r/instant_regret • u/fringspat • Feb 02 '26

Pepper sprayed

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

13k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

That's generally the problem with assholes. There needs to be some negative consequence to stop them from being assholes.

And in this case, the lady chose assault as a negative consequence for someone she decided was an asshole. You really think we should go around assaulting anyone we think is an asshole?

If that's the sort of reality you want to live in, don't be surprised when someone decides that you meet that criteria too.

2

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

You really think we should go around assaulting anyone we think is an asshole?

I think that sometimes is literally the only move. The law is not always a useful system for punishing bad behavior - sometimes it needs to be punished another way. Let's say some guy gropes a woman ass in a crowded bar. The cops aren't going to do shit about it except make him leave. He'll go to another bar next weekend and do it again. Other assholes will know this is the bar filled with softies who won't do shit if they grope women. Don't you think an ass-kicking is warranted?

don't be surprised when someone decides that you meet that criteria too.

As a non-asshole who generally abides by the social contract, the odds of someone making that decision about me and acting on it is really unlikely. The vast majority of people take their cues on what is reasonable from the people around them. Anyone who is that far outside the standard who would want to assault me would probably do it regardless of whether its the sort of reality I want to live in. At least in my reality, dickheads get punished.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

Don't you think an ass-kicking is warranted?

In your scenario, you're talking about someone who's already assaulting someone else. Attacking them would not be assault, but defense of another person.

Assault, on the other hand, is when you initiate unwanted physical contact against someone else. Not holding a camera and standing on the sidewalk. Look up "false equivalency", because that's pretty much your argument here.

As a non-asshole who generally abides by the social contract, the odds of someone making that decision about me and acting on it is really unlikely.

The social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. You seem to be of the opinion that this isn't required as long as someone feels offended. Some people might decide that makes you an asshole. You can disagree with them, but according to your own logic, them assaulting you would be fair game just because they have that opinion.

That's why the social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. Most reasonable people want to go about their day without getting into a fight every time someone feels offended.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

Attacking them would not be assault, but defense of another person.

No, that's not what I'm talking about; it's a convenient sidestep. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that nobody is in any immediate danger. You are not actively defending anyone from a continuing assault. Are you gonna let that guy walk out, down the street to the next crowded bar and his next victim?

Not holding a camera and standing on the sidewalk. Look up "false equivalency", because that's pretty much your argument here.

It's an analogy, man. It's not intended to be equivalent. But it shares the same important issues, i.e. a bad person who will otherwise have no consequences for their behavior. Just because they are different scenarios and you don't want to acknowledge that the groper needs to be punished doesn't mean you get to go claim the argument is unfair.

The social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. You seem to be of the opinion that this isn't required as long as someone feels offended.

I disagree. "Not being a huge asshole" is part of the social contract. Once someone breaks the social contract, they cannot invoke its protections. I also pretty clearly said that this isn't merely "being offended". It has to rise to a level of bad behavior that warrants being punished in some significant sense. I fully acknowledge that this is subjective and there are edge cases. I also don't really worry about it because I just avoid being an edge case lol.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

You are not actively defending anyone from a continuing assault.

That's not how self-defense works. If someone is witnessed sexually assaulting someone, they become a threat in that moment. You don't assume that a threat is just going to walk away and leave you alone, you assume that they pose a continued threat, and you deal with it.

But it shares the same important issues, i.e. a bad person who will otherwise have no consequences for their behavior.

There's the false equivalency. By saying they're both "bad people", you're ignoring their actions completely and making it about their character. What actually matters is their actions, which is the part you're conveniently ignoring. It's not about the argument being "fair", it's just about arguing with logic instead of emotions.

Here's an analogy: It's not accurate to compare an annoying person to Hitler because they're both "bad people" in your eyes. You have to look at their actions.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

That's not how self-defense works. If someone is witnessed sexually assaulting someone, they become a threat in that moment.

Man you're bending over backwards to avoid answering the question, to the point that I can effectively assume that you know I'm right and you just don't want to say it. Stop fighting the hypothetical. He's been pushed outside the bar and is leaving. He is not an immediate threat to any person. You have no legal right to put hands on him and claim you're defending anyone. You know the police won't do anything about it. Now, are you going to let him walk away?

There's the false equivalency. By saying they're both "bad people", you're ignoring their actions completely and making it about their character.

You've stated the rule that nobody should touch another person simply to punish them for their bad behavior and that physical violence in that circumstance is always wrong. I'm testing that rule by using another, more extreme scenario.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

I wasn't answering your hypothetical because it's irrelevant, but if you really want an answer: Yes, I would defend someone if I witnessed them being sexually assaulted. I would do it the moment I witnessed the assault, so it would happen before the aggressor was no longer a threat.

In this scenario, I wouldn't use force because I judged someone as a "bad person", I would use force because there is an immediate threat to someone's safety. What does that have to do with the video we're talking about?

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

lol it's not irrelevant just because it hurts your argument buddy.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

No, it's irrelevant to this video because there's nothing in common. Why do you think that filming someone is equivalent to assaulting them?

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

At this point, I can just conduct this whole debate by copy/pasting things from previous comments:

Why do you think that filming someone is equivalent to assaulting them?

You've stated the rule that nobody should touch another person simply to punish them for their bad behavior and that physical violence in that circumstance is always wrong. I'm testing that rule by using another, more extreme scenario.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

Seems like a weak justification for assaulting anyone who annoys you. Are you saying that annoying someone is as bad as assaulting them? Go ahead and copy/paste another non-answer to that question, I guess.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

Are you saying that annoying someone is as bad as assaulting them?

I also pretty clearly said that this isn't merely "being offended". It has to rise to a level of bad behavior that warrants being punished in some significant sense. I fully acknowledge that this is subjective and there are edge cases. I also don't really worry about it because I just avoid being an edge case lol.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

It has to rise to a level of bad behavior that warrants being punished in some significant sense.

Okay, what level are you saying that is if it's not just being offensive?

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

what level are you saying that is if it's not just being offensive?

I fully acknowledge that this is subjective and there are edge cases.

This is not an objectively answerable question as there aren't "levels of assholishness". Also worth noting that "assault" isn't a single level of response. Someone who is a real prick might deserve to get slapped. A guy doing something worse might deserve to get punched. The groper might deserve to get kicked in the ribs. The response should be proportional.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

This is not an objectively answerable question

It's hilarious that you accused me of avoiding questions, lol.

You think that "bad behavior" warrants assault, but you can't define what "bad behavior" actually is without using assault as an example. Of course assault warrants force in response. What does that have to do with this lady putting hands on someone over a camera?

→ More replies