• 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

Delphic Oracle said:
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.
Click to expand...

The precedent still stood that Violence had become an acceptable response to political disputes. While the senate may have justified it on the basis of preventing King Tiberius, that was the point of no return for Republican Rome.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The precedent still stood that Violence had become an acceptable response to political disputes. While the senate may have justified it on the basis of preventing King Tiberius, that was the point of no return for Republican Rome.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that if Plutarch's (I believe) account is accurate, Tiberius had Marcus Octavius (a tribune and therefore inviolable) forcibly removed from an Assembly meeting in order to get the results he wanted (however sympathetic his goal). In other words, there's plenty of blame to go around and assigning the 'point of no return' to a single person or political bloc is oversimplifying the issue.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
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.

We'll have the best society, believe me. The best. It's the dues of the process that's the problem. So biased! Sad.
Click to expand...

Really? A guy is standing around, giving an interview and somebody runs up to him and elbows him in the face? And you'd let the guy walk? This is a breakdown of the rule of law.

I saw a documentary about the OJ case recently. Apparently a mostly black jury let a murderer go as payback for a mostly white jury letting a bunch of violent cops go (Rodney King case). Both juries making a decision on something other that 'what happened, and was it illegal'.

It destroys the people's faith in the system that keept the peace.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
Really? A guy is standing around, giving an interview and somebody runs up to him and elbows him in the face? And you'd let the guy walk? This is a breakdown of the rule of law.

I saw a documentary about the OJ case recently. Apparently a mostly black jury let a murderer go as payback for a mostly white jury letting a bunch of violent cops go (Rodney King case). Both juries making a decision on something other that 'what happened, and was it illegal'.

It destroys the people's faith in the system that keept the peace.
Click to expand...

I think most posters acknowledge that it was an illegal assault. Some of us say that it was 'okay' though, and would simply not do anything to help or hinder bringing the attacker to be prosecuted. If our actions are within the confines of law, are we wrong by not doing more than the absolute minimum required under rule of law?
 
MostlyDead said:
I think most posters acknowledge that it was an illegal assault. Some of us say that it was 'okay' though, and would simply not do anything to help or hinder bringing the attacker to be prosecuted. If our actions are within the confines of law, are we wrong by not doing more than the absolute minimum required under rule of law?
Click to expand...
It is saying that it is okay that is wrong.
 
MostlyDead said:
If our actions are within the confines of law, are we wrong by not doing more than the absolute minimum required under rule of law?
Click to expand...

Hells yes. What's more, a "no" answer would be blatantly hypocritical, since you're starting from the position that Spencer is doing something wrong despite the fact that he's operating within the confines of the law.
 
MostlyDead said:
Wrong how? Morally, legally, both? I don't see any legal infractions in my POV, and most of the pro-Spencer arguments seem to focus on free speech and rule of law.
Click to expand...

First, the arguments aren't pro-Spencer. Second, morally wrong. The law is an implementation of a shared social value. More than that, law itself is a shared social value.

The rule of law is the value that we should all be ruled equally by the law as the implementation of our shared social values. We should be subject to the law, not to the whims of dictators or the urges of vigilantes. It is the value that justice and equality, that peace and harmony, are best served by building and defending the laws we make.

When you say that violence in response to speech is "okay", you are excusing the lawbreaker from the social value that we all share. This undermines that shared value, and eats away at the social constraints and conventions that we depend on for justice, for equality, for peace.

Hateful speech can be disruptive to these things. But setting aside the rule of law is, in my opinion, just as bad or even worse. What I find most distressing is that the punch-defenders seem incapable of even acknowledging that rule of law is a valuable thing, and that it costs us as a society to set it aside, even for a moment.

If you were willing to discuss the tradeoff, if you were to consider that violence in response to speech is itself a bad thing, I would think we had some values in common, and that we could reason together for a better society. On the other hand, if we *don't* have these values in common, if you *don't* see the tradeoff inherent in vigilantism. If you *don't* understand the problem with violence in response to speech... Then I think that *you* must be an enemy of the society I wish to live in, and the values that I wish to share.
 
Ziggurat said:
Hells yes. What's more, a "no" answer would be blatantly hypocritical, since you're starting from the position that Spencer is doing something wrong despite the fact that he's operating within the confines of the law.
Click to expand...

Spencer was spouting Nazi hate-speech garbage. So yeah Spencer was doing something wrong. The fact that it was legal for him to do so does not make it right for him to do so.

None of this justifies in the slightest attacking him physically.

I've seen this scenario over and over again throughout my life. I am just amazed that people fall for it again and again. Basically a Racist jerk says very legal but very hateful, vicious garbage and some fool physically hits the Racist. This generates for the Racist positive press and enables him/herself to be portrayed has a victim and martyr. I am amazed about how often people fall for this.

So I suggest to all people offended by Racist spouting idiots. Don't also be a idiot yourself. Don't feed into their martyr complex and hit them back. First it is wrong and second it helps them!
 
Ziggurat said:
Hells yes. What's more, a "no" answer would be blatantly hypocritical, since you're starting from the position that Spencer is doing something wrong despite the fact that he's operating within the confines of the law.
Click to expand...

Hells how? I suggest no violation of law. And I acknowledge that Spencer is within his legal rights. Just morally wrong, and universally abhorrent to boot.
 
theprestige said:
First, the arguments aren't pro-Spencer. Second, morally wrong. The law is an implementation of a shared social value. More than that, law itself is a shared social value.
Click to expand...

Really? Roe v Wade represents a shared societal value? Some miiiiiight differ with you on that. Morality is subjective.

The rule of law is the value that we should all be ruled equally by the law as the implementation of our shared social values. We should be subject to the law, not to the whims of dictators or the urges of vigilantes. It is the value that justice and equality, that peace and harmony, are best served by building and defending the laws we make.

When you say that violence in response to speech is "okay", you are excusing the lawbreaker from the social value that we all share. This undermines that shared value, and eats away at the social constraints and conventions that we depend on for justice, for equality, for peace.

Hateful speech can be disruptive to these things. But setting aside the rule of law is, in my opinion, just as bad or even worse. What I find most distressing is that the punch-defenders seem incapable of even acknowledging that rule of law is a valuable thing, and that it costs us as a society to set it aside, even for a moment.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...what's this now? I am freely acknowledging the rule of law, repeatedly. Might you be projecting a bit? Maybe more than a bit?

If you were willing to discuss the tradeoff, if you were to consider that violence in response to speech is itself a bad thing, I would think we had some values in common, and that we could reason together for a better society. On the other hand, if we *don't* have these values in common, if you *don't* see the tradeoff inherent in vigilantism. If you *don't* understand the problem with violence in response to speech... Then I think that *you* must be an enemy of the society I wish to live in, and the values that I wish to share.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

I can only think off a lone poster who is endorsing vigilantism. 'Tis not me. While I acknowledge I am walking a tightrope here, my argument is consistently that Spencer is within all his legal rights to spew his bile, and that his attacker has committed a crime. Much as if Spencer advocated the raping of children, his speech is vile enough that I would not raise a finger to help protect his rights, based on their inherently un-American premises. This, to you, is immoral?
 
MostlyDead said:
Hells how? I suggest no violation of law.
Click to expand...

But you suggest tolerance of violations of the law. That has a corrosive effect on society. The police are never, ever sufficient to uphold the law on their own. They always need the majority of citizens to support them in their efforts. If you choose to not support the law here, do you honestly think that will be the last of it? That it will never go further?

And I acknowledge that Spencer is within his legal rights. Just morally wrong, and universally abhorrent to boot.
Click to expand...

Yes, Spencer is morally wrong. But he still operates within the confines of the law. Which means the response to his wrongdoing must operate within the confines of the law too, or it is not merely legally wrong, but morally wrong as well, because again, going outside the law to try to counter him has a corrosive effect on the concept of law, which civil society needs to function.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Really? A guy is standing around, giving an interview and somebody runs up to him and elbows him in the face? And you'd let the guy walk? This is a breakdown of the rule of law.

I saw a documentary about the OJ case recently. Apparently a mostly black jury let a murderer go as payback for a mostly white jury letting a bunch of violent cops go (Rodney King case). Both juries making a decision on something other that 'what happened, and was it illegal'.

It destroys the people's faith in the system that keept the peace.
Click to expand...
Jury nullification is as old as juries themselves. It's in the Magna Carta. Juries have always been able to say "we don't care if the law was broken, no punishment is required." Sure it can be abused, but so can the law.

Just before the US Civil War, we had a law called the Fugitive Slave Act. Slavery wasn't legal in Northern states, but as a compromise to try to keep the peace, harboring escaped Southern slaves was illegal. The law said the property needed to be returned to its rightful owner. The greatest pushback on this law and possibly one of the driving factors behind complete emancipation were local juries refusing to convict anyone who broke it, no matter the evidence, denying any of the high-profile convictions that congress hoped to use to smooth over relations with the South. The law was unjust, all checks and balances to prevent that unjustice had failed, and it fell to common men serving as juries of their peers to refuse to implement it.

Now, I'm not saying that punching a Nazi is of the same moral fibre as selflessly harboring a fugitive slave on their run for freedom. But I am saying that by making an exception for it on moral grounds I'd be doing nothing that hasn't been part of the rule of law since its very inception.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
Now, I'm not saying that punching a Nazi is of the same moral fibre as selflessly harboring a fugitive slave on their run for freedom. But I am saying that by making an exception for it on moral grounds I'd be doing nothing that hasn't been part of the rule of law since its very inception.
Click to expand...

And what did that law-breaking in the North help lead to? A complete breakdown in civil society: the Civil War. Now, there's a good case to be made that the Civil War was necessary and worthwhile to get rid of slavery. But nothing like that is at stake here. The degradation of civil order now has no commensurate benefit. So the fact that similar actions have been done before isn't really any sort of justification for doing them now.
 
Ziggurat said:
And what did that law-breaking in the North help lead to? A complete breakdown in civil society: the Civil War. Now, there's a good case to be made that the Civil War was necessary and worthwhile to get rid of slavery. But nothing like that is at stake here. The degradation of civil order now has no commensurate benefit. So the fact that similar actions have been done before isn't really any sort of justification for doing them now.
Click to expand...
You don't seem understand what the Civil War was about.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
You don't seem understand what the Civil War was about.
Click to expand...

It was about a lot of things. But if you don't think that was a contributor, you're kidding yourself. And you aren't justifying punching Spencer or letting the punch slide by appealing to those slave laws either.
 
Ziggurat said:
It was about a lot of things. But if you don't think that was a contributor, you're kidding yourself. And you aren't justifying punching Spencer or letting the punch slide by appealing to those slave laws either.
Click to expand...
I'm justifying jury nullification as an important (and often neglected) component of our legal system, this "rule of law" you keep talking about.

Funny term, that. I don't recall hearing it even once in all those incidents where someone got punched at a Trump rally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom