Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

Why does everyone cheer this?
picture.php


and condemn Spencer being punched?
 
MostlyDead said:
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).
Click to expand...

Those things aren't violence but speech.

Speech is the symbolic rearrangement of molecules of inanimate objects so as to communicate a certain idea. Examples of speech include producing sound waves in the atmosphere, holding signs with symbolically arranged colour variations, rearranging the molecular structure of specific windows, or burning a limo or police car.

Violence is actions inflicted on people rather than inanimate objects, such as tear-gas spraying disabled people, using percussion grenades on protestors, etc. That's not to say the bloc wasn't credited with violence, such as punching Spencer or at some other point charging the government's gang. However it was in comparison much less indiscriminate and ubiquitous than the government's as well as clearly defensive.

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?
Click to expand...

I think the political expression, as in the idea being communicated in the non-violent protest activities, would be more the negation of private property (ie the belief system which requires one to adopt that the so-called "Bank of America" has the "right" to decide upon the physical configuration of certain inanimate objects). At least that's what I'm getting from the limo thing:

C2pNBuGXEAAthOI.jpg


As for the violent part, breaking out of a kettle formed by a gang is a form of self-defense, and so is punching a Nazi, just slightly less directly.
 
Last edited:
deadrose said:
Why does everyone cheer this?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=140&pictureid=11148[/qimg]

and condemn Spencer being punched?
Click to expand...

Because one looks like it really hurt and the other doesn't?
 
deadrose said:
Why does everyone cheer this?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=140&pictureid=11148[/qimg]

and condemn Spencer being punched?
Click to expand...


Because I'm happy that Lou Costello overcame the whole 'being dead' thing.

Serious reply : absent further context I'd condemn the actions in that pic as well as the punch from the OP. I'm thrilled someone felt brave enough to protest a despicable ideology in a less-than-safe setting, but absolutely can't condone the manner in which they did so.
 
caveman1917 said:
He is, it's called "being a Nazi leader".
Click to expand...
Far be it for me to defend this sorry excuse for a human being. That said...

(1) What specifically has Spencer said or done to merit being assaulted?

(2) Are these things he has said/done illegal? If not, should they be?

(3) What about Joe Random's point about people who think that abortion is murder, and decide to take it out on someone? What does society do about that?

Fuelair and any other flat-out advocates, feel free to weigh in especially on #3.
 
MostlyDead said:
In all fairness, I doubt the attacker was concerned with Spencer's message. 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...
Dressed in anarcho-coward uniform.
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...
Zig, nobody's listening to reason anymore. It's a shame, because this is a point where ACLU and I are on the same page.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Yikes! That is horrible! Are you sure the statue is suppose to honor this Confederate General (and KKK founder) Nathan Bedford Forrest? It looks to me like it's trying to mock him.
Click to expand...

I truly have no idea, but it is a lousy statue honor or not!!!!!!!
 
varwoche said:
Far be it for me to defend this sorry excuse for a human being. That said...

(1) What specifically has Spencer said or done to merit being assaulted?

(2) Are these things he has said/done illegal? If not, should they be?

(3) What about Joe Random's point about people who think that abortion is murder, and decide to take it out on someone? What does society do about that?

Fuelair and any other flat-out advocates, feel free to weigh in especially on #3.
Click to expand...

Not a flat-out-advocate here, but FWIW:

(1)&(2)- Spencer openly advocates ethnic cleansing, denounces Jews, quotes Nazi propaganda, and once published an article on his alternativeright.com website asking if Black Genocide was something worth considering. His views violate (at least) every civil rights act in the U.S. This is protected as free speech in the states and does not 'merit assault' per se, but it could be argued that he is ideologically provoking conflict and inciting violence.

(3) If someone genuinely believes that abortion is murder, I would consider them to have some degree of moral justification in their aggression. But say, if you knew there were innocent people being drug off the street and murdered by citizens in a nearby building, could you in any way continue to live there? I couldn't, it would be inhuman to sip coffee while unprovoked murders happened down the road. So I question the sincerity of believing it is actually murder, making it a difficult comparison. Occupying the moral high-ground may ethically justify an action, but does not excuse it from legal consequences. Nazi-punchers are as subject to assault charges as anyone else, but as a neo-Nazi by definition holds U.S. laws and human rights in contempt, isn't it at least poetic justice to not subject them to laws which might protect them?
 
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm? There are two things that are distinctly of note to respond with. First, my use of ignorant was specifically directly at the impression left by the questions/accusations chosen by those who were being disruptive and the responses to them. Second, you're pointing out the obvious in that the video clearly does not show any justification, much less reason, for the harassment and assault he received. That's not to say that there isn't any, but the video doesn't show it. Rather, what the video quite seems to show is a bunch of people who don't really understand what they're talking about or dealing with just lashing out at something that they expect not to like. I'm not one to condone or encourage such behavior, regardless of whether or not I might like the outcome and regardless of who's engaging in it.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Far be it for me to defend this sorry excuse for a human being. That said...

(1) What specifically has Spencer said or done to merit being assaulted?
Click to expand...

Attempting to enforce genocidal policies. As well as, you know, generally being a neo-nazi.

(2) Are these things he has said/done illegal? If not, should they be?
Click to expand...

What does it matter whether something is legal?

(3) What about Joe Random's point about people who think that abortion is murder, and decide to take it out on someone? What does society do about that?
Click to expand...

Which point exactly about abortion being murder?
 
Aridas said:
First, my use of ignorant was specifically directly at the impression left by the questions/accusations chosen by those who were being disruptive and the responses to them.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Second, you're pointing out the obvious in that the video clearly does not show any justification, much less reason, for the harassment and assault he received. That's not to say that there isn't any, but the video doesn't show it. Rather, what the video quite seems to show is a bunch of people who don't really understand what they're talking about or dealing with just lashing out at something that they expect not to like.
Click to expand...

That's not what the video shows. The video, assuming we're talking about some variant of the following one, shows two assaults. First Spencer getting punched by a person, and then that person getting assaulted by a by-standing photographer in an attempt to publicly identify him[*]. It doesn't show anything, by itself, about motive or justification or who understands what they're talking about.

Interestingly, as always, people only care when it's nazis getting assaulted. Plenty of people got assaulted that day, like that disabled woman, but a nazi being punched is just a bridge too far. Of all people who got assaulted there that day, the nazi getting punched is probably the most justifiable.



I'm not one to condone or encourage such behavior, regardless of whether or not I might like the outcome and regardless of who's engaging in it.
Click to expand...

The stance should be denounce when it's done against a nazi and ignore when it's done by the state or by nazis? Because that's what it pretty much looks like.

* in your world-view, given that a reasonable person should know that publicly identifying someone who punched a neo-nazi leader stands a good chance of getting this person assaulted or even killed, is the by-standing photographer then complicit in attempted assault/murder?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
:rolleyes: Do you even have the most basic grasp of how Hitler gained power in Germany, or how Nazis in general work?
Click to expand...

Hitler's seizure of power was unconstitutional on multiple accounts. Weimar Germany lacked much in the way of judicial review and had a strongly positivist view of law however, so nobody cared that much. Had there been respect for constitutional integrity and less of a breakdown in the political order, Hitler would've faced major hurdles.
 
caveman1917 said:
Those things aren't violence but speech.
snip
I think the political expression, as in the idea being communicated in the non-violent protest activities, would be more the negation of private property (ie the belief system which requires one to adopt that the so-called "Bank of America" has the "right" to decide upon the physical configuration of certain inanimate objects). At least that's what I'm getting from the limo thing:

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2pNBuGXEAAthOI.jpg[/qimg]

As for the violent part, breaking out of a kettle formed by a gang is a form of self-defense, and so is punching a Nazi, just slightly less directly.
Click to expand...

That limo of which the molecules were non-violently re-arranged in the name of free speech, belonged to a recent Muslim immigrant who had just started a limo service.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...ant-may-cost-70000-in-damages/article/2612747

maybe you and the other riot apologists can donate to his Patreon so he doesn't go bankrupt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom