Top Gear is a British automotive show typically geared toward demonstrations of high-end automobiles, but they headed to Alabama for a for a little friendly contest. Three Brits, three cars, several cans of paint and a camera crew.

The rules - you cannot get shot or beaten while driving across the state.

The goal - to get one of the others shot or beaten while driving across the state, as a result of what you've painted onto their cars.

The contestants:

1. "Country and Western is rubbish" Chevy
   
2. "Hillary for President", "I'm Bi", "Nascar Sucks" Cadillac
   
3. "Man Love Rules" Dodge

Who wins?: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKz4QgVQBHI]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

I showed this vid to my bf who commented "yeah, well....they were sort of asking for it...I know plenty of pubs in the UK where if I showed up in a tshirt saying "Manchester United sucks" I'd be killed."

I know these guys were making a point, and an interesting one, but if you poke the sleeping tiger, one can't be shocked if one gets bit.

As I said in my first post in this thread: But the USA is not that much different than most of the countries of the world. What makes it appalling is that most Americans think they are better, but sink to the same level as the people of the countries that they despise, while at the same time berating those countries for being backward.

It would be wrong for the people in the British pub to beat up the "Manchester United sucks" teeshirt wearers and it was wrong for the people in the gas station to attack the Brit's with the painted up automobiles.

People are too willing to lower themselves to barbaric standards and others are too willing to excuse barbaric behavior.

I have a hard time buying the "they asked for it" logic when it comes to things like violent behavior. Does anyone believe the "She asked for it" rape defense, because a woman wears a provocative outfit? Is that different from believing a "He asked for it" defense if a male wore a provocative outfit, that happened to provoke something different?

I have a hard time buying the "they asked for it" logic when it comes to things like violent behavior. Does anyone believe the "She asked for it" rape defense, because a woman wears a provocative outfit? Is that different from believing a "He asked for it" defense if a male wore a provocative outfit, that happened to provoke something different?

Only when barbaric behavior is assumed to be a justifiable behavior for anything someone finds offensive.

Some time ago, a mixed couple (white man, Black woman) was crossing the street. Before they stepped off the sidewalk, the green "Walk" sign was on and the only car had come to a complete stop near the crosswalk. As the couple passed in front of the car, the tires screeched as the driver "laid rubber" to accelerate. The couple barely jumped out of the way as the driver flew past them yelling "Nigger Lover". I guess he realized that women had no choice, but the man did, but he was willing to run them both over.

Par for the course at one time in the USA, I guess. We have moved on (I hope) about interracial couples and maybe we will move on when it comes to shirts or signs on cars.

I saw a shirt recently worn by a twenty-ish man with a Confederate Flag. Below the flag was a sentence; "If this Flag Offends you, you can Kiss My ass."

Yes, I wanted to kick him in his ass and then tell him that I misread the word "Kiss", but I refrained from my primitive impulse. I did not allow the reptilian brain to control my frontal lobe or my motor function sections.

I was concerned that some of the Blacks in the Publix would say something, but I guess in my town with only about about a 10% Black population, wearing "Old Dixie" or using it for a front license plate is still acceptable.

Everyone seems to be missing an important point in that video. It wasn't really about NASCAR or Hilary Clinton or man love. Those locals knew they were being made fun of. That's what angered them. The behavior of both the Brits and the locals is reprehensible.

Everyone seems to be missing an important point in that video. It wasn't really about NASCAR or Hilary Clinton or man love. Those locals knew they were being made fun of. That's what angered them. The behavior of both the Brits and the locals is reprehensible.

So being made fun of is an offense punishable by death or just stoning?

How did the people at the gas stastion know they were being made fun of?

Do I have the freedom of speech to say NASCAR sucks in any state in the USA?

Do I have the freedom of speech to say country music sucks in any state in the USA?

The Brits were proved to be right by the actions of the Alabama mob. What the Brits did was dangerous and the response predictable, but it was not illegal, but the actions of the mob was illegal.

so then....what do we make of stoning people to death or letting them burn up in a building afire because they don't wear a bag over their heads....even if it pretends to be part of the religious and civil law standards? What do we make of those killing women who were forcibly raped, 'for the honor' of the family....

What do we do about the part of society who is not allowed to drive or work or gain an education, or go out in public without a male child in attendance? What do we expect to do where that part of the society is forced to wear a bag over their head? Vote? No, Own property, no....

What do apples have to do with oranges?

I have a hard time buying the "they asked for it" logic when it comes to things like violent behavior. Does anyone believe the "She asked for it" rape defense, because a woman wears a provocative outfit? Is that different from believing a "He asked for it" defense if a male wore a provocative outfit, that happened to provoke something different?

That is an inappropriate comparison for this situation. The men in the video went in purposely trying for a response, and a response is what they got. While I find the images quite disturbing, I can't help but think that they did in fact get what they wanted....they WANTED to see the people respond.

That is so not in the realm of a woman who is attacked...

I don't believe that violence is ever justified, but as I said in my earlier post, if you go in purposefully poking at the sleeping tiger, you must take some responsibility for your actions.

If I am to be outraged at how the people at the gas station responded, I need also to take a look at the people who encouraged that reaction just for fun and for a television show.

As I said in my first post in this thread: But the USA is not that much different than most of the countries of the world. What makes it appalling is that most Americans think they are better, but sink to the same level as the people of the countries that they despise, while at the same time berating those countries for being backward.

It would be wrong for the people in the British pub to beat up the "Manchester United sucks" teeshirt wearers and it was wrong for the people in the gas station to attack the Brit's with the painted up automobiles.

People are too willing to lower themselves to barbaric standards and others are too willing to excuse barbaric behavior.

I'm not excusing the behavior of the rock throwers. I'm also not excusing the behavior of the car painters. Both play a role in that situation. Both have liability for what occured.

This happens to be one of my personal hot buttons...people who don't take responsibility for their actions and quickly play a victim role when they see what havoc their actions can cause.

I don't excuse the barbaric behavior of violence in any situation. But I also don't excuse provoking violence.

I don't excuse the barbaric behavior of violence in any situation. But I also don't excuse provoking violence.

I guess when my neighbor was mugged and his Rolex was taken, you could have said that he provoked the violence by wearing a Rolex.

I guess when my neighbor was mugged and his Rolex was taken, you could have said that he provoked the violence by wearing a Rolex.

To quote you: What do apples have to do with oranges?

There is a huge leap from walking down the street, minding your own business to painting slogans on the side of a car that you are hoping gets a reaction...then acting *shocked* when you get a reaction.

To quote you: What do apples have to do with oranges?

There is a huge leap from walking down the street, minding your own business to painting slogans on the side of a car that you are hoping gets a reaction...then acting *shocked* when you get a reaction.

Nobody was shocked that they got a reaction. I would have hoped that the people that became the mob would have had more self-control so as not to fulfill the expectations of the people who painted the cars and I also would have hoped that people would not make excuses for the mob.

Freedom of speech means that people should not be beaten for what they say.

My neighbor was walking down the street in a $3000 suit, $500 shoes and a $5000 watch. Why isn't that provocation for mugging?

For the same reason that the mob had no right to attack the Brits. No one has a right to use deadly force except as protection of their physical person.

As long as anyone condones beatings for affronts, we will have people murdered because someone “stepped on my new sneakers" or because someone "insulted my mother" or some other lame excuse.

Yes, it could have been expected for "the good ol' boys of Alabama" to act that way. Condemn the expectation that came true; the expected action, not the expectation.

No one has a right to use deadly force except as protection of their physical person.

On this point we are in violent agreement. (irony intended)

So being made fun of is an offense punishable by death or just stoning?

No. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for the Brits in this particular situation.

How did the people at the gas stastion know they were being made fun of?

Watch the video again and listen to what the woman at the gas station says.

Do I have the freedom of speech to say NASCAR sucks in any state in the USA? Do I have the freedom of speech to say country music sucks in any state in the USA?

Of course you do.

The Brits were proved to be right by the actions of the Alabama mob. What the Brits did was dangerous and the response predictable, but it was not illegal, but the actions of the mob was illegal.

Don't confuse what's right and wrong with what's legal and illegal. Those are different issues. The Brits were acting within the law, but what they did was still wrong. What the Alabamans did was both wrong and illegal.

Do you think those Brits would be right if they drove into Harlem with "I support the KKK" painted on their cars? Do think those Brits would be right if they drove into San Francisco and had "AIDS is God's punishment" painted on their cars? As far as I know, the Bill of Rights is still upheld in this country, but people need to take responsibility for their words and their actions. I repeat: The behavior of both parties in this instance was reprehensible.

People should be able to write whatever they want on their cars without being stoned, beaten, or shot.

That is why we live in the United States. It's called freedom of speech.

No one "deserves" to be physically attacked for anything that is written on their car.

Slightly different instances. Nascar, Hillary Clinton, country music and man love never beat, tortured, raped, or killed anyone. Comparatively they are very benign social facets. Were the people provoked? Sure. The Brits new that going in or there wouldn't have been the antecedent dialogue. Does that justify physical attack? Never.