Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[ponderingturtle]

Even aside from the obvious fact that King advocated nonviolence and you're de facto advocating violence, you're ignoring two other critical aspects of what he actually said:

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
...
In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.​

So first, you have never made the case that the law prohibiting assault is unjust. Nobody here has. Second, you are explicitly advocating that people who break this law evade it, that they do so in secret, and with a desire to escape any penalty. That explicitly contradicts King's vision of civil disobedience.

You cannot rightly claim that your position matches that of Dr. King's. It does not. Your position is radically different.

and yet John Lewis seems to think that his broken skull was a mistreatment when he should have openly, lovingly and willingly accepted it for violating the law. Such rampant hypocrisy.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Exactly he needs to be assassinated. It works well against muslim terrorist radicalizers so why not nazi terrorist radicalizers?

So I guess you are fine with Black people putting bombs under police cars, which would totally not end in Martial Law or someth- OH WAIT IT DID!

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I suggest that as a nazi wishes for fundamental principles of law and rights be dismantled, he should expect no one who values these to lift a finger to help him.

This isn't about what he should expect. It's about what we should do. And if law and rights are actually a principle, and not merely a convenience, then damn right we should still extend it even to the Nazis, so long as they abide by the law.

Ordinary citizens have no obligation to engage in law enforcement.

I'm not talking about engaging in law enforcement. Telling the police that you witnessed a crime is not engaging in law enforcement. And even when you don't have a legal duty to do so, you still have a moral duty. And remember, that was my claim, a claim you haven't actually argued against. Repeating that you have no legal duty doesn't indicate any lack of moral duty.

Are you suggesting that I must go beyond my legal obligations to assist someone against my will?

I am not suggesting, I am stating that your moral obligation extends beyond your legal obligation. Not wanting to fulfill them doesn't actually relieve you of your moral duty. Furthermore, I know that you believe that one's moral obligations extend beyond one's legal obligations, because you believe Spencer is failing his moral obligation to not be a Nazi.

Your argument seems to ignore my rights in favor of providing additional privileges to a nazi.

It does nothing of the sort. I place him under just as much legal and moral obligation as I put you under. He has no privileges I do not extend to you as well.

Agreed. But my suggestion is not to go outside the law (I said earlier that I would've tried to stop the attack if possible)

... merely to undermine its efficacy, and thereby encourage others to go outside the law.

I'd like to think I would chase down a purse snatcher, or otherwise endanger myself for another's benefit, but not for a nazi.

No one asked you to chase him down. But if you knew the identity of the assailant, you have a moral duty to report it to the police.

If they detest American ideals so much, they can fend for themselves, without citizens extending good will efforts to them.

You say "ideals", but you don't treat them like ideals, at least not like ideals that YOU hold. You discard them at convenience.

And I'd also like to point out (again) that your position does not actually contain any logical distinction between punching a Nazi and shooting him dead. Nor does it contain any logical distinction between Nazis and various other groups (like commies and anarchists) who also don't believe in American ideals. You say you'd draw the line here, but you're not doing so on anything other than an arbitrary basis. And an arbitrary line will not hold to pressure. You say jury nullification for someone ho punches Spencer. OK, why not jury nullification for someone who shoots the campus Marxist dead? Your argument contains no answer other than "I said so". That doesn't suffice.

 

[Ziggurat]

and yet John Lewis seems to think that his broken skull was a mistreatment when he should have openly, lovingly and willingly accepted it for violating the law. Such rampant hypocrisy.

Yeah, no. That's a stupid attempt at a counter-argument which fails out of the gate. Breaking Lewis's skull was not the legally prescribed punishment for his civil disobedience.

Next time, try to make sense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So I guess you are fine with Black people putting bombs under police cars, which would totally not end in Martial Law or someth- OH WAIT IT DID!

I guess only the government can freely kill people to censor their speech. The US certainly does it regularly.

And that seemed to work out ok for Mandela. He helped found the militant arm of the ANC and yet everyone regards him as some great man, and they bombed plenty of cops.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, no. That's a stupid attempt at a counter-argument which fails out of the gate. Breaking Lewis's skull was not the legally prescribed punishment for his civil disobedience.

Next time, try to make sense.

He was violating the law being there, sure now they would just rightly shoot him with in seconds of being there, but the police were more restrained in the old days.

He got that for not obeying the cops, and the cops are right to injure and kill anyone who does not instantly obey them.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I guess only the government can freely kill people to censor their speech. The US certainly does it regularly.

And that seemed to work out ok for Mandela. He helped found the militant arm of the ANC and yet everyone regards him as some great man, and they bombed plenty of cops.

Only because the South African government was extremely odious.

Or for a better example, did shooting protesters at Bloody Sunday reduce or increase sympathy for the Irish Republicans?

 

[Ziggurat]

The proper way to censor people who radicalize terrorists is by assassination via drone. Not simple assault.

And I thought the last post I responded to was stupid.

Legitimate targets of drone strikes are engaged in war against the United States. Killing them is an act of war on our part. Spencer is not engaged in war with the United States. Using the methods of war against him is not permissible. It's really quite simple. If you believe that there have been illegitimate targets of drone strikes, or even that drone strikes are not a legitimate tool of war, that's a separate conversation. But the results of that conversation can have no impact on the Spencer topic unless you want to contend that Spencer is actually at war (literal, not figurative) with the United States. Are you going to assert that?

 

[Ziggurat]

He was violating the law being there, sure now they would just rightly shoot him with in seconds of being there, but the police were more restrained in the old days.

He got that for not obeying the cops, and the cops are right to injure and kill anyone who does not instantly obey them.

Your anti-police rant is off topic and irrelevant to my argument. Go take it to a thread that's actually about the police.

 

[caveman1917]

And if law and rights are actually a principle, and not merely a convenience

They're a convenience for the ruling class to enforce the perpetuation of the conditions required for their rule.

A principle...

 

[ponderingturtle]

And I thought the last post I responded to was stupid.

Legitimate targets of drone strikes are engaged in war against the United States. Killing them is an act of war on our part. Spencer is not engaged in war with the United States. Using the methods of war against him is not permissible. It's really quite simple. If you believe that there have been illegitimate targets of drone strikes, or even that drone strikes are not a legitimate tool of war, that's a separate conversation. But the results of that conversation can have no impact on the Spencer topic unless you want to contend that Spencer is actually at war (literal, not figurative) with the United States. Are you going to assert that?

So why are radicalized muslim american citizens though of as being enemies while radicalized whites american citizens are just criminals?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Only because the South African government was extremely odious.

Or for a better example, did shooting protesters at Bloody Sunday reduce or increase sympathy for the Irish Republicans?

Are you possibly suggesting that assassinating the proponents of radicalized muslim terrorism might not be the best strategy?

When is killing the ideological proponents of terrorists acceptable? The answer seems to be only if they are muslim otherwise they are free to advocate for the death of what ever groups they want.

 

[theprestige]

Show me someone who directs strategy or recruits for an army at war, and I will show you someone who is a legitimate military target, even if they have never taken up arms themselves.

 

[Ziggurat]

So why are radicalized muslim american citizens though of as being enemies while radicalized whites american citizens are just criminals?

Again, your post is irrelevant. Spencer isn't even a criminal.

How do you manage to fail so completely and consistently?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, your post is irrelevant. Spencer isn't even a criminal.

How do you manage to fail so completely and consistently?

Why is radicalizing muslims criminal and radicalizing whites legal?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Show me someone who directs strategy or recruits for an army at war, and I will show you someone who is a legitimate military target, even if they have never taken up arms themselves.

And does that count if they war is isolated lone wolf terrorists? Then wouldn't he be a legitimate target if Dylan Roof or Alexandre Bissonnette followed this guy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is radicalizing muslims criminal and radicalizing whites legal?

Define what you mean by "radicalizing". Then provide evidence that this is the case.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Has Richard Spencer engaged in treasonous acts? Because the preachers have pledged allegiance to a group who acts against the state and exhorts such actions while coordinating and enabling them.

 

[Mumbles]

Agreed. But my suggestion is not to go outside the law (I said earlier that I would've tried to stop the attack if possible), but to afford him the absolute minimum required, and not a damn thing more. I'd like to think I would chase down a purse snatcher, or otherwise endanger myself for another's benefit, but not for a nazi. If they detest American ideals so much, they can fend for themselves, without citizens extending good will efforts to them.

I have to mostly agree. I see no need to give anything to the same people who would celebrate me getting murdered by a cop or a vigilante - and guys like this have repeatedly shown that they favor such things. And if someone decides to punch one such person in their entire face, I'll laugh and laugh and laugh. I'll even enjoy the parody videos, like the one where Spencer gets punched and a bunch of rings fly out of him like in Sonic the Hedgehog.

(Although in my case, I wouldn't try to stop the attack if it were a punch - and if it's murder, then I'll call the cops if I know they won't just run up and attack me, but I'm not putting my life on the line for him, ever.)

 

[Darat]

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.

And it is surely at the heart of someone being judged by their peers.