaine is animate (allegedly), and no-one is actually trying to eradicate Blaine's existence. I'd say it's more akin to throwing an egg at a book.

What do you think, Ganesh? Are 'they' qualitatively differnet? (not necessarily the above example, but your initial question regarding differentiating the various sorts of abuse).

Of course they are. To suggest otherwise is to simplify the complexity of situation and human behaviour to a ludicrous degree.
 
 
Ganesh
23:13 / 24.09.03
As for the Pres of the USA, have you called him a lying bastard?? I mean, to his face, or some other way directly to him? Cos I don't think chatting to a mate, or posting on a message board, about a third party who is totally ignorant of your opinion constitutes abuse...

If the President of the United States of America were to suspend himself, nappy-clad, in a transparent box by Tower Bridge, it would be somewhat easier to directly register one's disapproval. Doesn't chatting to a mate about him constitute 'mental assault', though? If not, what does?
 
 
w1rebaby
23:32 / 24.09.03
Blaine has not committed any sort of assault of abuse of anyone in his present endeavour

Actually, I would argue against this. Blaine is performing a stunt for which he is paying for maximum exposure in a public area, both physical and media, and is invading my personal space. I suppose I could cut myself off from the rest of society and so not receive any of these communiques, but I would say that that is not the default. He and his press corps are making a positive effort to tell me about what he is doing. And I find the message that is being delivered irritating and offensive. It may not be specifically directed at me, but I consider it something of an "I am better than you" message, which I do not appreciate. Blaine is sending a message out which I don't like, and I am responding in this small way. It's the same principle by which I think subvertising and appropriation of trademarks is okay.

And, I would say, if you defend your right to call the BNP "Nazi Scum" you are defending their right to call black people "Niggers" or Arab people "Towel Heads" and so on...Am I missing something? Or do you defend their right to this freedom of speech?

There are two issues here, defending freedom of speech as a general principle (which I do) and in specific instances. I think I am justified in calling the BNP Nazi scum because in my opinion they are, and that that is a bad thing to be, and that it is ethically necessary for me to oppose that. Note that it's not justified because of the mere fact of my opinion; I think it's justified because I think my opinion is right, and being right justifies the action. I do not think that a BNP member would be justified in calling black people niggers, but I might defend that against government censorship on the basis that general freedom of speech is a positive feature that should not be legislated against.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:26 / 25.09.03
So... you appear to be saying at the outset that all instances of (what you'd consider) assault/abuse - whether physically attacking their person, shouting at them or, um, 'mentally' assaulting them (thinking about them in an aggressive way?) are of the same continuum, albeit moderated by a myriad social, cultural and personal factors. Yes?

First, good point, 'mental abuse' is utter fluff, and meaningless. Let's say verbal and physical abuse. At the moment, I entertain the idea that all acts (what I would consider to be acts) of this nature exist on a continuum, yes...I have to say, examining this further, I tend to this analysis of many, if not most (or all) personality traits and behaviours, which probably says more about me than other people, or personalities and behaviours. Interesting.

one's urge to critique might equally be motivated by intellectual or absurdist principles.

Hmmm. Is it possible to seperate and clearly isolate intellectual principles from emotional 'baggage' and involvement? I take your point that people are not just automatic, heartfelt reponses to stimuli, but equally I have trouble considering an intellect that is not, on many if not most issues, connected in some way to emotional 'information', and even absurdist motivation is surely likely to have some kind of 'feel' about it??

What I meant by a) is basically the continuum from Moderate - Fanatic, if that's not a more confusing metaphor. The moderate position is largely intellectual with minimal emotional involvement, while the fanatic may have abandoned intellect altogether and be entirely driven by love/hate/greed/creed etc.

I fear I am making the mud more opaque. Fuck it. Move on.

I certainly cannot say to what extent he represents 'Britain' in general, or any sort of 'mob mentality'. His attempts to sever Blaine's water-supply tube were fairly puerile (even if he'd succeeded, what then? The tube would be replaced asap) as were his rather more successful attempts to 'rock' Blaine's box.

Agh. I'd hate this thread to be all about David Blaine and the eggs. I haven't drawn any connection between AWOL Bloke and Britain (well, not in this thread ;-)). I know this has all sprung from the Blaine-Biz, and it serves as a useful current operational example, but I think it goes further than this one example.

Unless it doesn't, of course.

Of course they are. To suggest otherwise is to simplify the complexity of situation and human behaviour to a ludicrous degree.

Probably. Dunno about 'Of course' - is there no room for the continuum view in an analysis of this sort?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:29 / 25.09.03
Note that it's not justified because of the mere fact of my opinion; I think it's justified because I think my opinion is right, and being right justifies the action.

Superb. I can't stop reading this sentence. Absolutely terrific.

I am very tired now though.

Sorry, er, what??
 
 
w1rebaby
02:10 / 25.09.03
I think my opinion is right, so I think it justifies action. I don't think action is justified by the mere fact of someone thinking that it is right. It's the being right that justifies it. If someone claims something that I consider wrong, I'll think they're wrong.

When would you consider someone right if you think they're not right? If you believe A, would you consider not A to be valid?

Am I bothered by asserting that I am right in cases where I'm convinced I'm right? No, not really.
 
 
Quantum
09:24 / 25.09.03
Remember when Jarvis Cocker interrupted Michael Jackson's messiah show at some award ceremony? That was justified abuse.
I consider throwing eggs at Blaine in a box equivalent, it's to deflate an unjustifiably fat ego. A form of taunting that would be harmless to someone who wasn't totally up their own arse and had no sense of humour, given that they're protected by a stupid box.

Having said that, I was in London the other day with a few hours to spare, and didn't go and abuse him, even though I have a deep and abiding hatred of him. Why? Because it's stupid, and the more attention he gets the more likely it is something like this will happen again. I did consider taking a banner that said 'LEVITATE!' but decided against that for the same reason.

I was proud to be British when someone flew the burger round his box, stupid man. Why starve yourself in a box in public? *lazy drawl* "It's just something I have to do" stupid man.

I will now abuse David Blaine- Blaine you're a Twat. Am I unjustified? To me that is not comparable to throwing stuff at goths or shouting 'Wankers!' at townies or stoning adulteresses, all of which are unjustified acts of aggression.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:37 / 26.09.03
Remember when Jarvis Cocker interrupted Michael Jackson's messiah show at some award ceremony? That was justified abuse.

Because...? Something like "Because I say so" seems to be the brunt of your argument.

Fridge - I think I get you...For some reason it seems to be almost a Bushism

"I do have opinions, many opinions, some of them very strong opinions. I just don't always agree with all of them" - King George Dubya

S'funny, but today being Friday, and my birthday and all, I've completely run out of interest in Blaine and the rightness or wrongness of egging him.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:58 / 26.09.03
Happy birthday!

As I said in the other Blaine thread in the Conversation, I think some of these actions (and the Jarvis Cocker incident as well) constitute ridicule rather than abuse - don't know hopw useful a distinction that is, but it does seem to me that there is a place for such actions...

Even abuse of the pelting with eggs variety can occasionally be beneficial in some ways for the recipient. John Prescott, for example - when he got hit with an egg and belted the perpetrator, I think public feeling towards him became more generous (though this didn't happen with the Chumbawumba drenching incident, and perhaps this indicates that the response of the recipient of ridicule or abuse is key to public perceptions).
 
 
Rage
11:15 / 28.09.03
Of course abuse/assault can be justified. Anything can be justified if you try hard enough, including the mindless slaughtering of hundreds of thousands. Just look at the US president.

Do whatever the fuck you want. More girls need to be armed for those rape situations. That's the problem here. We're living in a jungle, and people want to make it a peaceful island. Not gonna happen: this species is much too fucked up. We might as well be prepared for everyone.

I shout out random things at people on the streets. Have been told not to "interfere with their energy" and all that. Every interaction with someone alters their energy. The other day I poured ketchup in this girls hair and told her it was art. Two days later and I got spit on for screaming "DIE!" at this guy in a coffee shop.

People are going to take actions, and these actions are going to have reactions. The problem is that not everbody is prepared to react when a horrible situation arises.
 
  
Add Your Reply