Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Thermal]

Seems like the kind of challenge skeptics on a skeptic's forum would really get excited to tackle.

A topic which is one of the hardest things for human beings to discuss rationally, without emotion, or without allowing concern for what some who read the discussion might feel to get in the way of said discussion?

Sounds like exactly the sort of thing this board should be for.

Ok, I'll bite.

The premise transparently contains the question 'which race is more valuable?', which is not exactly a rational question. And what insight is intended to be gained from the thought experiment?

 

[Belz...]

The premise transparently contains the question 'which race is more valuable?', which is not exactly a rational question.

Why not? I mean, rationally speaking.

 

[A'isha]

I'm curious as to what great contributions to Western civilization have been made by Spencer and his fellow Nazis. Or are they merely claiming credit for things which other people did that Spencer et al actually had nothing to do with save for sharing the same vague skin tone?

 

[Thermal]

Why not? I mean, rationally speaking.

Gotcha. For starters, there is a strong argument that race does not exist per se, and the entire human race is ultimately of African descent. The idea of a race having value is nonsensical out of the gate. Humans have value, individually and collectively, and I reject the premise on rational grounds that removing a 'subrace' of the human race would illustrate anything except for possibly how much one group is disadvantaged. Fair start?

 

[Belz...]

Gotcha. For starters, there is a strong argument that race does not exist per se, and the entire human race is ultimately of African descent.

Yes, of course it's more a gradation than a set of easily-defined categories. But do we agree that, in principle, people in a certain geographical location may, for instance, have longer and stronger legs than those in another?

The idea of a race having value is nonsensical out of the gate.

Well, it really depends on what you value. If we're talking about value as people, I'd agree, though I don't know if I'd call it self-evident. But if we're talking about, say, running, the aforementioned long-legged people may have more value at least at that.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, of course it's more a gradation than a set of easily-defined categories. But do we agree that, in principle, people in a certain geographical location may, for instance, have longer and stronger legs than those in another?



Well, it really depends on what you value. If we're talking about value as people, I'd agree, though I don't know if I'd call it self-evident. But if we're talking about, say, running, the aforementioned long-legged people may have more value at least at that.

Agreed, for the sake of argument we can classify Black as meaning of primarily African decent, and White as of European. My issue with Skeptic Tank's examples is that ST blurs the line from purely racial distinctions into cultural groupings. On these grounds I would say that the concept of a 'race' disappearing does not provide this distinction.

 

[theprestige]

Holy ****. Was this whole business just an idiotic conflation of "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"?

Another reason I think the left is imploding is that not only do they increasingly advocate violence to suppress speech, but they advocate violence to suppress speech that isn't happening and that they don't understand.

And that's why it's important to press for clear definitions of what kind of speech justifies violence. It starts out as special pleading for Nazi speech, but immediately degenerates into "I don't understand or even know what he's talking about, but I'm pretty sure someone should beat him up for it".

And then they have the gall to claim they're advocating violance to defend civil society. Nobody wants another Kent State. But I'm starting to worry that if the Left keeps up their wilful implosion, they're going to get another Kent State sooner or later. Violent protests can only go on so long before someone in authority feels compelled to respond in kind.

Another irony in all of this is the leftist ridicule of "gun nuts" as indulging in an impossible dream of standing up to the US government by force if pushed. But when confronted with speech they don't like and can't shout down, leftists suddenly start acting like they can bring violence to the streets with impunity.

 

[A'isha]

Holy ****. Was this whole business just an idiotic conflation of "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"?

No.

 

[Belz...]

Agreed, for the sake of argument we can classify Black as meaning of primarily African decent, and White as of European. My issue with Skeptic Tank's examples is that ST blurs the line from purely racial distinctions into cultural groupings. On these grounds I would say that the concept of a 'race' disappearing does not provide this distinction.

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that he's taking something that may be logically defensible and taking it to absurd extremes.

 

[theprestige]

No.

Do you believe that Richard Spencer has publicly advocated genocide?

 

[A'isha]

Do you believe that Richard Spencer has publicly advocated genocide?

I know (not "believe") that he lets people close to him (like, co-founder and co-editor of his online magazine close) publicly advocate genocide under his imprimatur using his platform.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes, it is. The definition people use for who is a Nazi is very flexible, and a punch can turn into more than a punch quite easily.

You're not slipping down the slope here, you're rolling down it going "oh my, look how slippery this is!"

And what good did lynching Tiberius Gracchus do for the Roman Republic, apart from fatally undermine it?

Dunno, but he doesn't sound like a Nazi who got punched, so I don't see how it's comparable.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not slipping down the slope here, you're rolling down it going "oh my, look how slippery this is!"

People who argued the punch was justified have already slid down that slope, on this very forum. I'm just describing what has already happened.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Dunno, but he doesn't sound like a Nazi who got punched, so I don't see how it's comparable.

They both send messages that political violence is acceptable if you disagree with someone. Sure comparing a neo-nazi to a sacrosanct Roman office is a stretch, but when someone gets the idea that "If I think someone I disagree with is a nazi, despot or a traitor, therefore it's okay to use violence as an immediate first resort!", and is vindicated by public opinion, there is no going back. After all, there was plenty of political violence in both late Republican Rome and Weimar Germany as the state ceded the monopoly of force, but that only enabled demagogues to exploit the state's lack of legitimacy.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Holy ****. Was this whole business just an idiotic conflation of "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"?

Another reason I think the left is imploding is that not only do they increasingly advocate violence to suppress speech, but they advocate violence to suppress speech that isn't happening and that they don't understand.

And that's why it's important to press for clear definitions of what kind of speech justifies violence. It starts out as special pleading for Nazi speech, but immediately degenerates into "I don't understand or even know what he's talking about, but I'm pretty sure someone should beat him up for it".

.

Their 'Misunderstanding" is increasing apparently. I've seen footage on Twitter yesterday of left-wing protesters accusing Justin Trudeau of being a white supremacist, and then hurling the same accusation at an African-American reporter.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

They both send messages that political violence is acceptable if you disagree with someone. Sure comparing a neo-nazi to a sacrosanct Roman office is a stretch, but when someone gets the idea that "If I think someone I disagree with is a nazi, despot or a traitor, therefore it's okay to use violence as an immediate first resort!", and is vindicated by public opinion, there is no going back. After all, there was plenty of political violence in both late Republican Rome and Weimar Germany as the state ceded the monopoly of force, but that only enabled demagogues to exploit the state's lack of legitimacy.

You can be a despot or a traitor, that's fine. But Nazis get punches. It's actually a very simple line to draw.

 

[Thermal]

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that he's taking something that may be logically defensible and taking it to absurd extremes.

Got it. I should have said that ST's premise was logically unsound, rather than irrational. The premise was the effect of a race disappearing, when subcultures would have been prominently represented, based on the examples.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can be a despot or a traitor, that's fine. But Nazis get punches. It's actually a very simple line to draw.

First, it's an arbitrary line. Why punch just Nazis and not child rapists? Hell, why not communists? They've killed far more people than the Nazis.

Second, you claim it's simple, but in point of fact it's not. Since Spencer has never said he's a Nazi, you are clearly not using self-identification as the test. So what is the test? Do you really think you can get everyone to agree on what the test is? Of course you can't. You may have what you consider to be sensible lines, but others won't agree. Some people will want it narrower than you, some people will want it broader than you. So the line you personally draw will not be the line other people draw. Do you think you have the right to dictate who gets punched and who doesn't? Do you think everybody gets to decide for themselves?

Do you honestly not see the absurdity of your position here?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Do you honestly not see the absurdity of your position here?

Oh, sure. All exceptions are absurd. But it's an absurdity I'm comfortable with. Nazis who get punched get no sympathy from me. In fact, if I have to squint to tell whether you're a Nazi or just a douchebag with Nazi undertones, you're close enough to count. I'm not going to wring my hands and offer apologetics about free speech. Nazis get punched, and I'm fine with that.

Likewise, it's absurd that being an astronaut gives one a lifetime pass to punch people. But if Buzz Aldrin needs to punch you, no matter the reason I'm siding with Buzz.

 

[Thermal]

Oh, sure. All exceptions are absurd. But it's an absurdity I'm comfortable with. Nazis who get punched get no sympathy from me. In fact, if I have to squint to tell whether you're a Nazi or just a douchebag with Nazi undertones, you're close enough to count. I'm not going to wring my hands and offer apologetics about free speech. Nazis get punched, and I'm fine with that.

Likewise, it's absurd that being an astronaut gives one a lifetime pass to punch people. But if Buzz Aldrin needs to punch you, no matter the reason I'm siding with Buzz.

Dilemma: Aldrin straps on a swastika. What now?