• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

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

Define "Nazi". I mean, the Senators thought Tiberius Gracchus was their equivalent of a Nazi, but lynching him and throwing his body into the Tiber did not do any good for the Roman Republic
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
So peacefully getting people to consolidate by race in certain areas, and for certain groups to leave certain areas, is genocide?

If that is genocide by your standards, would it also be genocide when a group that wants to live alone has tons and tons of people from other groups forced upon them?
Click to expand...

Nobody really has a right to demand that people who live near or around them have certain immutable qualities.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the impact the loss of every black person on the planet would have compared to the loss of every white person?

If every black person mysteriously vanished into thin air, magically, tomorrow, I think it would be strikingly different from the same happening to whites.

The number of airplanes in flight that would crash as a result, very different. The number of important scientific research projects or life saving surgeries which would be halted would be very different too.
The average IQ of the species would move in very different directions in these two scenarios.
The level of crime, AIDS, and many other things would be interesting vectors to look at too.

A lot of American cities would suddenly become safe again in one of these two scenarios.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you think that you're being clever.

But you're actually just being a regressive waste of human tissue.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
When it comes to political violence, I recall a figure in the Roman Republic. His name was Tiberius Gracchus, Tribune of the Plebs. In a highly polarised Republic, he was a demagogue railing against a corrupt and unequal system. However, the Senate decided to lynch him, fearing that he would become a tyrant. Unfortunately, it didn't save the Republic but normalised violence, which is fatal for any political system. When you say "violence is acceptable because I disagree with its targets", there is no going back and you just gave fascists an acceptable excuse to use violence.
Click to expand...

I've been drawing parallels to Gracchus for a bit, as well. However, do recall that Tiberius violated the sacrosanctness of the office. He certainly contributed a few shovel-scoops towards digging his own grave in a sense.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Forget free speech: What about due process and rule of law? How do you propose to maintain a civil society while you undermine the very institutions that make it so?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Thank you for that non-sequitur?
Click to expand...
It follows directly from your thesis. Senior-only residential developments demand that their residents have the immutable quality of age. Youths are not permitted. The rights of these developments to exist, and to uphold their demands, has been widely recognized. Your thesis is false.
 
theprestige said:
It follows directly from your thesis. Senior-only residential developments demand that their residents have the immutable quality of age. Youths are not permitted. The rights of these developments to exist, and to uphold their demands, has been widely recognized. Your thesis is false.
Click to expand...

The designation of 'senior' is not an immutable quality, it is an arbitrarily defined class. My local grocery store says you have to be 55 to get discounts on Tuesday mornings, while the local retirement home may have a minimum age of 60. Which one is the 'correct' definition of 'senior'? No matter how hard I try, I can't make my age stay the same. Anyone reaching the age required to qualify for 'senior' designation may access these developments, yes?

Now, are you suggesting that the existence of senior-only living facilities is comparable to white-only areas?

Or are you being willfully obtuse in not seeing my point?
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
The designation of 'senior' is not an immutable quality, it is an arbitrarily defined class. No matter how hard I try, I can't make my age stay the same. Anyone reaching the age required to qualify for 'senior' designation may access these developments, yes?

Now, are you suggesting that the existence of senior-only living facilities is comparable to white-only areas?

Or are you being willfully obtuse in not seeing my point?
Click to expand...

I see your point; I disagree with it. You can't make your age change, either.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly this is a political opinion, as long as you call for violence against a group of people and not an individual you are safe. Like how encouraging terrorist attacks in the US is legal and not subject to censorship by drone.
 
Argumemnon said:
There's a difference between not giving sympathy to certain people who get harmed, and saying that people should harm them.
Click to expand...
And from there to lynching him and throwing him into the Tiber. You know, John "Baby Eating" McGee ate babies as his way of punching a Nazi. Not so different now, are you, baby-eater?


But thinking about it more seriously, I'd probably draw the line at jury nullification for minor assault. I wouldn't punch a Nazi myself, and I'd object if people starting injuring more than the Nazi's pride, but if I was sitting in a jury on a Nazi-punching trial, I'd let the guy walk.

theprestige said:
Forget free speech: What about due process and rule of law? How do you propose to maintain a civil society while you undermine the very institutions that make it so?
Click to expand...
We'll have the best society, believe me. The best. It's the dues of the process that's the problem. So biased! Sad.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Ergo, demands for barring others of certain ethnic backgrounds from living 'near' oneself are...?
Click to expand...

Complicated. It's not sufficient to reject them on the grounds that people have no right to segregation on immutable characteristics, unless you're prepared to reject the right of the aged to form communities of the aged that enforce segregation on that basis. Similarly so with monasteries, nunneries, etc.
 
theprestige said:
Complicated. It's not sufficient to reject them on the grounds that people have no right to segregation on immutable characteristics, unless you're prepared to reject the right of the aged to form communities of the aged that enforce segregation on that basis. Similarly so with monasteries, nunneries, etc.
Click to expand...

False equivalence. You keep listing things that are not immutable qualities in order to defend the idea of discrimination based on immutable qualities. In other words: you have no valid defense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom