Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[caveman1917]

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.

That may be so, yet he chose to legitimize his regime by taking power by elections - respecting that rule of law on that account at least. Other fascists, such as in Italy or Spain, chose to come to power through coups. So this rule of law is not something which seems to work well in an anti-fascist sense.

Had there been respect for constitutional integrity and less of a breakdown in the political order, Hitler would've faced major hurdles.

True, but pretty vacuous.

 

[Aridas]

Such as?

Start interruption-

Q: Are you a neo-nazi?
A: No, I'm not a neo-nazi.
Q: Do you like black people?
A: Why not? Sure.
Q: Would you marry a black woman? *gets ignored in favor of a different questioner asking at the same time*
Some question regarding neo-nazis that's hard to hear because of the first disruptor
A: Neo-nazis don't love me. They kinda hate me, actually.
Questioner asks a question about the KKK and neo-nazis before the guy had a chance to finish. Yet another negative answer.

So... not seeing any reason, from the entire video, to treat them as anything other than ignorant, when one is looking at the video without real prior knowledge about the guy that might change things even partially.

That's not what the video shows. The video, assuming we're talking about some variant of the following one, shows two assaults.

Hmm? The video I'm talking about is linked to in the OP. It shows only one actual assault.

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[*].

For the latter, that's an... interesting idea of what constitutes assault.

It doesn't show anything, by itself, about motive or justification or who understands what they're talking about.

As ever, your reading comprehension leaves lots and lots to be desired. If the guy had used "fighting words," there'd be something. There wasn't. As for the people not understanding what they're talking about, the disruptive questions asked and how they were asked would seem to demonstrate that just fine.

Interestingly, as always, people only care when it's nazis getting assaulted.

Care to back that up?

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.

So, where's the thread about the disabled woman who got punched? That would be the thread to expect an actual discussion about that or attention to it here.

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.

Only because you're trying to twist it weirdly to try to see what you want to see.

* 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?

You're making a number of assumptions that are not really in evidence here. Such as, for example, that a reasonable person should know that or would necessarily have time to process that. To answer it more specifically, though, which photographer? The cameraman for the video in question? Someone who actually managed to take a picture of their face? For the former, I'm not seeing it. For the latter, potentially, but not necessarily, depending on a few things. Still... if you're talking about the person who tried to unmask the assailant? I'd be remarkably surprised if *any* fair court ruled them complicit.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

While I theoretically deplore vandalism, but since it happened to a Muslim: what the hey! (How we laughed)

 

[caveman1917]

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.

No thanks. What makes you think he'd go bankrupt? He says to have been in the business for over 25 years, and seems to have built quite a large company with branches all over the US and a sizable fleet of vehicles.

 

[caveman1917]

Start interruption-

Q: Are you a neo-nazi?
A: No, I'm not a neo-nazi.
Q: Do you like black people?
A: Why not? Sure.
Q: Would you marry a black woman? *gets ignored in favor of a different questioner asking at the same time*
Some question regarding neo-nazis that's hard to hear because of the first disruptor
A: Neo-nazis don't love me. They kinda hate me, actually.
Questioner asks a question about the KKK and neo-nazis before the guy had a chance to finish. Yet another negative answer.

So... not seeing any reason, from the entire video, to treat them as anything other than ignorant, when one is looking at the video without real prior knowledge about the guy that might change things even partially.

And yet you'd still expect the assailant to be ignorant, even though he can be assumed to have more knowledge of the situation than you - given that he would at least actually know who Spencer is in the first place.

Hmm? The video I'm talking about is linked to in the OP. It shows only one actual assault.

For the latter, that's an... interesting idea of what constitutes assault.

How so? Harmful physical contact performed against someone against their will. Something like that. Seems close enough.

As ever, your reading comprehension leaves lots and lots to be desired. If the guy had used "fighting words," there'd be something.

There'd be something where?

Care to back that up?

Sure. Consider the set of all people who got assaulted that day, consider the subset of that which consists of nazis and the subset which has threads/posts devoted to denunciation of such action.

So, where's the thread about the disabled woman who got punched?

No idea, I guess it doesn't exist. Which is kind of my point. Btw not punched but tear-gassed.

Only because you're trying to twist it weirdly to try to see what you want to see.

Not really.

if you're talking about the person who tried to unmask the assailant?

Yes.

I'd be remarkably surprised if *any* fair court ruled them complicit.

Probably. Doesn't make it non-violent or any less ignorant.

 

[Aridas]

And yet you'd still expect the assailant to be ignorant, even though he can be assumed to have more knowledge of the situation than you - given that he would at least actually know who Spencer is in the first place.

Sad. The assailant wasn't the one who invoked the descriptor "ignorant" and that had just been clarified.

How so? Harmful physical contact performed against someone against their will. Something like that. Seems close enough.

By your usage, all criminals are assaulted when they're arrested then, even if they're not suffering any physical damage, unless they actually do want to be arrested. Not a particularly defensible usage, so no, not close enough.

There'd be something where?

Playing dumb?

Sure. Consider the set of all people who got assaulted that day, consider the subset of that which consists of nazis and the subset which has threads/posts devoted to denunciation of such action.

So, you've got nothing? Okay. To be clear, it's pretty obvious that this thread wasn't created or devoted to denunciation of such action. It was much more a "Hey! Look! This person I don't like got punched in the face! Enjoy it with me!" thread than a denunciation thread. That there have been more serious responses is a side effect rather than the goal.

No idea, I guess it doesn't exist. Which is kind of my point. Btw not punched but tear-gassed.

Okay, then. So still no real point, and thank you for the correction. I still can't really comment on it meaningfully without more relevant information beyond a "This sounds like it's pretty likely to be pretty bad."

Not really.

A claim that you've done nothing to inspire confidence in.

Yes.

Your usage is pretty much nonsense, then. The person fairly certainly wouldn't have had time to process all that you're trying to claim should be obvious in that time. What happened only really had time to be a reflexive response, rather than a well thought through one, before getting to any other issues.

Probably. Doesn't make it non-violent or any less ignorant.

True, it doesn't do that. That it wasn't actually violent from the start has much more to say that's relevant there. There's a case for ignorant, perhaps, but not one that is particularly meaningful.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I do not advocate or support violence in response to a purely political position. Not ever. But a more open question is if it is okay for me to applaud (or at least find mildly entertaining) violence which occurs against someone who is advocating violence against me and my family.

Exactly trying to use the local politics of the death camps to justify WWII is totally pointless.

In fact it means that all wars no matter what are criminal actions, as they are all political in nature.

 

[uke2se]

And yet the dangerous fascism is on the right?

Yes, per definition. Fascism is a right wing ideology.

 

[uke2se]

Why does everyone cheer this?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=140&pictureid=11148[/qimg]

and condemn Spencer being punched?

It's a frail old lady (actually, she was about 35 or so 38 when that photo was taken) standing up to a skinhead neo-Nazi. The narrative is perfect.

Here we have a masked man sucker-punching a clean cut and apparently eloquent man having an interview. The narrative victimizes the guy being punched.

That the man being punched is a vile neo-Nazi in this case too is quickly forgotten, as is how many people would answer "yes" to the question "if you could go back in time and shoot Hitler, would you?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Attempting to enforce genocidal policies.

Spencer hasn't tried to enforce anything. He has no power.

You keep treating language like Sandusky treated little boys.

As well as, you know, generally being a neo-nazi.

Of course. Thought crimes.

What does it matter whether something is legal?

Seriously, caveman?

Because we're a nation of laws. I understand that the very concept offends you, but that's really your problem, not ours, and not even Spencer's. Your anarchism is as much of a threat to people's lives as Spencer.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Not sure I follow. There's been plenty of dictatorships that have been legal or at least made legal after they were put into place. What's the rule of law if not the rules set by those in power?

 

[Belz...]

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

Given that I haven't pretended to have some sort of moral high ground here, your first sentence makes no sense except if one understands it as a knee-jerk, "must throw it back in his face" response. Your second sentence seems to indicate that I'm somehow wounded by your post, which is funny to say the least.

When you have something to contribute to the discussion, let us know.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not sure I follow. There's been plenty of dictatorships that have been legal or at least made legal after they were put into place. What's the rule of law if not the rules set by those in power?

Read the link, including the reference to the rule of law. This isn't a new concept, it's been around a long time.

 

[Belz...]

If you think what Shiner wrote is coming from a "high pedestal", you've sunk pretty low.

You don't think "The peole who applaud and condone this weak ambush of disgusting intent, are just as much the coward that the ineffectual attacker is." constitutes a declaration of having the moral high ground?

 

[Belz...]

Read the link, including the reference to the rule of law. This isn't a new concept, it's been around a long time.

Yes but my point is that dictatorships are often established legally (good old Julius is a prime example) or become legal after their establishment. A law remains an agreed-upon and enforced rule by those in power. The distinction seems more theoretical to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes but my point is that dictatorships are often established legally (good old Julius is a prime example) or become legal after their establishment. A law remains an agreed-upon and enforced rule by those in power. The distinction seems more theoretical to me.

When one person has the power to change the law at whim, it becomes arbitrary and capricious. No one can have any confidence in what is and is not legal, since that can change like the wind, even retroactively. That is very much not a theoretical issue.

 

[Shiner]

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.

I must have missed where that happened. This thread is about one assault. The clue is in the title.

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.

No, it really doesn't.

* 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?

Is it your opinion that there was no threat of harm or death to the Nazi as a result of the cowardly assault? You're worried that identifying the thug may put him in danger. I take it this means you don't wish for his arrest?

Adulting and anarchy are not a good mix.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think "The peole who applaud and condone this weak ambush of disgusting intent, are just as much the coward that the ineffectual attacker is." constitutes a declaration of having the moral high ground?

You've moved the goalpost. The term "high pedestal" has different meaning than "high ground".

But yes, I suppose that statement is a declaration of having the moral high ground. Here's the thing: he's correct, he really does have the high ground. Rather than getting upset that he has it, why not simply join him up there?

 

[Belz...]

When one person has the power to change the law at whim, it becomes arbitrary and capricious. No one can have any confidence in what is and is not legal, since that can change like the wind, even retroactively.

And that's different from another situation how?

You've moved the goalpost. The term "high pedestal" has different meaning than "high ground".

I don't see the distinction.

But yes, I suppose that statement is a declaration of having the moral high ground. Here's the thing: he's correct, he really does have the high ground.

He doesn't have the moral high ground. You just happen to agree with him. That's not the same thing. Well, actually, it kind of is.

Rather than getting upset that he has it, why not simply join him up there?

And now you're personalising our discussion. I'm not upset. I'm simply pointing out to him that calling other people in the discussion cowards, especially without cause, won't advance the discussion much.

 

[Shiner]

When you have something to contribute to the discussion, let us know.

Something like this?

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

The rest of your reply, which I deleted, only showed that what you replied to went over your head. I'm not arrogant enough to entertain the idea that my words could have an impact on your sense of self righteousness.