Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Ziggurat]

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

Not at these protests. Avoiding assault and kidnapping is quite easy without any mask, plenty of people did it with little effort.

I'm hardly the one advocating violence.

Of course you are. You think it's a good thing Spencer was assaulted. That's violence. You're advocating it.

 

[Checkmite]

Yeah, the guy should be arrested and fined. You're not allowed to just run up and punch people, no matter how much they may be asking for it. The rules is the rules and they apply to everyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

We care about the rule of law because it's been proven to work.

caveman is also confused about the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of man. Dictatorships (including Nazi Germany) are examples of the latter, not the former.

For a concise argument in favor of the rule of law, it's hard to beat A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

But caveman is basically an anarchist, it's no surprise that he has no appreciation for law.

 

[Giordano]

caveman is also confused about the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of man. Dictatorships (including Nazi Germany) are examples of the latter, not the former.

For a concise argument in favor of the rule of law, it's hard to beat A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

But caveman is basically an anarchist, it's no surprise that he has no appreciation for law.

Although I fully support the rule of law in this case, and I too have often quoted the passage from Man for All Seasons, Caveman raises an important point- not all laws are moral or ethical ones. There are certainly many examples in many countries and throughout history, some of which existed in the USA and were passed by "democratically" elected representatives. Pro-slavary laws are just one example. So in my view there are times when morality insists on resistance to the rule of law. I favor non-violent resistance in most cases, but would that have really worked in Nazi Germany? In any case, what is declared by law is not always what is right morally or ethically. It is not that simple.

 

[Mumbles]

Yep...I figured that's who it was and found the image on the internet that confirmed my belief. And yeah...it creeps me out too, and I've never stopped to see it.

There's still a lot of people today who admire this Forrest, I don't know why. If I could have gone back in history in a Time Machine, I would have cut him from neck-to-nutsack with a dull deer antler. But that's that's just my hatred of psycopathic racists speaking.

I know. From what I know about you - or think I know - I figure the statue probably offends you much more than me. Sometimes I speak relatively crudely about "races", but I would never advocate the mistreatment or maltreatment of a people just because they are a different "race". Because when ya' give permission to treat someone like less of a human just because they are different, the you also license to to the most subtle and mean forms of discrimination that can be conceived. And, as a "White Person", I really believe that if you do not stand up against the likes of Richard Spencer today, then you arse is next if you are the least bit different than Richard and his Pals.

Consequently, I was really proud (as a Human Being) that it was a "White Guy" who punched Spencer. Not because the guy was "White", but because the guy understood (even as a White Guy) the greater danger and decided to try to stop it before it got infectious. Now that...is brotherhood! Amen.

Racism has been making a comeback in this country ever since that dirtbag Ronald Reagan gave his first presidential campaign speech on Mississippi that advocated "States Rights": which was the Dog Whistle that began the process of imprisoning millions of young black men: where today the United States of America - the so-called "Bastion of Freedom" and "Free Markets" - is the biggest, baddest Police State on the Planet who imprisons nearly as many people as Russia and China combined (who have nearly 5 times our population!).

Think about it.

Thanks.

Hm.

My father (grandfather, but...) Was born in 1900, in North Carolina. He mostly raised me, since my stupid father ran off. My Uncle passed away last year. As a result, I'm the oldest guy in the family. They were both civil fights workers.

I thought about it. I grew up in the Reagan age, aka. the Crack Era. Funny part is, I had thug protection. Not "thug" in the racist stereotype sense, but ion the actual, violent person sense. They were like "leave him alone, he'll be somebody someday." I also grew up in the Charles Stuart Era, which was just cops attacking us.

So, I don't want to be the violent guy, but if needed, I will. For my family...and also, for you, too. I'll be the bad guy. This is bigger than any individual.

I don't care much about the race of the guy who punched Spencer. It's legally wrong, but funny. And yes, it's a tough decision.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

What a stupid argument. Dogs aren't Nazis.

"Have to" why? Does it do any good?

Yes of course it does.

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.

Is there any particular reason why you just ignore its observable effectiveness?

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.

And you know this how? It seems mostly like you just want the extreme-right to be able to organize without resistance.

It's a bloody stupid thing to do, no matter how much you feel you want him punched.

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

Again what a stupid argument.

I do. I can certainly see no rational reason for wanting to punch him - it all leads to bad outcomes.

When not punching him leads to the worst outcomes then there certainly is a rational reason to punch him. Your failure to understand it doesn't stop the conclusion from being rational.

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.

Liberal pseudo-pacifism? A doctrine, based on liberalism, which pretends to be pacifist but in reality only serves the violence of the state or, slightly less commonly, the extreme-right. If that's not the basis of your position, sure, it's exactly what it looks like though.

 

[caveman1917]

If Spencer was literally organizing in order to assault and kill people

He is, it's called "being a Nazi leader".

then he should be in jail

Well he clearly ain't.

So where is the evidence that he has committed this crime?

Seriously?

Why haven't the authorities been contacted?

What do you think that would accomplish?

If you know he's committing these crimes, why are you protecting him with your silence?

What silence?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Hm.

My father (grandfather, but...) Was born in 1900, in North Carolina. He mostly raised me, since my stupid father ran off. My Uncle passed away last year. As a result, I'm the oldest guy in the family. They were both civil fights workers.

I thought about it. I grew up in the Reagan age, aka. the Crack Era. Funny part is, I had thug protection. Not "thug" in the racist stereotype sense, but ion the actual, violent person sense. They were like "leave him alone, he'll be somebody someday." I also grew up in the Charles Stuart Era, which was just cops attacking us.

So, I don't want to be the violent guy, but if needed, I will. For my family...and also, for you, too. I'll be the bad guy. This is bigger than any individual.

I don't care much about the race of the guy who punched Spencer. It's legally wrong, but funny. And yes, it's a tough decision.

I'ts a bit like the Westboro Baptist Church. In principle, hitting them is wrong and they have the right to say what they like. But if/when it happens, you can't help chuckle.

 

[Lorentz]

... word salad...

Peace out.

 

[Babbylonian]

Although I fully support the rule of law in this case, and I too have often quoted the passage from Man for All Seasons, Caveman raises an important point- not all laws are moral or ethical ones. There are certainly many examples in many countries and throughout history, some of which existed in the USA and were passed by "democratically" elected representatives. Pro-slavary laws are just one example. So in my view there are times when morality insists on resistance to the rule of law. I favor non-violent resistance in most cases, but would that have really worked in Nazi Germany? In any case, what is declared by law is not always what is right morally or ethically. It is not that simple.

This is true, but as long as the laws provide general protection of fundamental principles it behooves all of us to respect the rules and fight injustice (and malignant stupidity) within the constraints of said laws. One of those fundamental principles is that people can have and express beliefs that are horrible as long as they do not otherwise act outside of the law.

I'd certainly like to believe I would have fought against slavery had I been around back then, just as I'd like to believe I would have fought Nazism had I been a German in the '30s and '40s (of course, I'd probably have been killed during the '30s if I had).

Regardless, these are flights of philosophical fancy. While there certainly remains injustice in the United States, we fight it within the law and, over time at least, reduce that injustice. I've seen little evidence that Nazism is becoming so powerful in this country today that we need to resort to violence to stop it, satisfying as some might find it to do so.

 

[Mumbles]

I'ts a bit like the Westboro Baptist Church. In principle, hitting them is wrong and they have the right to say what they like. But if/when it happens, you can't help chuckle.

Yep...

 

[caveman1917]

We care about the rule of law because it's been proven to work.

Do you even have the most basic grasp of how Hitler gained power in Germany, or how Nazis in general work?

Equal protection under the law has similarly been judged over the years to be the most desirable way to administer justice.

What "equal protection under the law"?

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.

Yes, punching Hitler would have been wrong - he was, after all, merely advocating for the deaths of others using his freedom of speech; it's perfectly possible that he never personally killed someone himself.

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?

How many times does this need to be repeated? Because it reduces their self-confidence and consequently space within which to organize.

Killing him (preferably away from prying eyes followed by disposing of his body) would be the obvious, effective, violent answer...

Are you now complaining that he wasn't killed?

 

[caveman1917]

Peace out.

As experience with, for example, the English skinhead scene of the 80s and 90s shows, punching Nazis is not just the most effective but pretty much the only effective way to contain their space for organization as well as their self-confidence for acting upon their beliefs.

Your argument is effectively that Nazis should engage in more violence against all sorts of minorities and political opponents. Because, if we go by empirical observation, that just happens to be what they do if you don't punch them. Hence why it's liberal pseudo-pacifism, and no appeals to "peace out" change that.

 

[Babbylonian]

Do you even have the most basic grasp of how Hitler gained power in Germany, or how Nazis in general work?

Yes, I do, thank you.

What "equal protection under the law"?

Would you really like me to explain the concept to you? Are you sure you don't have even the most basic grasp of it? In this case, it means nobody gets to punch other people for their beliefs without [the risk of] legal consequences.

Yes, punching Hitler would have been wrong - he was, after all, merely advocating for the deaths of others using his freedom of speech; it's perfectly possible that he never personally killed someone himself.

Do you really think that Richard Spencer has what it takes to be Adolph Hitler? Do you think there's a significant risk that he will receive a high governmental office?

Perhaps more importantly, just what do you think punching Hitler would have achieved?

How many times does this need to be repeated? Because it reduces their self-confidence and consequently space within which to organize.

That's certainly an assertion one can make (thanks to the protections of the law, in the US that law being the 1st amendment to the Constitution). An opposing assertion (that has been made here and elsewhere) is that you provide an opportunity for good people who abhor senseless violence to see him as a victim (which he is, by the way) rather than seeing him for the horrible racist human being he is.

Are you now complaining that he wasn't killed?

No, and your question is a sign of serious dishonesty since you could not have read my post and reasonably come to that conclusion.

 

[Elagabalus]

:...How many times does this need to be repeated? Because it reduces their self-confidence and consequently space within which to organize...

Pretty sure the Brown Shirts got into a few dustups with the Red Front and other groups. How would you say these exchanges effected their (the Nazis) confidence?

 

[dudalb]

I enjoyed both, but the Sibrel shot much more. The George Galloway beatdown, while not captured for posterity, didn't exactly depress me either.

The Sibrel shot was a thing of beauty. Buzz Aldrin showed he rememberd what he learned when he was on the Boxing Team at West Point.

 

[dudalb]

Yeah, the guy should be arrested and fined. You're not allowed to just run up and punch people, no matter how much they may be asking for it. The rules is the rules and they apply to everyone.

This.
Like a lot of people I am torn. The guy who punched Spencer was in the wrong, but it could'tn have happened to a more derserving guy.

 

[caveman1917]

I've seen little evidence that Nazism is becoming so powerful in this country today that we need to resort to violence to stop it, satisfying as some might find it to do so.

Who's "we"?

 

[Shiner]

Did that feel good? How do we look, from that high pedestal of yours?

My pedestal can't match your horse. Does your butt still hurt?

 

[Bogative]

It's okay to hate Richard Spencer, he once resided in Illinois.