You are probably familiar with the first two names and recall some recent news headlines. Mr. Schlegel, if you haven't already seen or heard, is an Ohio State University strength and conditioning coach now best known for his body slam technique.
As I watch the photo and video of Schlegel tackling the unruly spectator circle through the social media cycle, I can't get this question out of my mind:
Who gets to decide when violence is accepted and when it is abhorred?
What facts can help us determine when something is awesome versus when it is awful?
Are there aspects of the offender or victim in the incident that are relevant, like skin color or gender?
Does the apparent ability of a grown man to take a punch, so to speak, negate the offensiveness of the violent act?
Do not misconstrue. I'm not defending Rice or Peterson. Furthermore, I think the guy running on the field got exactly what was coming to him. I think he deserved every pound of force in that body slam and every blade of field turf in his face.
It feels like one of these three situations is okay and the other two are not, but it bothers me that I cannot explain why that is.
1 comment:
We cheer because we think Schlegel's actions were justified. The man to who ran onto the field "'had it comin'" but a woman or a child do not deserve it. But who are we to determine the hierarchy of things that deserve violence or retribution or discipline or whatever it is we're calling it?
It's a slippery slope.
On the flip side, who is deserving of mercy or grace? Which of our sins are unforgivable? Who is unlovable?
What's a good reason to go to war? Or to assassinate a dictator? Who are the people worth saving? What are the fights worth fighting? Where should our resources go?
We assign value and we cast judgment, and I think our scales are wrong and it's disconcerting to say the least.
It's a conversation humanity needs to engage in but I don't know the answers.
Post a Comment