Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[fuelair]

You misunderstand. Inciting to violence is not protected, true enough. But Spencer's speech carries a subtext which clearly promotes violence. You perhaps think that discussing how to best exterminate a race is not advocating it, and that advocating it is not a tacit incitement? His speech is protected, but the 'reading between the lines' ideology is arguable, as I said.



Disagreed, although the poetic thing was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. For a lot of us, the law is not God, but more of a standard we have to answer to if caught breaking it. Do you mean to suggest that you have never failed to declare some cash income from a yard sale on your taxes, or come to a complete stop at a stop sign? We all knowingly break a law here and there, the question is only of degree. Spencer openly advocates taking legally protected rights away from others, and in doing so his philosophy entrenches him outside the laws as they are. It's at least a little poetic to meet him there on his own right-trampling terms.

Unless you made more money than the items cost, you would not declare it on taxes. You might be able to declare it as a loss for a tax reduction.

 

[Thermal]

Unless you made more money than the items cost, you would not declare it on taxes. You might be able to declare it as a loss for a tax reduction.

*MostlyDead buries his face in his hands under the realization that his half-assed anarchist apologetics are crushed by income tax declarations*

Ok, retracted. You win a $20 bet from your buddy who couldn't knock out a white supremacist with one punch. Do you declare that, or are you a tax evader?

 

[caveman1917]

I don't advocate it, but I can tolerate it. Preaching about violating the rights of others puts him in a position where he can't reasonably object to having his rights violated.

I'm not "preaching" about "violating" some "rights" but saying that punching Nazis works. Just because you can only understand something by interpretation within some arbitrary belief system you hold doesn't mean that's what I'm saying. Why should I hold that Nazis should have a "right" to not being punched?

I doubt that.

On what basis?

They likely see him as a Nazi martyr now

They'd likely see him as a Nazi martyr if he gets killed, or perhaps put in jail. If getting punched made one a martyr in that scene there would be quite a few martyrs to go around.

and Spencer was already tweeting about taking their self-protection into their own hands.

Yes. It went from "Heil our Victory!" with rounds of Nazi salutes to being scared about not being able to build the public movement needed to win. Sounds like a positive evolution to me.

The protection measures will likely make it harder for them to recruit.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not "preaching" about "violating" some "rights" but saying that punching Nazis works. Just because you can only understand something by interpretation within some arbitrary belief system you hold doesn't mean that's what I'm saying. Why should I hold that Nazis should have a "right" to not being punched?

Read the comment again. Not referring to you, was referring to Spencer (I said puts him in a position where he can't object)

On what basis?

On the observation that followers tend to rally behind a leader when s/he is attacked, literally or figuratively.

They'd likely see him as a Nazi martyr if he gets killed, or perhaps put in jail. If getting punched made one a martyr in that scene there would be quite a few martyrs to go around.

When a leader is very publicly attacked, yeah, it feeds into the persecution delusion. They are already decrying the 'vicious left' for both the attack and what they see as biased reporting.

Yes. It went from "Heil our Victory!" with rounds of Nazi salutes to being scared about not being able to build the public movement needed to win. Sounds like a positive evolution to me.

The protection measures will likely make it harder for them to recruit.

Why? I take protection to mean CCW. I think Nazis would be more than happy to carry weapons with a justification to use them, no?

 

[caveman1917]

Read the comment again. Not referring to you, was referring to Spencer (I said puts him in a position where he can't object)

edit: nevermind, misunderstanding

On the observation that followers tend to rally behind a leader when s/he is attacked, literally or figuratively.

They already are fully rallied behind a leader - that "Fuhrer" thing does it surprisingly well in Nazi circles, after all.

When a leader is very publicly attacked, yeah, it feeds into the persecution delusion. They are already decrying the 'vicious left' for both the attack and what they see as biased reporting.

They always "decry the vicious left", they're Nazis, it's what they do.

Why? I take protection to mean CCW. I think Nazis would be more than happy to carry weapons with a justification to use them, no?

Yet people still prefer to go to peaceful, quiet demonstrations with people in suits giving interviews than some assemblage of known Nazis where they might get shot. For pretty much the same reason that the "provoke the state into forming a full police cordon around them" tactic works in reducing their recruitment for demonstrations.

And what justification for shooting people would Nazis have, exactly?

 

[varwoche]

I'm curious: Who would you say is the most significant "Spencer of the world" that you have opposed, and what form did your opposition take? I'm assuming it wasn't vigilante justice.

If there was such a thing as taking a thread time-out, where I could chat about my personal choices/opinions (e.g. donating to SPLC) without falling into defending those choices/opinions, and without otherwise derailing the thread, I would do so. Suffice it to say that the modest efforts I've made to educate myself and people in my sphere have been more focused on the infiltration of extremist thinking into the mainstream (e.g. Ron Paul's candidacies) than a particular extremist. Although there was Pastor Chuck Baldwin, Randy Weaver, VDARE, John Birch Society and others I've been keenly interested in at one time or another.

 

[Belz...]

You imagine a conflict when there is none. But it's still irrelevant.



And you are wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Which should come as no surprise, since (again) you fundamentally misunderstood what the distinction is. And there's no uncertainty about that either, nor is that simply my opinion: you claimed that dictatorships had the rule of law, when dictatorships are the prototypical example of the LACK of the rule of law.

Again: it's one thing to not like some terminology, it's another to simply be wrong about what that terminology is, as you clearly were.

Not with you, no. I give you standard terminology, and not only were you not previously familiar with it (which is sort of surprising), you failed spectacularly to learn what it meant, and in fact even denied what it meant. Do you really expect me to take your posts seriously under these conditions? Because I can't. I just can't. You aren't worth taking seriously.

I can't help but notice that this is empty rhetoric. As usual: you just say that I'm wrong. Somehow you think this is convincing. You're too busy telling people they're wrong rather than engaging with them. Conversation with you is, again, pointless.

I also notice how you've dodged the question about morality, so may I assume that you realised your mistake, there?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Just saw on Twitter that Spencer got punched again. #punchANazi

It's funny now, but this will escalate.

My grandfather did not have fond memories of ideological street battles in 1930's Berlin.

 

[Aepervius]

you claimed that dictatorships had the rule of law, when dictatorships are the prototypical example of the LACK of the rule of law.

He is right, you are incorrect, at the heart authoritarianism, simply warp or change such law as to protect their own reign. That does not mean there is no rule of law. There is. There was a rule of law under Franco, for example.

In fact authoritarianism (of which dictatorship is only a subset) need the rules of law to give themselves legitimacy and to enforce repression without going to anarchy.

You are confusing it with Anarchy, or rule by strength like in Somalia. There is no rules of law in such area.

 

[caveman1917]

Just saw on Twitter that Spencer got punched again. #punchANazi

He did get punched twice that day, just only once on camera. Sure this isn't the second punch from back then?

It's funny now, but this will escalate.

My grandfather did not have fond memories of ideological street battles in 1930's Berlin.

Some grandfathers did have fond memories of ideological battles in 1930's Spain, though.

 

[Eddie Dane]

He did get punched twice that day, just only once on camera. Sure this isn't the second punch from back then?



Some grandfathers did have fond memories of ideological battles in 1930's Spain, though.

The one that ended with an autocratic regime operating 36 concentration camps? Yeah, sounds lovely.

Not to mention going to Spain to defend liberal democracy and then getting purged by Stalin. Great.

 

[Ziggurat]

He is right, you are incorrect, at the heart authoritarianism, simply warp or change such law as to protect their own reign. That does not mean there is no rule of law. There is. There was a rule of law under Franco, for example.

No. You are wrong. You have failed to grasp what the term "rule of law" means, even though I specifically pointed to a source that explains it. So I will link again:

Rule of Law
"The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials."
Rule of Man
"Rule of man is absence of rule of law. It is a society in which one person, regime, or a group of persons, rules arbitrarily."

In fact authoritarianism (of which dictatorship is only a subset) need the rules of law to give themselves legitimacy and to enforce repression without going to anarchy.

Again, you are wrong. "Rule of Law" requires more than the existence and enforcement of laws. How those laws are created and enforced matters too. Authoritarianism is an example of the rule of man, NOT the rule of law. And again, this isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of terminology, which has been in use for hundreds of years now. You are simply wrong about that terminology.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't help but notice that this is empty rhetoric. As usual: you just say that I'm wrong. Somehow you think this is convincing.

You claimed dictatorships are an example of the rule of law. I point you to a source that says that dictatorships are an example of the rule of man, which is an absence of the rule of law. That's pretty damned good evidence that you're wrong. Yet you ignore it. You don't try to refute it, you simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Conversation with you is, again, pointless.

Yes, YOU conversing with me is pointless, because you refuse to learn.

I also notice how you've dodged the question about morality

Because there's absolutely no point in getting into a more complicated discussion with you when you can't figure out a clear-cut issue of facts (and the established definition of the terms "rule of law" and "rule of man" is a fact).

 

[Belz...]

You claimed dictatorships are an example of the rule of law.

No, that's not what I did. You might think so because you're itching for a disagreement. I said that it's a spectrum, and also said that in all cases the power is the one making the laws anyway, and laws may change at any time, even though they are harder to change in a democracy, in theory.

Because there's absolutely no point in getting into a more complicated discussion with you when you can't figure out a clear-cut issue of facts (and the established definition of the terms "rule of law" and "rule of man" is a fact).

Don't squirm your way out of that. You said that you didn't determine that he had the moral high ground because you agreed with him. Tell us how you determined it, then.

 

[Ziggurat]

You misunderstand. Inciting to violence is not protected, true enough. But Spencer's speech carries a subtext which clearly promotes violence.

So does Bernie Sanders's speech. There's a subtext of violence against the rich. But subtext doesn't suffice.

You perhaps think that discussing how to best exterminate a race is not advocating it, and that advocating it is not a tacit incitement?

No to the latter, which is the relevant part. There's no such thing as "tacit incitement".

Disagreed, although the poetic thing was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. For a lot of us, the law is not God, but more of a standard we have to answer to if caught breaking it. Do you mean to suggest that you have never failed to declare some cash income from a yard sale on your taxes, or come to a complete stop at a stop sign? We all knowingly break a law here and there, the question is only of degree.

These are not crimes, they are infractions (and undeclared cash from a yard sale generally isn't even that). They're generally malum in prohibitum rather than malum in se, and degree absolutely matters as well. But most importantly, if one group of citizens were allowed to consistently violate such minor laws and another was not, that would actually be a major problem.

Spencer openly advocates taking legally protected rights away from others

But he does not attempt to do so in violation of the law.

and in doing so his philosophy entrenches him outside the laws as they are.

Anyone who advocates changing the law is "outside the law" in this respect. This is a meaningless standard. There are plenty of grounds to criticize him, but none to claim that he deserves anything less than the full protection of the law.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed dictatorships are an example of the rule of law.

No, that's not what I did.

Yes, it is:

I note, however, that you admit that there is a rule of law under a dictatorship.

But there is no rule of law under dictatorship, only rule of man. Laws don't suffice for rule of law.

You might think so because you're itching for a disagreement. I said that it's a spectrum

The fact that there is a spectrum of possibilities doesn't change the fact that dictatorships are solidly on the "rule of man" side of that spectrum, not on the "rule of law" side.

and also said that in all cases the power is the one making the laws anyway

Not relevant, since having laws doesn't suffice for rule of law to exist.

Don't squirm your way out of that.

Stop denying facts, and then we'll talk.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it is:

No, you'll notice that those aren't the same thing.

The fact that there is a spectrum of possibilities doesn't change the fact that dictatorships are solidly on the "rule of man" side of that spectrum, not on the "rule of law" side.

At least we agree that there's a spectrum. I guess there's a start to everything.

Stop denying facts, and then we'll talk.

Those are two separate discussions, Zig. Answer the question or admit, tacitly, that the only reason why you think a thing is moral is because you agree with it.

 

[Cleon]

Ooh, I found a new favorite!

 

[marplots]

Ooh, I found a new favorite!

Trigger warning: Violent content

 

[caveman1917]

The one that ended with an autocratic regime operating 36 concentration camps? Yeah, sounds lovely.

Not to mention going to Spain to defend liberal democracy and then getting purged by Stalin. Great.

Who exactly went to Spain to defend liberal democracy?