quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview
- Thread starter Foolmewunz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alt-right richard spencer
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
One side is calling for the literal genocide of an entire race, and the other side is, on occasion, punching the people calling for the literal genocide of an entire race in the face.
There's no equivalency here, no hypocrisy or "oh, I guess both sides are bad" or "hey, I was against the guy calling for the literal genocide of an entire race, but then some random guy punched him so now I'm on his side".
Not without verging on the grotesque, at any rate.
There's no equivalency here, no hypocrisy or "oh, I guess both sides are bad" or "hey, I was against the guy calling for the literal genocide of an entire race, but then some random guy punched him so now I'm on his side".
Not without verging on the grotesque, at any rate.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Would this mean that none of the posters in this thread who voiced their disapproval of the incident are part of "the left"?
There are sides here? I wasn't aware.
However your hyperbolic phrasing still does manage to get the distinction correct: "calling for" something, i.e. speech, versus "punching", i.e. violence.
I find that distinction important. You may disagree.
p.s. If the victim of this punching was indeed "calling for the literal genocide of an entire race", then in my country that would qualify as hate speech and he could be sentenced for it. I agree with that rule; I don't think 'free speech' should be free regardless of consequences. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that equates to permission to violently attack someone. Based on history, this is a very very slippery slope indeed and one should be very sure before stepping onto it.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Yes. There's the side of the guy calling for the genocide of an entire race, and then there's the side of the people who aren't really all that broken up by the guy calling for the genocide of an entire race getting smacked in the kisser.
If someone declares that he's for the genocide of an entire race (which makes up 20% of the country he lives in), waiting for him to actually put his plan into action before doing something about it is a remarkably terrible idea.
I wasn't aware of anyone taking his side on this forum. Does he even have a 'side', in the sense of a significant following with any chance of achieving even part of his alleged aims?
As far as I'm aware (I know very little about this guy), he hasn't at this point caused any deaths even indirectly (if he has, let's get him prosecuted). There are millions of U.S. (even some Dutch) people who are anti-vaccine and this HAS caused deaths from preventable diseases. Should we, for the sake of consistency, not encourage even more vehement violence against them?
What exactly is the criterion you're using here? Is it (as it would appear) how vile you personally find his views? Or is it something that could be established in an objective sense?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Well, Trump's Chief of Staff is a big fan of his.
I don't, because the deaths they cause are because of the stupidity of their position, but at least they don't declare that they're anti-vaccine because they want those deaths to occur.
My line is drawn at literal sig-heiling Nazis promoting literal racial genocide. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
Alright, so if I'm reading you correctly, causing deaths unintentionally should not invite violence, but calling for intentional deaths, especially when it concerns whole groups of people, should invite violence.
There are however many thousands (millions?) of deluded - or so I view them - people who say they want groups of other people to die. Whether it's 'all muslims', 'all Christians', '90% of all men', or 'teenagers who play loud music in the street'.
I understand you don't think that requires encouraging violence. Why not? If I may presume, I'd think because almost none of them have the capacity to actually carry out such ideas.
Now, even if a Trump advisor has said he's a fan, I don't think this guy has any chance of carrying out his ideas. If some of his followers try, they'll most probably be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced. I'd be very interested to find evidence that he's a real threat, rather than just another pompous blowhard. Such threats, in my view, are very rare.
If however he IS a real threat, than someone punching him in the face would likely be grist for his mill, allowing him to play the victim card, illustrating just how evil his opponents are. Let me reiterate, I don't think he is, but violence is just counterproductive if your goal is to stop him from achieving his claimed goals.
Mein Kampf is still illegal in the Netherlands (my father had an illegal copy). I think that's a silly outdated law, because there's no chance of antisemitism arising in this country. Same for this guy - I abhor his views and I wouldn't give much priority to ensuring his right to free speech - but it's qualitatively very different from violence, so long as he lacks the actual capacity to do harm.
Are you implying that they deserve what's coming to them?
And would that imply that giving them 'what they deserve' wouldn't harm the rest of society who aren't fascists?
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
I decided.
Yes.
I'd rather not advocate violence, but in this case, I'll laugh.
Again, special case. This guy is disgusting. I'll look out for my family, no matter what.
Jules Galen
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,726
Hey...this guy who got punched in the face has been calling for "Ethnic Cleansing" - and that is calling for violence. And really...I don't care about "Permissions" - if someone is advocating violence against others then they need to be punched.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough before. I do not object to you laughing. For me a line is crossed when violence against him is - tacitly or overtly - encouraged. I'm unsure if you meant to do that or not.
I can see that logic really working well. Someone uses speech calling for violence, therefore violence needs to be used against them. Those who call for the violence against them (is that you here?), obviously also need to have violence used against them. Except that those (is this me?) who call for that violence, should then be punched into a ball of broken bruises...
Isn't that a good thing? Adults talk. The meek hide their face and punch people and run away. He didn't even knock him down, he barely dazed him. Weak/meek punch.
I have no idea who the guy is, he sounds like an ass. Unfortunately this coward who punched him elevated him morally on national TV by making him a victim.
It is disgraceful. The hypocrisy is thick with 'the left'. "Hey that guy is talking about violence, let's kick his ass!"
Every single one of these stupid acts just convinces Trump voters that they did the right thing. These people are dancing to his tune and helping the very people they think they are fighting.
I don't think it is fair to apply broadly to the "left" the half-joking reactions of a few individuals on an internet forum. Most are casual attempts at humor not to be taken too seriously, and even when meant seriously, this is no more legitimate a reflection of the left as a whole than would be using the approval of violence by some individuals on the right to delegitimize the entire conservative political movement... In fact is it really only people on "the left" who strongly disagree with Spencer's positions? I would hope that 90% of the political spectrum would share my disgust.
But I do fully agree with your last paragraph- Spencer and similar clowns rely on provoking violent and otherwise inappropriate reactions from their opponents to increase their own visibility and legitimacy. In general I think that the best response is mocking and making fun of these idiots- to make it clear just how small and stupid they are. But honestly, what they advocate is really no joke, and has at times in history has led to harm and death of millions of people. So at some point (and I am not clear on what that point is), political movements that threaten actual danger and violence to other people must be opposed by more than words.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Well, for me it's more that most of those other categories can vary from case-by-case (and there are indeed people in those categories I couldn't care less about if they got punched - had some random person socked Anjem Choudary in the jaw, I'd still have the Grumpy Cat "Good" response), while Nazis as a category are pretty easy to identify, on account of the fact that they're *********** Nazis.
[EDIT: As Mumbles said, I don't actually advocate anyone going out and punching Nazis. But when it happens, I'm sure going to laugh.]
I can only hope that you are correct.
Last edited:
Jules Galen
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,726
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is violence....so is embolding Neo-NAZIs to shout "Hail Trump" (which this guy did).
Now, if you can't see the distinction between what this guys says - and how he incites - versus advesarial political opinions and rhetoric, then we have no more to talk about,
Fair enough.
I note you didn't comment on me omitting those calling for the deaths of 'all jews' in that list. I didn't use that as an example because there are indeed people who call for that who have the capacity to do great harm and violence IS being used against them on a pretty continuous basis. Whether that's always ethical or not I do not know, but I wouldn't put this little wannabe Nazi in the class of ISIS or anywhere near it.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
"Nazi" already encompasses that. [EDIT: And I did include Anjem Choudary in my "don't care if someone punches them" list]
Last edited:
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not (violence), but it is likely to cause harm.
This guy inciting people may or may not cause actual harm; it's hard to predict. In the U.S. there are laws protecting free speech that go beyond what is common in our countries, so he cannot easily be prosecuted for that.
However, I'm sure you can see how someone punching him, is never going to do any good and is only likely to make him more of an actual threat, if he can even be one. Someone shooting him in the face would likely make him a martyr and make his movement really relevant.
Violence should be a last resort, not a means towards emotional catharsis.
Also, this is a skeptics forum. We are always fully rational.
