Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[caveman1917]

Yet. Spencer tweeting a $3k and rising bounty. The guy was sloppy, ya got's to disappear, not pose for pics.

Blame the guy who was chasing him down whilst recording it on video and then publishing it. Way to go to get someone killed.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Are we sure he wasn't getting punched for having that haircut? I am very tired of that haircut.

That haircut is popular outside fascist circles.
And beards are popular outside Islamist circles.

Walking around town is slightly confusing and scary these days.

 

[marplots]

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

Battery.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Yeah, no. One doesn't need to do that at all, as countless other protesters demonstrated. One chooses to do so because one wants to engage in some violent protest, maintain that as an option depending on opportunity, or at least appear as if one might.

And there's nothing poignant about your faux-revolutionary pretensions.

 

[caveman1917]

This guy inciting people may or may not cause actual harm; it's hard to predict.

What do you mean hard to predict? Nazis cause harm all the time.

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.

Indeed, that's why you have to mask up and go punch them yourself. Though of course it's always preferable to do it yourself rather than strengthen the state.

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.

Wut?

Someone shooting him in the face would likely make him a martyr and make his movement really relevant.

Nobody shot him in the face. Nazis do just shoot peaceful protesters though, as per an earlier post of mine.

Violence should be a last resort, not a means towards emotional catharsis.

Who says it's a means towards emotional catharsis? What seems to be a means towards emotional catharsis is that liberal pseudo-pacifism.

Also, this is a skeptics forum. We are always fully rational.

Always fully liberal, that's quite a different thing

 

[caveman1917]

Oh, I fully support Spencer's assailant being arrested and charged with assault and/or battery.

Any reason?

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah, no. One doesn't need to do that at all, as countless other protesters demonstrated. One chooses to do so because one wants to engage in some violent protest

How would you know? Had Spencer not been there it would likely have remained fully non-violent, given that at no other point it was violent. They were, after all, not assaulted and kidnapped because of punching Spencer but because they engaged in non-violent protest.

And there's nothing poignant about your faux-revolutionary pretensions.

Can you try to transform this into an intelligible argument?

 

[Eddie Dane]

You're right, Mein Kampf is terrible writing.

Hiring Rudolf Hess as an editor is like asking Richard Spencer for hairstyle advice.

 

[Babbylonian]

Any reason?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll take a stab anyway: "Rule of law." It's been long established in US law that physically assaulting someone requires more justification than that someone being a despicable person whom most people believe deserves to be beaten, and frequently. Even the US legal concept of "fighting words" doesn't extend to cover the expression of abhorrent, inhuman political opinions.

 

[Ziggurat]

How would you know? Had Spencer not been there it would likely have remained fully non-violent, given that at no other point it was violent. They were, after all, not assaulted and kidnapped because of punching Spencer but they engaged in non-violent protest.

Did you forget what you said? Let me remind you:

"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. "

But one does NOT need to wear a black hoodie and cover one's face to be able to engage in non-violent protest. One can engage in non-violent protest without covering one's face quite easily. It happens all the time. I've seen it happen all the time. That's how I know.

As for my assertion about why people DO choose to cover their faces, well, we know for certainty that it isn't because they can't protest nonviolently without it. We also know that it offers a measure of protection against consequences if one chooses to be violent. So my argument is simply a logical deduction: one either wants to do violence, or one wants to look like one might want to do violence. Fit in with the cool kids.

Your own advocacy of violence hardly puts you in a position to argue the contrary.

I can't cure you of that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even the US legal concept of "fighting words" doesn't extend to cover the expression of abhorrent, inhuman political opinions.

Moreover, even in that case, it can't cover words spoken at an entirely different time and place. You can't assault someone today for "fighting words" that they uttered last week.

 

[caveman1917]

It seems that if we go by "look who came dressed for violence" the winners would be that gang called "police", which also did engage in almost all of the violence as well as the most "disgraceful" of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems that if we go by "look who came dressed for violence" the winners would be that gang called "police"

This is news... how? Police carry guns. Did you not know this?

which also did engage in almost all of the violence as well as the most "disgraceful" of it.

How did you measure this?

 

[Babbylonian]

Moreover, even in that case, it can't cover words spoken at an entirely different time and place. You can't assault someone today for "fighting words" that they uttered last week.

That's true as well. Additionally, using "fighting words" as a justification for a physical attack is unlikely to work given that courts have more narrowly interpreted the concept as the years go by. At this point, anything short of a direct threat (toward the attacker and maybe others) would most likely end with the attacker being convicted.

 

[caveman1917]

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll take a stab anyway: "Rule of law."

Jawohl Herr Freisler!

Slavery was legal, segregation was legal, heck the holocaust was legal. Why exactly should people care about the "rule" of your "law"? That's exactly what the Nazis themselves want, to make their law rule.

It's been long established in US law that physically assaulting someone requires more justification than that someone being a despicable person

What makes you think the justification is just that someone is a despicable person? Liberals or conservatives are generally despicable persons yet they don't get physically assaulted, the difference with Nazis is that they are literally organizing in order to assault and kill anarchists, refugees, anti-fascists, etc and regularly do so. The justification is that this helps to contain their ability to do so.

 

[Lorentz]

What do you mean hard to predict? Nazis cause harm all the time.

Dogs bite people all the time. Every day, many of them. It is however hard to predict if a dog will, when a dog will.

Indeed, that's why you have to mask up and go punch them yourself. Though of course it's always preferable to do it yourself rather than strengthen the state.

"Have to" why? Does it do any good? I reckon it's going to cause harm, because they can point at you and and claim they're only protecting themselves from violent thugs.

Wut?

If you live in a tyrannical society, or a small village where bullies rule, maybe punching people can bend them to your will. In modern society, you'll just get screwed over from the popular backlash and those you punch will play the victim card. It's a bloody stupid thing to do, no matter how much you feel you want him punched.

Nobody shot him in the face. Nazis do just shoot peaceful protesters though, as per an earlier post of mine.

And dogs bite people. Do you have a point hiding somewhere?

Who says it's a means towards emotional catharsis?

I do. I can certainly see no rational reason for wanting to punch him - it all leads to bad outcomes. That leaves emotions. Which emotions? Maybe you have other candidates, but I'll stick with this one: emotional satisfaction at seeing bad stuff happen to someone you dislike.

What seems to be a means towards emotional catharsis is that liberal pseudo-pacifism.

Do you have some way of rewriting that to where it sounds like an argument rather than an incoherent attempt at an insult? If so, appreciated in advance.

Always fully liberal, that's quite a different thing

This forum is mostly, though certainly not fully 'liberal', if you're American who thinks your own local definition of 'liberal' applies in the rest of the world.

 

[caveman1917]

Did you forget what you said? Let me remind you:

"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. "

But one does NOT need to wear a black hoodie and cover one's face to be able to engage in non-violent protest. One can engage in non-violent protest without covering one's face quite easily.

One can also engage in non-violent protest and needing to cover one's face as a measure for not getting assaulted and kidnapped.

As for my assertion about why people DO choose to cover their faces, well, we know for certainty that it isn't because they can't protest nonviolently without it.

We don't know that at all.

We also know that it offers a measure of protection against consequences if one chooses to be violent.

It also offers a measure of protection against violence if one chooses to use non-violent protest.

So my argument is simply a logical deduction

No it really ain't.

Your own advocacy of violence hardly puts you in a position to argue the contrary.

I'm hardly the one advocating violence.

I can't cure you of that.

No, you need to cure yourself of the inability to present cogent arguments.

 

[caveman1917]

This is news... how? Police carry guns. Did you not know this?

so we've established who came "dressed for violence" and who did not.

How did you measure this?

Number of persons attacked, intensity, as well as possible justification in terms of self-defence.

 

[Ziggurat]

the difference with Nazis is that they are literally organizing in order to assault and kill anarchists, refugees, anti-fascists, etc and regularly do so.

If Spencer was literally organizing in order to assault and kill people, then he should be in jail, since that is a serious crime. So where is the evidence that he has committed this crime? Why haven't the authorities been contacted? If you know he's committing these crimes, why are you protecting him with your silence?

The justification is that this helps to contain their ability to do so.

But it doesn't. Spencer being in jail for criminal conspiracy would contain his ability to assault and kill people. Spencer being punched once doesn't.

 

[Babbylonian]

Jawohl Herr Freisler!

Slavery was legal, segregation was legal, heck the holocaust was legal. Why exactly should people care about the "rule" of your "law"? That's exactly what the Nazis themselves want, to make their law rule.

We care about the rule of law because it's been proven to work. Equal protection under the law has similarly been judged over the years to be the most desirable way to administer justice.

Do you think that freedom of speech is unjust and should be abrogated when the speech is hateful? Advocating for the deaths of others is horrible but it's usually protected.

What makes you think the justification is just that someone is a despicable person? Liberals or conservatives are generally despicable persons yet they don't get physically assaulted, the difference with Nazis is that they are literally organizing in order to assault and kill anarchists, refugees, anti-fascists, etc and regularly do so. The justification is that this helps to contain their ability to do so.

First off, if you can prove that Richard Spencer is organizing people to assault and kill people, then he can and should be arrested and prosecuted for that.

Second, even if you believe that this is what he is doing and that the legal system is doing nothing despite evidence proving it, then what's the point of a punch? Even a severe, extended beating would be pointless. Killing him (preferably away from prying eyes followed by disposing of his body) would be the obvious, effective, violent answer...and I certainly hope that neither battery nor premeditated murder becomes legal anytime soon.