Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

1. It wasn't a sucker-punch but an alt-highfive.

2. The tactic is effective.

3. It appears someone made an interesting flow-chart that even liberals should be able to understand.

4. Because the right seems so obsessed with voting (either for Trump or for Clinton), they might be interested in an opinion poll within part of the left.

Aepervius said:
I am sure somebody technically minded will put that in a gif in infinite loop.
Click to expand...

This one seems to have won the internet:
 
Giordano said:
I do not condone violence and I am against anyone being punched. No one deserves to be targeted by physical violence. Simple.

But I am human enough to feel that if "fate" somehow requires that someone had to be punched, then Richard Spencer is high on my list of people I would offer to fulfill the requirement.

Seeing Spencer punched was upsetting to me- I wish he hadn't been. But I would have been even more upset if it had been almost anyone else.
Click to expand...

I do not condone violence unless it's necessary, but I must admit that I find it amusing to see this piece of **** get punched almost as much as I did seeing Bart Sibrel punched by Buzz Aldrin.
 
MostlyDead said:
The attacker had a hoodie and it looks like a bandanna over his lower face, so is it likely he was an anarchist? If so, can his actions be viewed as a form of political expression?
Click to expand...

His actions can be viewed as a form of self-defense, these people are actively attempting to kill after all. They can not be viewed as political expression because if this was political expression then these actions (aka violence) would also take place against liberals, conservatives, etc yet this was the only instance of violence by the black bloc that day.
 
Argumemnon said:
I do not condone violence unless it's necessary, but I must admit that I find it amusing to see this piece of **** get punched almost as much as I did seeing Bart Sibrel punched by Buzz Aldrin.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed both, but the Sibrel shot much more. The George Galloway beatdown, while not captured for posterity, didn't exactly depress me either.
 
Last edited:
Shiner said:
One coward spews his hate for the world to see. Puts his name and face behind his hate and ignorance.
The other coward? Not so much. He couldn't even deliver an unopposed 'sneak-O' punch. He hurled his whole body behind that and folded like tissue paper.
The peole who applaud and condone this weak ambush of disgusting intent, are just as much the coward that the ineffectual attacker is.

"Oh, but he hates me!" Justify the hate. Embrace the butthurt.

Summary.

People should be physically maimed (intent) for the words they write and speak, as long as we designate them "Deplorables". Our ability to actually deliver physical injury may reflect on our ability to function in a tolerant society.

Group psychosis doesn't care which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
Click to expand...

Did that feel good? How do we look, from that high pedestal of yours?
 
Babbylonian said:
I don't condone violence. On the other hand, I don't care that much when white supremacists get punched.

If the puncher can be identified, charge him with a crime
Click to expand...

What crime? Thou shall not punch a Nazi? What kind of a ******** crime is that?

however, I would also suggest the police give it just as much (or little) attention as they would give any other single punch...which is likely very little.
Click to expand...

How about they give it as much as attention as their own punches? So not just ignoring it but covering for it.
 
Giz said:
Yeah, we’ve only seen:
- Disrupted opponents rallies
- Violently attacked those that disagreed with them
- Created an apocalyptic national hysteria about an internal enemy
- Opposing viewpoints are illegitimate and must be fought rather than reasoned with

And yet the dangerous fascism is on the right?
Click to expand...

You see that on both sides. BOTH groups of extremists are intolerant and divisive. That's the nature of extremism: not accepting other points of view. My laughing dog was aimed at the thought that this is somehow a uniquely leftist trait, and not even an extreme one.
 
Aridas said:
A bit seriously, that is a bit horrible, given the video. If you're going to be disruptive and/or punch someone, at least do it in response to what they're actually saying there, so there's clear justification involved. As it stands, what we actually see in the video is really just black, presumably "leftist" protesters being ignorant and violent.
Click to expand...

Even by your own argument you would be the ignorant one, given that you require more information for clear justification than what is in the video.
 
Giordano said:
I do not condone violence and I am against anyone being punched. No one deserves to be targeted by physical violence. Simple.

But I am human enough to feel that if "fate" somehow requires that someone had to be punched, then Richard Spencer is high on my list of people I would offer to fulfill the requirement.

Seeing Spencer punched was upsetting to me- I wish he hadn't been. But I would have been even more upset if it had been almost anyone else.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I think it's fair to assume that it's not some vague "fate" which required that "someone" got punched and it just happened to be Spencer. He was punched for being a Nazi, a specific Nazi organizer at that. If he hadn't been a Nazi he wouldn't have gotten punched. What does "fate" have to do with any of this?
 
caveman1917 said:
Seriously? I think it's fair to assume that it's not some vague "fate" which required that "someone" got punched and it just happened to be Spencer. He was punched for being a Nazi, a specific Nazi organizer at that. If he hadn't been a Nazi he wouldn't have gotten punched. What does "fate" have to do with any of this?
Click to expand...

Allow be to reword that. As I have expressed in a prior post, lots of people get punched in the face every day for many different reasons. Probably many of these reasons are not justifiable in a civilized society. Among the latter, it disturbs me less to see a neo-Nazi threatening me and my family with suffering and death to be punched, than it would for many of the other "punchees." That does not mean I advocate it or even condone it, but given it happened (I call that "fate" in the poetic sense-I don't believe in fate in any other way) I fail to rise to the same level of outrage I would summon up learning of a little kid punched in the face by an angry parent. They are both wrong, but in my view represent enormously different levels of wrong.

And as I noted in a prior post, at some point people verbally advocating violence against others in society must be stopped before that violence becomes real, as indeed it has in multiple societies at multiple times in history. I don't know exactly when that point is reached, but yes, there are times when verbally advocating violence goes beyond freedom of speech and becomes a real threat. I don't recall Hitler physically attacking anyone personally in his rise to power- but nonetheless...
 
sts60 said:
As much as I despise that little creep and what he stands for, you don't just get to run up and clock someone.
Click to expand...

You do when they're Nazis, or any other group of people which is actively organizing a support base so as to kill you.

That's not how civilization works, and besides, it only plays into his narrative. Whatever idiot did that should be jailed.
Click to expand...

For making it more difficult for Nazis to organize? Spencer went from "Heil Trump! Heil our nation! Heil our victory!" to "we need security for a public movement or we can't win", I'd call that a good thing, not a reason to jail someone.

It's no more helpful than trashing a Satarbucks at Trump's inauguration.
Click to expand...

True, it doesn't really help in getting Clinton elected or throwing a tantrum about her not having won. It does help in stopping Nazis from organizing a support base though.
 
Giordano said:
Among the latter, it disturbs me less to see a neo-Nazi threatening me and my family with suffering and death to be punched, than it would for many of the other "punchees."
Click to expand...

There is a legal standard for what constitutes a threat. And threatening someone with death is illegal. Spencer is not in jail, he is not even under investigation. Unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary, I have to conclude that Spencer did not, in fact, threaten you or anyone else with death.

I understand the concept of prioritizing what you care about. But Spencer still deserves every legal protection that you do. The ACLU wasn't wrong. Either we are a civil society which offers its citizens equal protection under the law, or we are not. If we are, then Spencer's assailant deserves jail time, and his actions should be condemned by everyone interested in maintaining civility and the rule of law.

It seems, sadly, that many who should know better are no longer interested in either of those things.
 
Lorentz said:
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.
Click to expand...

The distinction is indeed important. And if we look at that day, violence by the black bloc included only giving Spencer an alt-highfive and only non-violent speech otherwise, yet violence by the government's gang was much greater both in number of people as well as "disgracefulness", such as in the following video. But you don't see liberals whining about that violence, interestingly.

 
Ziggurat said:
There is a legal standard for what constitutes a threat. And threatening someone with death is illegal. Spencer is not in jail, he is not even under investigation. Unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary, I have to conclude that Spencer did not, in fact, threaten you or anyone else with death.

I understand the concept of prioritizing what you care about. But Spencer still deserves every legal protection that you do. The ACLU wasn't wrong. Either we are a civil society which offers its citizens equal protection under the law, or we are not. If we are, then Spencer's assailant deserves jail time, and his actions should be condemned by everyone interested in maintaining civility and the rule of law.

It seems, sadly, that many who should know better are no longer interested in either of those things.
Click to expand...

If you look at my posts all of them strongly indicate that I agree with you that Spencer deserves every legal protection I or you do, and that I do not advocate or forgive him being punched. Part of that is Spencer's assailant does deserve the associated criminal justice punishment, whatever that is. I never said otherwise.

Clearly all that I am saying that my view of the severity of an illegal act can different depending on the circumstances. One 20 year old drug dealer stealing from another 20 year old drug dealer is wrong and illegal in my view, yet I find it less disturbing when I think about it than the same drug dealer stealing from a frail little old lady. The fact my level of outrage differs does not mean that I condone either. Not all things that are wrong are equally wrong, as stated in my recent post.
 
Oh, I fully support Spencer's assailant being arrested and charged with assault and/or battery.

I just am amused at what happened (and was unaware that Galloway had likewise gotten a poke, which also amuses me, though I'd still prefer it to have been Choudary. Guess you can't have everything).
 
MostlyDead said:
In all fairness, I doubt the attacker was concerned with Spencer's message.
Click to expand...

Really? What makes you think that?

He was in a black hoodie and bandanna face mask...so I'm calling that dressed to raise hell, not raise poignant social commentary.
Click to expand...

The fact that one has to wear a black hoodie and cover one's face to be able to engage in non-violent protest is by itself a poignant social commentary. Yes, the thing with Spencer was an instance of violence, but it appears he was more just a random target of opportunity as well as the only instance of violence, so probably not the reason for the outfit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom