Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Thermal]

It's only false if there are more than two choices. You demonstrate that it's false by showing that there's more than two choices. But you claimed that there's only one choice, since they're basically the same.

What the hell are you talking about? There are many choices or perspectives, and I chose one to illustrate a point. In your very narrow black/white legal interpretation (which California law specifically says is wrong), you present a false either/or, that there are only two alternatives: that California prosecutors were wrong on Sibrel, or Spencer's attacker was justified as being threatened. These are not the only two interpretations, hence a false dichotomy.

 

[caveman1917]

Maybe I missed this upthread, but the limo owner worked to purchase, maintain, and provide gainful employment for the employees.

Maybe you missed that upthread as well, but I haven't accepted your beliefs about "private property". From my point of view, in its former state the limo wasn't useful to me - I don't drive around in limos - and in its new state has some use to me - it's an artistic picture in a way, and an elegant argument.

Now you say that I should accept some other person's authority regarding the preferred configuration of that limo, and you base this on noticing that he has stolen the limo from the working class? How on Earth is that supposed to convince me to accept his authority over it?

Besides, even in your belief system the limo owner is a non-corporeal Jabba-person, can you define what it means for such an entity to "work" or perform "labour"?

The anarchists seized the fruits of that labor for their own use in typical fascist form

Who are "the anarchists"? Besides, people didn't seize anything, they temporarily failed to recognize the "seizing of the fruits of labour" of the working class.

So you are saying that anarchists have the liberty to employ fascist tactics in seizing the fruits of others labor?

You're thinking of liberals.

If so, you are saying that by extension anyone is free to exert force against others, no?

Are you an animist?

 

[fuelair]

You expect people to care that some kind of white supremacist. got shot?

(cue smallest violin)

I thought the wobblies were way long gone!!!???

 

[Eddie Dane]

Maybe you missed that upthread as well, but I haven't accepted your beliefs about "private property". From my point of view, in its former state the limo wasn't useful to me - I don't drive around in limos - and in its new state has some use to me - it's an artistic picture in a way, and an elegant argument.

Now you say that I should accept some other person's authority regarding the preferred configuration of that limo, and you base this on noticing that he has stolen the limo from the working class? How on Earth is that supposed to convince me to accept his authority over it?

Besides, even in your belief system the limo owner is a non-corporeal Jabba-person, can you define what it means for such an entity to "work" or perform "labour"?



Who are "the anarchists"? Besides, people didn't seize anything, they temporarily failed to recognize the "seizing of the fruits of labour" of the working class.







Are you an animist?

OK, I'm getting better.

You asked why I wanted a Liberal society to have the power to effectively use organised violence.

And the answer is: Anarchists, among others.

If your ideas were to be implemented, we'd face mass death. It's Mao's farming reforms without the planning.

It doesn't work in any society more advanced than Papua bushmen.

 

[caveman1917]

I thought the wobblies were way long gone!!!???

No they're not, and they sure ain't white supremacists.

 

[caveman1917]

You asked why I wanted a Liberal society to have the power to effectively use organised violence.

Not quite.

 

[Ziggurat]

What the hell are you talking about? There are many choices or perspectives, and I chose one to illustrate a point.

This isn't about the number of perspectives. It's about you claiming two different things were basically the same.

In your very narrow black/white legal interpretation (which California law specifically says is wrong), you present a false either/or, that there are only two alternatives: that California prosecutors were wrong on Sibrel, or Spencer's attacker was justified as being threatened. These are not the only two interpretations, hence a false dichotomy.

And you reduced that dichotomy to a single case of them being the same, a monomy if you will.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm hung over

Quitter.

Fitness quotes over pictures of drinking

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe you missed that upthread as well, but I haven't accepted your beliefs about "private property". From my point of view, in its former state the limo wasn't useful to me - I don't drive around in limos - and in its new state has some use to me - it's an artistic picture in a way, and an elegant argument.

Now you say that I should accept some other person's authority regarding the preferred configuration of that limo, and you base this on noticing that he has stolen the limo from the working class? How on Earth is that supposed to convince me to accept his authority over it?

Besides, even in your belief system the limo owner is a non-corporeal Jabba-person, can you define what it means for such an entity to "work" or perform "labour"?

stolen the limo from the working class. That is the finest piece of nonsense I have ever seen. Kudos!

Now anytime we want to circle back from this hilarious albeit tenuously connected nonsense to the attacks, that would be appreciated.

Now the ACLU stood up for free speech in connection with the Nazi march in Skokie Illinois, any word from them on the black bloc tacics here?

 

[deadrose]

Reminds me of a roommate I once endured. He was more communist than anarchist, so instead of just stealing our food, he put a big bag of dried pinto beans in the corner of the kitchen and declared that his food was available to us all. *Then* he stole our food. Not the boring stuff, naturally.

 

[varwoche]

What if I go into the forest, locate a felled tree, and carve out a canoe. Does anarchist philosophy justify the taking of this object?

(Maybe a new thread is in order.)

 

[Eddie Dane]

What if I go into the forest, locate a felled tree, and carve out a canoe. Does anarchist philosophy justify the taking of this object?

(Maybe a new thread is in order.)

Don't worry, the thread will get back on track as soon as Spencer gets punched again. And will remain active until he moves to Argentina, I imagine.

The anarchism stuff belong in it's own thread.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

He's not even describing anarchism, anyways.

He's describing generic douchebaggery and might-makes-right philosophy (imagining he and his buddies will be the mighty ones).

As many others have pointed out, there's no end of people who look into anarchism about as far as "so nobody can tell me what to do? awesome!" and make their own (inconsistent) extrapolations from there.

 

[caveman1917]

He's not even describing anarchism, anyways.

I never claimed I was.

He's describing generic douchebaggery and might-makes-right philosophy (imagining he and his buddies will be the mighty ones).

As many others have pointed out, there's no end of people who look into anarchism about as far as "so nobody can tell me what to do? awesome!" and make their own (inconsistent) extrapolations from there.

Feel free to "describe anarchism" yourself though, should be interesting, We already have some stuff about collaborating with the cops to help identify and arrest people who disrespect corporate private property.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

It was a punch thrown earlier in the day, photos only - no video. It appears that Punch Richard Spencer is the new Planking or Mannequin Challenge. "Let's put the mob back in Flash Mob!"

@anarchists,
I have no respect for your anonymity. Sorry. The phrase "anonymous cowards" comes to mind. I like my heroes to have the courage of their convictions. Had I lost it and punched Richard Spencer, I'd be turning myself in and milking it. Is the point just to punch Richard Spencer? That seems a silly goal. You want to make a statement, walk up to him and announce yourself and do the deed then pay the price. This hit-and-run while hiding behind masks is no better than the Klan.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe you missed that upthread as well, but I haven't accepted your beliefs about "private property".

Ok, but that's a fatal flaw right out of the gate. If you think it's ok for you to accept/refuse belief systems, you cannot logically deny me the right to mine. I may have some rather disturbing views, too. Film at 11.

From my point of view, in its former stat the limo wasn't useful to me - I don't drive around in limos - and in its new state has some use to me - it's an artistic picture in a way, and an elegant argument.

So all things are subject to your use unilaterally? You do not take a vote among others how to best utilize this for common benefit before destroying it? Might want to scratch the communism part from your self-description.

Now you say that I should accept some other person's authority regarding the preferred configuration of that limo, and you base this on noticing that he has stolen the limo from the working class? How on Earth is that supposed to convince me to accept his authority over it?

I think it has been pointed out that if property is not owned, as you claim, it cannot be stolen. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

Besides, even in your belief system the limo owner is a non-corporeal Jabba-person, can you define what it means for such an entity to "work" or perform "labour"?

Since my belief system has no non-corporeal Jabba-anythings in it, imma roll with conventional definitions. Speaking of definitions, another fatal flaw: you changed the definition of violence earlier to mean only violence to humans, not property. The definition of violence, from Merriam-Webster:

the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.

You advocate damaging property? It's violence. Own it.

Who are "the anarchists"? Besides, people didn't seize anything, they temporarily failed to recognize the "seizing of the fruits of labour" of the working class.

Then you couldn't logically object to others failing to recognize, say, their personal freedom? After all, you say that one's belief system is subjective and no one else need follow anothers, right?

Are you an animist?

Nope. Pragmatist.

 

[Jules Galen]

I know how to handle "Spencer". When ya' see him, dress up in a Pink Tutu, don a pair of Mickey-Mouse ears, and then proceed to beat him about the head and shoulders with a 2.5-foot-long steel Dildo.

That looks bad on anybody. I mean, that even have ended Adolph Hitler's career had it been done before the beer-hall putsch.

A Fascist can stand hatred. But he can't stand crazy-humor! No one can.

 

[caveman1917]

@anarchists,
I have no respect for your anonymity. Sorry. The phrase "anonymous cowards" comes to mind. I like my heroes to have the courage of their convictions. Had I lost it and punched Richard Spencer, I'd be turning myself in and milking it. Is the point just to punch Richard Spencer? That seems a silly goal. You want to make a statement, walk up to him and announce yourself and do the deed then pay the price. This hit-and-run while hiding behind masks is no better than the Klan.

@liberals
Nobody cares what you "respect" or how you like your "heroes". You're one of the most violent and murderous ideological cults on the planet (killing 291k people per year in the US alone - for the glory of your crappy belief system). Other than being so obnoxiously self-absorbed that you are only capable of interpreting others' actions as a request for "respect" from you, which you then say "sorry" for not giving. You want to punch Spencer while announcing yourself and then turning yourself in? Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

@liberals
Nobody cares what you "respect" or how you like your "heroes". You're one of the most violent and murderous ideological cults on the planet (killing 291k people per year in the US alone - for the glory of your crappy belief system). Other than being so obnoxiously self-absorbed that you are only capable of interpreting others' actions as a request for "respect" from you, which you then say "sorry" for not giving. You want to punch Spencer while announcing yourself and then turning yourself in? Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

I'm not a liberal. Ergo, the rest of your post is a series of straw men. If you wish, we can go get you some liberals to argue with.

Keep working on that "edgy" bit. It's quite amusing.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I never claimed I was.





Feel free to "describe anarchism" yourself though, should be interesting, We already have some stuff about collaborating with the cops to help identify and arrest people who disrespect corporate private property.

Which I'm happy to do since destroying private property has not once in my witnessing been the stated goal of a group of people among whom these brick-throwers hide themselves.

What allegiance do I owe a coward who's actions threaten my goals?

Why must I demonstrate "solidarity" with someone who expects others to shield them while they create mischief and doesn't really care about the safety of others around them in a direct action and who espouses for a kind of system I want no part of?

Sounds like a win-win to me. The troublemakers get removed and we may have bought some good will and credibility with some of the officers that may prove critical in the future.