Use of the "N" word

[SimonDoom]

Okay. So we do agree that context can affect the legitimacy of a word, and we're only differing on which specific contexts make it legitimate/illegitimate.

In that case, I'm going back to: this is a word that has primarily been used against Black people (choosing my words carefully here; I don't mean only African-American). They're far more knowledgeable in the nuances than you or I are, and they're the ones who lose out if things go wrong, so I'm going to leave it to Black people (and others targeted by that term) to have the conversation about which specific contexts are acceptable.

Absolutely, context matters. In some cases, it's all that matters. Your communications with your partner, for example. So long as there is consensual understanding and agreement between the two of you, it's not my business or anyone else's how you talk to each other.

But it's different when you speak publicly, and in that circumstance, I adopt the general principle that no group has the right to tell another group: you have to abide by rules that my group does not. I think that's wrong, especially on racial grounds. No racial group gets to tell another group what they can say, or what hair style they can wear, or what clothes or jewelry they can wear.

On your last point, I disagree. Historically, of course, black people have borne the brunt of racist speech, as well as all other forms of racism, and they persist. But adopting discriminatory rules about what one can and cannot say can hurt more than just black people, in a real, meaningful way. For example, people can get fired for saying the wrong thing: like saying "All lives matter" when it's considered correct to say "Black lives matter." People actually have been fired for saying that. I understand the argument for being peeved about white people saying "All lives matter," but it's not something one should get fired over, and yet these things really do happen. It's not right-wing paranoia.

In the case of the young woman in the Kendrick Lamar concert, my understanding was she was booed by the crowd. So it's not as benign as you relate it. She WAS shamed. And Kendrick Lamar had to know that when he said what he said to her. I'm not willing to adopt the "well, it's his concert" perspective. You wouldn't say that about a white singer performing to a mixed-race audience, I don't think.

 

[MsNatalie99]

I guess I'll say this then unwatch the thread. Ask yourself if you'd use the word with a complete stranger. If not, why. Is it because you're afraid of a reprisal, or could it be that it's an ugly slur? Either way, it is a word that has been, and still is used to cause pain, for no justifyible reason. "Others use it, so it should be ok for me to as well." Yes context matters, still, if it doesn't, does that make the slur any less ugly? There are many things people get away with, I consider unjust. Nonetheless, I refrain from doing them. I don't say it. I won't say it, but I can't tell you how to speak, what language to use. I believe in the first amendment, but in every freedom lies it's own set of responsibilities. Say what you want. Argue the merits of any word if you want, but ask yourself, do you really want to say it, and if so, why?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I just knew somebody was going to mention Nosferatu, and it was probably going to be you or Bramblethorn.

Nosferatu wasn't Dracula. I meant the original Dracula. It's the same concept, I agree, but the title was what I was going for.

Movie buffs, can't get away from them.

Turns out Stoker's widow wouldn't give Murnau the rights to the Dracula story, so he changed the name of his vampyre and filmed the same story anyway.

Silly bitch, she didn't think of anyone doing that!

 

[XerXesXu]

I just knew somebody was going to mention Nosferatu, and it was probably going to be you or Bramblethorn.

Was it something they wrote?

 

[SimonDoom]

Was it something they wrote?

All the time.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In the case of the young woman in the Kendrick Lamar concert, my understanding was she was booed by the crowd. So it's not as benign as you relate it. She WAS shamed. And Kendrick Lamar had to know that when he said what he said to her.

Shifting the goalposts. You were talking specifically about his behaviour, not the crowd's:

Real life example: A black rap artist, Kendrick Lamar, invited a young white woman to join him on stage and rap his song along with him. It included the N word. He said it, and she said it with him. And he called her out on it, after having invited her to the stage to rap with him.

He's using the word to a mixed-race audience, invites someone to rap with him, and criticizes her for using exactly the words he's using.

I found video of the incident:

The crowd got pissed as soon as she began using the word. As far as I can see, she genuinely didn't realise she'd given offense and thought it was about "not being cool enough". (I would guess she was also either in a chemically altered state or really really starstruck.)

He pointed out the problem... pretty nicely, really.

KL: "You gotta bleep one single word though."
WW: "Ohhhh... oh, I'm sorry. Was I doing it?"
KL: "Yeah, you did it."
WW: "I'm so sorry."

He asked the crowd if she should stay up - they weren't very positive but he let her stay up anyway - and ended up with "it's all good, it's all good, it's all good". I don't think "criticizes her" is a fair characterisation of his words or his tone, and she doesn't seem to have taken it that way.

I'm not willing to adopt the "well, it's his concert" perspective. You wouldn't say that about a white singer performing to a mixed-race audience, I don't think.

You would think incorrectly, then. I've been to several concerts where white singers had to set boundaries with their audiences.

I was at a NIN show some years back where Trent Reznor asked the audience to stop singing along, because we were so bad we were throwing him off both time and key. (He relented after a couple of songs, once he'd got his mojo back, and we made an effort to be better.)

I've been to Billy Bragg shows where he chatted happily with the audience in between songs, and then I've been to a Nick Cave show where an audience member tried to do the same and Nick shut her down politely but firmly, because Nick is one of those performers who needs some distance from his audience.

I wasn't at the DKMs show where Ken Casey waded into the audience to beat up a guy who was throwing Nazi salutes, but I endorse that 100%, because that kind of boundary-setting makes things safer and more pleasant for the non-Nazis. In genres like punk, folk, and metal, people are pretty familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance.

If you meant some kind of exact race-flipped parallel to the Lamar scenario... I don't know what that would look like, because there isn't a word that is to White people as the N-word is to Black people.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Movie buffs, can't get away from them.

Turns out Stoker's widow wouldn't give Murnau the rights to the Dracula story, so he changed the name of his vampyre and filmed the same story anyway.

Commonly reported so, but that seems to be a myth. Murnau did change the names, but the title cards clearly credited Stoker: see e.g. 2:22 on this version.

If he was trying to avoid rights issues, it was a miserable failure, because she sued and won. All copies of the film were supposed to be destroyed, but fortunately for posterity some escaped.

 

[SimonDoom]

Shifting the goalposts. You were talking specifically about his behaviour, not the crowd's:

I'm not shifting the goalposts at all. He's an experienced performer who knows what the crowd's reaction is going to be. When he communicates to the crowd, he is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable reaction of his audience to what he says.

My view is: he has no right to rap that word to a mixed-race crowd and then demand that a woman he invited to join him on the stage to sing with him sing by different rules, because of her skin color. I don't believe that. I think it's unprincipled and wrong. It's a bait and switch.

I also do not endorse punching Nazis. Nobody gets to punch someone for their speech, regardless of what it is. That's a hard line for me.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not shifting the goalposts at all. He's an experienced performer who knows what the crowd's reaction is going to be. When he communicates to the crowd, he is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable reaction of his audience to what he says.

Did we watch the same video?

(...did you watch the video?)

The crowd was ALREADY reacting and booing her from the moment she started using the N-word. For what she said, before he'd said anything about it. It was, one might say, a reasonably foreseeable reaction to her words - though evidently, for whatever reason, she didn't foresee it. He didn't entirely pacify them, but they were distinctly less hostile after she'd talked to him, and she'd taken it on board.

I also do not endorse punching Nazis. Nobody gets to punch someone for their speech, regardless of what it is. That's a hard line for me.

I can't believe I have to say this, but: Nazism isn't "speech". It's an ideology dedicated to murder, and it will happily exploit notions of "civility" and "debate" to get itself in position for violence. The punk scene knows this very well:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw

 

[ElectricBlue]

Commonly reported so, but that seems to be a myth. Murnau did change the names, but the title cards clearly credited Stoker: see e.g. 2:22 on this version.

If he was trying to avoid rights issues, it was a miserable failure, because she sued and won. All copies of the film were supposed to be destroyed, but fortunately for posterity some escaped.

Out buffed!

I didn't know she sued. Thank goodness for film history that she didn't get the negative.

I saw it on a big screen sometime in the early seventies (a 35mm projected print), when I was a member of a uni film group - with a piano sound track. Seen properly, on a big screen, those old silents still maintain their power.

 

[SimonDoom]

I can't believe I have to say this, but: Nazism isn't "speech".

Of course, it's speech. In the USA, under the First Amendment, the Nazis had, and still have, a constitutional right to conduct a march through the city of Skokie, where one in six residents were Holocaust survivors. I hate those SOBs with every fiber of my being, but they have a right to speech just like everybody else, and you don't get to punch them just because of what they say. That's what I believe.

When you engage in expressive conduct, whether it's words coming out of your mouth or carrying a flag or marching through the streets, it's speech, period. There are narrow exceptions, well defined under the law, where speech becomes something punishable: incitement, defamation, intellectual property infringement. But those exceptions are few and are narrowly defined. Being a Nazi and saying Nazi crap doesn't qualify, no matter how loathsome it is.

In response to your bar example: A bar owner, as the proprietor of a private business, has a right to kick out people who he feels will injure the reputation of his bar. But that's not punching. That's exercising one's right of free association. If I were a bar owner, I'd kick out the Nazis, too. But I wouldn't punch them if they went marching down the street outside my bar.

 

[LegoHead]

I get to call my partner "snugglebaby"* but it would be inappropriate for her work contacts to do so. That's not a double standard, just understanding that a different speaker with a different context may change what's appropriate.

*not our actual term, but something equally gooey

Apples and bowling bowls, as Phil Leotardo would say.

You are trying to reduce a complicated, emotional debate to the most basic level.

• The word snugglebaby has not been labeled offensive.
• If someone, without the knowledge of your nickname for your partner, called her snugglebaby because she looks like a snugglebaby, you'd have no right to anger.
• If everyone in the world used the term snugglebaby for their partner, you'd have no right to anger.
• If someone, knowing your nickname for your partner, called her snugglebaby to antagonize you, then your anger would be justified.

Shifting the goalposts. You were talking specifically about his behaviour, not the crowd's:




I found video of the incident:

The crowd got pissed as soon as she began using the word. As far as I can see, she genuinely didn't realise she'd given offense and thought it was about "not being cool enough". (I would guess she was also either in a chemically altered state or really really starstruck.)

He pointed out the problem... pretty nicely, really.

KL: "You gotta bleep one single word though."
WW: "Ohhhh... oh, I'm sorry. Was I doing it?"
KL: "Yeah, you did it."
WW: "I'm so sorry."

He asked the crowd if she should stay up - they weren't very positive but he let her stay up anyway - and ended up with "it's all good, it's all good, it's all good". I don't think "criticizes her" is a fair characterisation of his words or his tone, and she doesn't seem to have taken it that way.


You would think incorrectly, then. I've been to several concerts where white singers had to set boundaries with their audiences.

I was at a NIN show some years back where Trent Reznor asked the audience to stop singing along, because we were so bad we were throwing him off both time and key. (He relented after a couple of songs, once he'd got his mojo back, and we made an effort to be better.)

I've been to Billy Bragg shows where he chatted happily with the audience in between songs, and then I've been to a Nick Cave show where an audience member tried to do the same and Nick shut her down politely but firmly, because Nick is one of those performers who needs some distance from his audience.

I wasn't at the DKMs show where Ken Casey waded into the audience to beat up a guy who was throwing Nazi salutes, but I endorse that 100%, because that kind of boundary-setting makes things safer and more pleasant for the non-Nazis. In genres like punk, folk, and metal, people are pretty familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance.

If you meant some kind of exact race-flipped parallel to the Lamar scenario... I don't know what that would look like, because there isn't a word that is to White people as the N-word is to Black people.

• The rapper in question is selling art. He has sold it to his fans, and he clearly has no problem with races other than his own purchasing his art. If he did, that would be racist.
• Because he is selling art, anyone purchasing his art, or participating in his art, is allowed, through common sense and decency, to repeat his art verbatim.
• Just as limiting an artist is wrong, limiting a fan of the artist is wrong.
• The crowd resorted to mob ignorance of the above fact, which is just as bad as mob justice.
• As the artist who has created said art for the people to enjoy, it was his obligation to defend his fan, and he failed to do so. He joined the mob.
• Anyone but the fan, who was probably hyped for being allowed on stage, could have seen what was about to happen.
• What he did to her was uncalled for and unjustified.
• Here is where I expect you to throw in another over-simplified rebuttal. Let's say "handguns." Handguns are a work of art that can be purchased and used as the law intends them to be used. We have no law against rapping the N word at a concert unless it breaks the obscenity laws.

Nobody owns a word. Leave the copyright and trademark arguments for the correct debate. The N word has more power in the US than in other parts of the world, but it loses said power the further from the US it is used. Not saying the N word is a societal courtesy, but it's not a rule or a law. You may get sued if you abuse your power in conjunction with the N word, but it isn't illegal to say. If you direct it at someone, then you should have a reasonable expectation for it to be directed at you.

No matter the race, color, culture, or ethnicity, etc., etc., anyone can use the word in their art, and they should if they feel the need to do so, even if their judgement is poor.

Using the N word in daily life is different, given its history in the US, and the courtesy our society has granted to the decendants of US slaves. But no one people get to decide who uses it, especially if said people use the word as a compliment, an insult, or in common, meaningless exchange.

 

[KeithD]

Ask yourself if you'd use the word with a complete stranger. If not, why. Is it because you're afraid of a reprisal, or could it be that it's an ugly slur? Either way, it is a word that has been, and still is used to cause pain, for no justifyible reason.

Yes, yes, that goes to why I am not either totally "What I write" or a bigot if I use it in a story. I try to be authentic to the time and characters in my stories and don't want to feel constrained by the history of a word on whether or not to write on about a particular time or type of character. If the word illuminates the story I refuse to not consider using it because of current social views of others. That is completely separated from what I would say in my own life. This gets to the nub of why "you are what you write" is balderdash for a serious writer.

You have brought up exactly what disturbs me about the discussion of this thread. My personal life and mind-set do not ipso facto reflect or confine what I can and might write. I will not let my writing life be confined that way.

That doesn't mean you'll find the "n" word much if at all in what I've written.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Of course, it's speech. In the USA, under the First Amendment, the Nazis had, and still have, a constitutional right to conduct a march through the city of Skokie, where one in six residents were Holocaust survivors. I hate those SOBs with every fiber of my being, but they have a right to speech just like everybody else, and you don't get to punch them just because of what they say. That's what I believe.

When you engage in expressive conduct, whether it's words coming out of your mouth or carrying a flag or marching through the streets, it's speech, period. There are narrow exceptions, well defined under the law, where speech becomes something punishable: incitement, defamation, intellectual property infringement. But those exceptions are few and are narrowly defined. Being a Nazi and saying Nazi crap doesn't qualify, no matter how loathsome it is.

Which part of the twentieth century did you miss, Simon? Fuck the first amendment, remember history. It tells you so much more. Just because something is in the american constitution doesn't make it morally right. We're meant to learn from humanity's worst mistakes, surely?

Just words? I don't think so.

 

[SimonDoom]

Which part of the twentieth century did you miss, Simon? Fuck the first amendment, remember history. It tells you so much more. Just because something is in the american constitution doesn't make it morally right. We're meant to learn from humanity's worst mistakes, surely?

Just words? I don't think so.

Bull shit. It doesn't matter whether it's morally right. You have a fundamental right--in this country, at least-- to say things that are immoral. You can say whatever the hell you want to say, no matter how evil or rotten. In the United States, you have an unlimited right to be a Nazi and to espouse Nazi viewpoints, or whatever other evil, rotten viewpoints you want to espouse. And that is a principle I stand behind: No matter how much I hate what you have to say, I defend your right to say it. Yes, I actually do believe that. 100%.

 

[lovecraft68]

Love Lost Boys, not the sequals. Let me in, was also quite good. My all time favorite was the origional Fright Night. Not for quality, just cuz. Never got into the Underworld Franchise. It's a shame too, because I love werewolf movies.

Going to give you what is one of the best Vamp movies, no one other than hardcore horror fans ever talk about.
Near Dark.

 

[Voboy]

Bull shit. It doesn't matter whether it's morally right. You have a fundamental right--in this country, at least-- to say things that are immoral. You can say whatever the hell you want to say, no matter how evil or rotten. In the United States, you have an unlimited right to be a Nazi and to espouse Nazi viewpoints, or whatever other evil, rotten viewpoints you want to espouse. And that is a principle I stand behind: No matter how much I hate what you have to say, I defend your right to say it. Yes, I actually do believe that. 100%.

I do too, but 1A is not unlimited. You can't knowingly start a riot, remember, and slander remains illegal.

But yes. I'd rather live with free, offensive speech than with controlled, inoffensive speech.

 

[SimonDoom]

I do too, but 1A is not unlimited. You can't knowingly start a riot, remember, and slander remains illegal.

But yes. I'd rather live with free, offensive speech than with controlled, inoffensive speech.

 

[SimonDoom]

I do too, but 1A is not unlimited. You can't knowingly start a riot, remember, and slander remains illegal.

But yes. I'd rather live with free, offensive speech than with controlled, inoffensive speech.

I already said that in a previous post. You can be held liable for your speech for incitement, defamation, and intellectual property infringement.

But in a free society you CANNOT be liable for the political content of your speech, no matter how vile it is. You get to say whatever the hell you want. That's how it is in America, for now at least, and I'm glad of that. We don't have absurd blasphemy laws like some countries do, for example. You can't be hauled before the magistrate for insulting Muhammad, or Jesus, or Buddha, or the head of state, or whatever.

 

[lovecraft68]

Bull shit. It doesn't matter whether it's morally right. You have a fundamental right--in this country, at least-- to say things that are immoral. You can say whatever the hell you want to say, no matter how evil or rotten. In the United States, you have an unlimited right to be a Nazi and to espouse Nazi viewpoints, or whatever other evil, rotten viewpoints you want to espouse. And that is a principle I stand behind: No matter how much I hate what you have to say, I defend your right to say it. Yes, I actually do believe that. 100%.

Well said Simon. A view I've always held to is I don't mind hearing people say certain things or what they believe in or against because it can tell me everything I need to know about them, whereas if they never say it, we don't know the real them. Forewarned is forearmed is how I see it. If someone wants to have views I personally see as ignorant, well as long as they're not hurting someone, then have at it, but have at it without me, and thanks for showing me who you are.

Let's be honest the uproar over the Musk take over of twitter is only being expressed by one faction of one political party who like your friend your arguing with wants to spew all the hate he wants, but god forbid the 'other side' have their say. There is no bigger oxymoron out there than "tolerant liberal' as you're seeing with EB and his foot stomping tantrum because you don't agree with him. Keep going, he'll put you on ignore like he did me because he got tired of me exposing him for what he is.

BTW, I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks its fun to see a little spat in your annoying bromance with lit's most famous creeper.

 

[lovecraft68]

I love how the other N word, Nazi is being tossed around completely out of context because in this brainwashed history ignorant society, most who use it have no idea what a real Nazi is, they have been groomed to believe its anyone 'on the right'. Meanwhile, the 'left' is 100% anti-sematic in speech and actions which would make them more like a true Nazi.

Also, Nazi's were very much against free speech, and attacked anyone with opposing political views, sought to suppress any knowledge they didn't approve of, ban books, ban speech, rewrite history....

Tell me, which political faction in this country is doing that? Could it be the side that opposed the abolition of slavery, but now calls everyone racists and Nazi's...the party who tells 'people of color' that they BETTER vote for them because they're their political slaves as any black person choosing to be conservative is obviously trying to get off the plantation? Can't have those black folks thinking for themselves, now can we? They might wake up and realize who treats them like property. Take a look at who helped indoctrinate Jim Crow laws in the US(hint, he's in the White House)

This is why the term SJW was created as the derogatory term it is. The people in this thread squawking about limits of free speech and using words out of context are the biggest 'ists' out there. You don't want a free country, you want your country, and you're the biggest racists in said country.

Guess this must be the dreaded T word....T for truth.

I'll leave off with two examples, one a lie, one the truth.

Critical Race Theory...100% lying BS to indoctrinate future generations of woke racists
Systemic Racism-Very much the truth, certain groups being kept down in poverty and dependent on someone. You see that truth in every city run by the left. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, every inner city hellhole where black people are gunned down, hooked on drugs, in gangs, no education, no hope, poverty...all run by the left that's fact. Go take a tour of Maxine Waters district(which she doesn't live in BTW) political slave traders and slum lords

Those are the people calling everyone else racists and Nazi's and I'm tired of it, and the self righteous frauds that gravitate to these threads to express their fake indignation.

I know you, and so do more and more people everyday. No different than religious zealots and witch hunters, pointing out sin, while being the biggest sinner of all.

That's my free speech coupled with free thought. Try it sometime

 

[SimonDoom]

Tell me, which political faction in this country is doing that? Could it be the side that opposed the abolition of slavery, but now calls everyone racists and Nazi's...the party who tells 'people of color' that they BETTER vote for them because they're their political slaves as any black person choosing to be conservative is obviously trying to get off the plantation?

This is why the term SJW was created as the derogatory term it is. The people in this thread squawking about limits of free speech and using words out of context are the biggest 'ists' out there. You don't want a free country, you want your country, and you're the biggest racists in said country.

Guess this must be the dreaded T word....T for truth.

To be fair, it's both sides. The left wants to expel To Kill A Mockingbird from school curriculums because kids will be exposed to the N word (OMG, the injury they will suffer!). But the right is trying to pass laws against kids being exposed to the word "gay." (OMG, they might be influenced to be gay!). They're both F'd up. Our country has serious problems when it comes to speech, and the problems come from both directions. Fortunately, we are still more enlightened on the issue of free speech than most countries are.

 

[KeithD]

The left wants to expel To Kill A Mockingbird from school curriculums because kids will be exposed to the N word

Oh, really? I wasn't aware of that. Can you please cite?

Bringing this back to writing and the concept "you are what you write" before the thread gets moved to the political board, I'll opine that a writer who can't--or won't--write characters and actions in stories that are very much not them as a real person (as they perceive themselves) isn't yet an accomplished writer and is standing too close to her/his computer.

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh, really? I wasn't aware of that. Can you please cite?

Bringing this back to writing and the concept "you are what you write" before the thread gets moved to the political board, I'll opine that a writer who can't--or won't--write characters and actions in stories that are very much not them as a real person (as they perceive themselves) isn't yet an accomplished writer and is standing too close to her/his computer.

I very much agree with the principle you stated: as an author you should be able to imagine being somebody completely different from yourself. If you can't, you're not really a writer.

I'm not going to give a cite for what I said about that book, but I know it's true. There are schools that are choosing to stop teaching To Kill A Mockingbird because of its use of the N word. I have personal knowledge of school administrators making this decision. It is a fact, but I'm not going to give cites here. I think it's nuts. And I feel bad for the children who are being raised to feel like one should never be exposed to this sort of thing. I feel bad for today's kids. I grew up in the 1970s and I just read whatever. You learn to be a functioning, moral adult by being exposed to everything, including the shit. If you think you can shield kids from shit, you are fooling yourself.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Of course, it's speech.

Auschwitz wasn't "speech". The burning of the Institüt für Sexualwissenschaft wasn't "speech". The invasion of Poland wasn't "speech". The Christchurch massacre wasn't "speech".

Though "speech" certainly played its part in allowing those things to happen; Julius Streicher was hanged for running a Nazi paper that advocated genocide.

In the USA, under the First Amendment, the Nazis had, and still have, a constitutional right to conduct a march through the city of Skokie, where one in six residents were Holocaust survivors.

When talking to people who live outside the USA, it's usually safe to assume that we're starting from the position that the US legal system is broken and should not be taken as a moral authority on pretty much anything.

Meanwhile in Germany, which has a lot of experience with Nazism, flying the swastika or throwing sieg-heil salutes is illegal and punishable by jail. Maybe they know something?

I hate those SOBs with every fiber of my being, but they have a right to speech just like everybody else, and you don't get to punch them just because of what they say. That's what I believe.

Nobody's talking about punching Nazis "just because of what they say". It's about what they are.

If somebody walks into a store and says "I have a gun, hand over all your money" and then gets whacked from behind by a customer or arrested by the cops... that guy is not being "punished for his speech". He's being punished for being a physical danger. The "speech" part is just how people found out about the physical danger part.

Being a Nazi is not an ambiguous position. There is no peaceful wing within Nazism, just differences of opinion about how best to get the murdering and enslavement done.

In response to your bar example: A bar owner, as the proprietor of a private business, has a right to kick out people who he feels will injure the reputation of his bar. But that's not punching. That's exercising one's right of free association. If I were a bar owner, I'd kick out the Nazis, too. But I wouldn't punch them if they went marching down the street outside my bar.

That's how many chose to handle things in the 1920s-1930s. It's a big part of how our grandparents ended up having to shoot and hang Nazis instead of just punching them.