Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[dudalb]

Yep...

It's a case of "Reaping what you have Sowed".

 

[Babbylonian]

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

And you know who ended up in jail?

The Blues Brothers.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

It's not an important point in this context. The prohibition on assault is an ethical one. caveman's justification for invalidating it in this case relies upon the assertion that Spencer is actively trying to kill people. This is delusional on his part.

 

[Giordano]

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.

Although I generally agree with most of what you say here, and I believe that the majority of unjust laws within the USA (and they do exist) can be opposed within the USA political system without breaking the law per se, there are certainly examples where opposition to an unjust law requires breaking it so as to effectively oppose it: i.e. civil disobedience. The success of Black Americans in obtaining equal rights (or at least as close to it as has happened) required that the segregation laws be repeatedly defied and broken. Non-violently, but extra-legally nonetheless.

I wish I was as confident as you are that much of what I see in the current USA political climate does not resemble elements in the rise of Nazism. But that is off topic. Laws don't have to rise to the level of Nazism to be so abhorrent as to require violating them to end them. Weren't people in the "underground railroad" violating "democratically passed" laws by harboring fugitive slaves? Were people working within the political and legal system able to stop slavery without a civil war? When the USA President and Congress ripped Japanese-American citizens out of their normal lives and relocated them in camps during World-War II, that was perfectly legal and attempts to stop it working in the political and legal system came to nought. The Supreme Court approved it! What legal ways to oppose such an abhorrent law are there? Short of waiting for hundreds of years and hoping for a more enlightened public and government? Often it is the civil disobedience that serves to enlighten the public and government.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Throwing a label at him does not constitute evidence of conspiracy to murder.

Well he clearly ain't.

Precisely. Which makes what you advocate vigilantism.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. You're accusing him of a serious crime. You should have evidence of that crime if you intend to make such an accusation. Obviously you don't have any such evidence.

What do you think that would accomplish?

If you actually had evidence, it would accomplish getting the police to investigate him, and possibly even lead to him going to prison.

But you have no evidence. So in that sense, yes, it would accomplish nothing.

 

[caveman1917]

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)

Richard Spencer is the victim here? That's just beautiful.

For the rest, I'm not particularly interested in liberal ideology, I already know how bankrupt it is. Punching a Nazi is not senseless violence, tear-gassing a disabled woman is senseless violence, guess which one the liberal crowd - transformed instantly into experts on anti-fascism as required - chooses to whine about?

 

[Giordano]

It's not an important point in this context. The prohibition on assault is an ethical one. caveman's justification for invalidating it in this case relies upon the assertion that Spencer is actively trying to kill people. This is delusional on his part.

Which is why I specifically noted that I was discussing the more general question of how some forms of advocacy no longer fall within the protection of freedom of speech.

As to Spencer in particular- his views and goals at minimum seek to delegitimize the citizenship of me and my family. It is difficult not to read into many of his less-guarded statements even darker goals.

I interpret caveman's views of Spencer as being more concerned than my own at this time (which is why I do not condone him being punched), but far from delusional. Look at the history of Hitler's rise to power- he never did any thing violent personally and to my knowledge he never even publicly advocated violence against Jews. His disciples certainly interpreted his speeches as justifying violence, and once in power Hitler arranged for the deaths of millions of Jews (as well as other undesirables). It is misleading to assume that a crafty politician does not use nods and winks to get ideas across that he dare not say explicitly, does not use his words to organize dangerous groups of people who will employ violence, or that a puppet master is innocent of the actions of his puppets.

 

[caveman1917]

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?

In the UK it pretty much completely stopped them, in Spain it held back their coup d'état for several years, in Germany it was effective but the Nazis could, among other things, profit from a division between the social-democrats and the stalinists. Of course, in Germany they pretty much kept to "the rule of law" - Hitler got democratically elected and all that - so that made it harder to stop them. Why are you asking?

 

[Babbylonian]

Although I generally agree with most of what you say here, and I believe that the majority of unjust laws within the USA (and they do exist) can be opposed within the USA political system without breaking the law per se, there are certainly examples where opposition to an unjust law requires breaking it so as to effectively oppose it: i.e. civil disobedience. The success of Black Americans in obtaining equal rights (or at least as close to it as has happened) required that the segregation laws be repeatedly defied and broken. Non-violently, but extra-legally nonetheless.

I'd say that civil disobedience is a traditionally acceptable (at least from a societal point of view) means of protest. The standard caveat is that such protests must be nonviolent so as to maintain the proverbial high ground.

I can't speak to what children are taught today but I was definitely taught that civil disobedience can be an appropriate response to unjust laws.

I wish I was as confident as you are that much of what I see in the current USA political climate does not resemble elements in the rise of Nazism. But that is off topic. Laws don't have to rise to the level of Nazism to be so abhorrent as to require violating them to end them. Weren't people in the "underground railroad" violating "democratically passed" laws by harboring fugitive slaves? Were people working within the political and legal system able to stop slavery without a civil war? When the USA President and Congress ripped Japanese-American citizens out of their normal lives and relocated them in camps during World-War II, that was perfectly legal and attempts to stop it working in the political and legal system came to nought. The Supreme Court approved it! What legal ways to oppose such an abhorrent law are there? Short of waiting for hundreds of years and hoping for a more enlightened public and government? Often it is the civil disobedience that serves to enlighten the public and government.

I just don't know what the answer is. We can only be who we are today and, hopefully, try to be better than the collective "we" of the past.

What I will note is that the majority of Americans voted against the fascistic policies proposed during the last election and, in the absence of a new perceived existential threat to country, the current leaders of our government will have to tread very carefully or risk significant unrest. In our representative democracy, we sometimes have to wait until unjust laws exist before we can figure out how to fight them.

As you say, though, those questions are beyond this particular topic which is about one idiot punching another, which as a protest is at best ineffective and more likely to be counterproductive in the long run.

 

[Babbylonian]

Richard Spencer is the victim here? That's just beautiful.

For the rest, I'm not particularly interested in liberal ideology, I already know how bankrupt it is. Punching a Nazi is not senseless violence, tear-gassing a disabled woman is senseless violence, guess which one the liberal crowd - transformed instantly into experts on anti-fascism as required - chooses to whine about?

Sorry, but attributing any of this to liberal ideology seems pretty clearly to be a non-starter given that this thread includes both liberals and conservatives agreeing that anarchist nonsense is anarchist nonsense.

Maybe the punch was an overall good thing. I can at least agree with most of my conservative "enemies" who find both the puncher and the punchee to be abhorrent...though perhaps not equally so.

 

[caveman1917]

I'd say that civil disobedience is a traditionally acceptable (at least from a societal point of view) means of protest. The standard caveat is that such protests must be nonviolent so as to maintain the proverbial high ground.

Non-violent protest - at least some forms of it - gets you assaulted and kidnapped by the state, hence the masks and uniform dress.

 

[caveman1917]

Sorry, but attributing any of this to liberal ideology seems pretty clearly to be a non-starter given that this thread includes both liberals and conservatives

And?

agreeing that anarchist nonsense is anarchist nonsense.

The nonsense is the liberal nonsense, but you can call it liberal-conservative nonsense if that helps.

Maybe the punch was an overall good thing. I can at least agree with most of my conservative "enemies" who find both the puncher and the punchee to be abhorrent...though perhaps not equally so.

Well I find both conservatives and liberals to be abhorrent...though perhaps not equally so. Besides, how can the punch be a good thing and the person having performed it be "abhorrent" on that basis?

 

[Babbylonian]

Well I find both conservatives and liberals to be abhorrent...though perhaps not equally so. Besides, how can the punch be a good thing and the person having performed it "abhorrent" on that basis?

Because the ends here don't justify the means, especially when the achieved end wasn't the intention...if there was any sensible intention beyond thinking it would be fun to punch somebody.

 

[caveman1917]

I'ts a bit like the Westboro Baptist Church.

The Westboro Baptist Church aren't actively assaulting or shooting anti-fascists and anarchists[*], are not in the process of attempting to gain political power to do so, and do not have the general goal of enacting genocide by making their "law" "rule". No, it is not like the Westboro Baptist Church.

* the group which one can assume Spencer's puncher to be in or close to.

 

[caveman1917]

Because the ends here don't justify the means

Then how can it be an overall good thing?

especially when the achieved end wasn't the intention...

How would you know it wasn't?

if there was any sensible intention beyond thinking it would be fun

Can I ascribe this to liberal projection?

 

[Elagabalus]

Then how can it be an overall good thing?



How would you know it wasn't?



Can I ascribe this to liberal projection?

OK, I'm going to have to ask--how old are you?

 

[trustbutverify]

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.

I'd laugh my ass off, but that's exactly what they're trying to provoke, for litigation purposes.

 

[dudalb]

Because the ends here don't justify the means, especially when the achieved end wasn't the intention...if there was any sensible intention beyond thinking it would be fun to punch somebody.

Look at that Michael Bakunin quote as one of Caveman's signatures. It explains what you are dealing with.
Fact is, people on the left can fall in love with violence just as easily as somebody on the right.

 

[caveman1917]

Throwing a label at him does not constitute evidence of conspiracy to murder.

Precisely. Which makes what you advocate vigilantism.

Not at all.

Yes, seriously. You're accusing him of a serious crime.

I'm accusing him of being a nazi. A particularly important one at that. I guess neo-nazi would be more accurate, but what does it matter...

You should have evidence of that crime if you intend to make such an accusation. Obviously you don't have any such evidence.

If you actually had evidence, it would accomplish getting the police to investigate him, and possibly even lead to him going to prison.

The police? That gang that shows up dressed for violence to assault and kidnap non-violent protestors? Why should anyone give a **** about what they do or don't do? Besides, as if they wouldn't be acquainted with him already.

But you have no evidence.

He's a nazi, Zig, a simple google search will show you this.

So in that sense, yes, it would accomplish nothing.

Uhu. Well then that's too bad for the cops I guess.

 

[Thermal]

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.

I think the Bloc was credited with other violence such as smashing windows of the usual suspects (B of A, Bucs) and burning limos, etc. (links below from the Guardian and Washington Post). I think #disruptJ20 would have happened if Clinton had won, as her corporate affiliations meet with little love. If the political expression is approximately 'No One For President', wouldn't all their actions qualify as self-defense using your reasoning above?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/inauguration-protesters-police-washington-dc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/protesters-who-destroyed-property-on-inauguration-day-part-of-well-organized-group/2017/01/21/096678c8-dfeb-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.3870e1eb8a65