Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Ziggurat]

Define "evolutionary superior" and provide your evidence.

Are you really so unfamiliar with basic science?

Whatever kills off its competition is evolutionarily superior to the competition that it kills off.

 

[caveman1917]

Let's compare Anarchy in Syria and a robust nation-state in Iran. How's that for examples. Or Libya and Egypt.

There is no anarchism in either Syria, Iran, Libya or Egypt. Are you trolling?

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no anarchism in either Syria, Iran, Libya or Egypt. Are you trolling?

So where is there anarchy?

Oh, that's right, nowhere. Because it can't survive. It gets crushed by any organized group it comes into contact with. It is an evolutionary dead end.

 

[caveman1917]

Are you really so unfamiliar with basic science?

Whatever kills off its competition is evolutionarily superior to the competition that it kills off.

Are you saying we should kill nationalists? Also, would you say your standard makes the "white race" then "evolutionary superior" over the "black race" - given history?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So where is there anarchy?

Oh, that's right, nowhere. Because it can't survive. It gets crushed by any organized group it comes into contact with. It is an evolutionary dead end.

Here's the thing about Anarchists: They imagine themselves as Immortan Joe, but would most likely have died off in the collapse. It isn't the Black Blocs who would last longer after a nuclear war, it's the sections of the military who prepared for warlordism.

 

[caveman1917]

So where is there anarchy?

Oh, that's right, nowhere. Because it can't survive. It gets crushed by any organized group it comes into contact with. It is an evolutionary dead end.

Here's the thing about Anarchists: They imagine themselves as Immortan Joe, but would most likely have died off in the collapse. It isn't the Black Blocs who would last longer after a nuclear war, it's the sections of the military who prepared for warlordism.

Anyway, so we should apparently kill nationalists to show that we're "evolutionary superior" as required by "basic science". Fine, I'll pass the message along, thanks for the advice Zig.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So where is there anarchy?

Oh, that's right, nowhere. Because it can't survive. It gets crushed by any organized group it comes into contact with. It is an evolutionary dead end.

This is one of the oddest pieces of reasoning I've seen for a while. The superior system is the one that kills everyone else. So pre-emptively nuking everyone would be evolutionary superior to not doing so presumably?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Anyway, so we should apparently kill nationalists to show that we're "evolutionary superior" as required by "basic science". Fine, I'll pass the message along, thanks for the advice Zig.

So, what makes Anarchy a better system when it has been overpowered by more complex societal structures? After all, Tribes were broken by Warlords who were broken by Kings. What makes an Anarchistic society actually stronger than a Hierarchical one?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying we should kill nationalists?

Nothing I said about evolution has anything to do with "should". That's a value judgment, and evolution isn't about values.

Also, would you say your standard makes the "white race" then "evolutionary superior" over the "black race" - given history?

You really don't understand evolution, do you?

Historically speaking, whites are evolutionarily superior to blacks in northern climates where they are better at producing vitamin D with limited sun exposure. And blacks are evolutionarily superior to whites in tropical climates where they are less susceptible to sunburns and skin cancer. Beyond that, well, whites are hardly driving blacks to extinction (or vice versa), so no such claim can be made for modern global society.

 

[The Big Dog]

Weird that people are celebrating an alt-right douchebag being punched by a member of the equally reprehensible Black Bloc tool bags.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is one of the oddest pieces of reasoning I've seen for a while. The superior system is the one that kills everyone else.

Well, yes. Does that reality make you uncomfortable? Are you a science denier?

Of course, when we apply evolutionary concepts to something like ideas, then an idea only has to kill off competing ideas to be judged superior, and that doesn't always require killing actual people.

So pre-emptively nuking everyone would be evolutionary superior to not doing so presumably?

No. Nuking everyone else and surviving is evolutionarily superior to getting nuked and dying. It's not evolutionarily superior to surviving by not nuking everyone else. And nuking everyone else and dying isn't evolutionarily superior to anything.

 

[caveman1917]

Nothing I said about evolution has anything to do with "should". That's a value judgment, and evolution isn't about values.

It's not a value judgment, it's just applying your definition of "evolutionary superior" - if we kill the nationalists and end up with an anational society then this form of society would, by your definition, be "evolutionary superior", no?

You really don't understand evolution, do you?

Are you somehow under the impression that nations are genetic?

Historically speaking, whites are evolutionarily superior to blacks in northern climates where they are better at producing vitamin D with limited sun exposure. And blacks are evolutionarily superior to whites in tropical climates where they are less susceptible to sunburns and skin cancer. Beyond that, well, whites are hardly driving blacks to extinction (or vice versa), so no such claim can be made for modern global society.

I'm talking about colonial and slavery times. Would your logic not have implied that the "white race" was "evolutionary superior" to the "black race"? Would your response to anti-colonial and anti-slavery ideas then not have been: "white people are evolutionary superior, don't you blacks understand basic science..."?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, what makes Anarchy a better system when it has been overpowered by more complex societal structures? After all, Tribes were broken by Warlords who were broken by Kings. What makes an Anarchistic society actually stronger than a Hierarchical one?

Nothing. Which is why he can't provide any counter-argument, but just try to change the subject.

The only way you could form a society weaker than anarchism would be to make it actually suicidal.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. Nuking everyone else and surviving is evolutionarily superior to getting nuked and dying. It's not evolutionarily superior to surviving by not nuking everyone else. And nuking everyone else and dying isn't evolutionarily superior to anything.

But nuking everyone else and surviving would make you evolutionary superior to every other system that you nuked.

And this is a good way to determine how successful your system is apparently.

Had the Nazis wiped out the Jews we could have been assured that Naziism was evolutionary superior to Judaism.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, yes. Does that reality make you uncomfortable? Are you a science denier?

Of course, when we apply evolutionary concepts to something like ideas, then an idea only has to kill off competing ideas to be judged superior, and that doesn't always require killing actual people.

One could use a combination of killing off ideas and killing actual people, which calls for a question: Were the Nazis superior to the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not a value judgment, it's just applying your definition of "evolutionary superior"

But you're doing it wrong.

if we kill the nationalists and end up with an anational society then this form of society would, by your definition, be "evolutionary superior", no?

Sure. And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.

But the anationalists can never kill all the nationalists, because the nationalists are in point of fact stronger.

Are you somehow under the impression that nations are genetic?

Nope.

I'm talking about colonial and slavery times. Would your logic not have implied that the "white race" was "evolutionary superior" to the "black race"?

No, it wouldn't have implied that at all. Black populations survived just fine. Black social structures were crushed by white social structures, but those structures are only connected to race by historical happenstance, not by anything intrinsic to race. So the only superiority demonstrated is what I already stated explicitly: industrialism is superior to primitivism.

The only case to be made for biological (rather than social) evolutionary superiority in colonialism comes from disease, and was primarily visible with native americans: resistance to smallpox is evolutionarily superior to susceptibility to smallpox.

 

[Ziggurat]

But nuking everyone else and surviving would make you evolutionary superior to every other system that you nuked.

Yes. Does that reality make you uncomfortable?

And this is a good way to determine how successful your system is apparently.

You are perfectly entitled to care about things other than evolutionary success. You are also free to have preferences between different alternatives which ensure survival, using whatever criteria you wish.

Had the Nazis wiped out the Jews we could have been assured that Naziism was evolutionary superior to Judaism.

Only if Naziism also survived. If it died in the process of exterminating the Jews, then it would be inferior to every system that survived.

 

[Ziggurat]

One could use a combination of killing off ideas and killing actual people, which calls for a question: Were the Nazis superior to the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's?

Only within Germany, and only during that short period of time. Beyond that, well, who's left standing now?

 

[caveman1917]

But you're doing it wrong.

Not really.

Sure.

Ok then, we're agreed on that point.

But the anationalists can never kill all the nationalists, because the nationalists are in point of fact stronger.

Not to mention dumber as well.

Nope.

I thought you were talking about basic science? Does your "evolutionary superiority" theory have some empirical basis?

No, it wouldn't have implied that at all. Black populations survived just fine.

"just fine"...

Ok, allow me to use a concrete example, the genocide in Congo. Would you say, if you lived at that time there, that the "white Belgians" were showing their "evolutionary superiority" over the "black locals"?

 

[caveman1917]

Yes. Does that reality make you uncomfortable?

What reality? We are talking about your delusions involving several anthropomorphized invisible unicorns, and your belief that one unicorn is more "evolutionary superior" than another (and all of them are "evolutionary superior" over no unicorn at all) if more people you assigned to it kill more people you assigned to the other.