Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[ponderingturtle]

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

I mean inspiring them to commit terrorist attacks. And since when is evidence needed for a little censorious assassination? You just think that the guy is spreading his poisonous ideology and you take them out.

Otherwise it is all special pleading that islamic terrorism is so fundamentally different from good old fashion white terrorism. Hell the islamist can't even get a terribly good shooting spree going. 51? Paa to really do the job look at Anders Breivik, now that shows what a proper man can really do when turning to terrorism.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean inspiring them to commit terrorist attacks.

You're using legally irrelevant terminology. People can get "inspired" to do just about anything based on just about anything. Like killing people over a Beetles song. A legally relevant term is to incite terrorism. Another legally relevant term is to conspire to commit terrorism. Another legally relevant term is to aid and abet terrorism. These are crimes. But they are not crimes Spencer has even been accused of.

Otherwise it is all special pleading that islamic terrorism is so fundamentally different from good old fashion white terrorism.

Since nobody on this thread has made any such claim, your post is irrelevant.

And that's kind of sad: irrelevance is the best you can manage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're using legally irrelevant terminology. People can get "inspired" to do just about anything based on just about anything. Like killing people over a Beetles song. A legally relevant term is to incite terrorism. Another legally relevant term is to conspire to commit terrorism. Another legally relevant term is to aid and abet terrorism. These are crimes. But they are not crimes Spencer has even been accused of.



Since nobody on this thread has made any such claim, your post is irrelevant.

And that's kind of sad: irrelevance is the best you can manage.

Got it "Will no one rid me of the meddlesome Jews" is perfectly legal.

How many terror attacks does stormfront need to be linked to before they shut it down?

 

[Thermal]

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.

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.

Hold up. Your primary position all along has been the rule of law and compliance with it. Do you agree then that my position is compliant with law, and that this is the very different moral argument?

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.

I like the hilited very much.

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.

Disagreed. You claim I must morally go beyond my legal requirements on his behalf. Yet you allow him to hold morally indefensible views. Why do you explicitly excuse him from conventional morality but require me to conform to your subjective standard?

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

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.

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

Not at all. He has the legal right to defecate his opinions in public, under the American ideal of free speech. And I may legally and morally refuse to give him any assistance that the law does not require, which is consistent with American ideals, as a basic tenet of freedom.

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.

There are legal and moral distinctions between a punch and murder. Methinks I smell a strawman.

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.

I did not (another poster?). But it is true that a jury can nullify, or a cop to decline to arrest, or a prosecutor to not press charges, under any variety of circumstances. My argument is not 'I said so', but that we all have the freedom to act according to our moral compass, within the confines of law.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hold up. Your primary position all along has been the rule of law and compliance with it.

And from the beginning, the moral implications of that compliance have been a part of my argument.

Do you agree then that my position is compliant with law

I agree that you have not stated that you would violate the law. But your position would encourage others to.

and that this is the very different moral argument?

No, it's not different. It's part of the same argument.

Disagreed. You claim I must morally go beyond my legal requirements on his behalf.

No. It is not for his sake that your moral obligation extends beyond the legal one. It is for society's sake.

Yet you allow him to hold morally indefensible views.

What on earth do you mean by "allow"? It's not up to me. I have no say in the matter. I cannot compel him to act morally, just as I cannot compel you to act morally. The most I can do is criticize you and Spencer for not acting morally. I haven't bothered to do much of that with Spencer because 1) he's not here so he isn't listening, and 2) others have covered it well enough already.

Why do you explicitly excuse him from conventional morality but require me to conform to your subjective standard?

I have NEVER excused him from his moral obligations. This is entirely a straw man.

There are legal and moral distinctions between a punch and murder. Methinks I smell a strawman.

Since a punch is sometimes all it takes to commit murder, there is far less distinction than you presume, and what there is can only be made a posteriori. A punch is deadly force. In scenarios where deadly force is used, sooner or later someone will end up dead. That's why the legal standards for the use of deadly force are strict: they must encompass the possibility that such force can kill. Moral considerations must likewise include this possibility.

My argument is not 'I said so', but that we all have the freedom to act according to our moral compass, within the confines of law.

And your moral compass is busted. I have the freedom to so inform you.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many terror attacks does stormfront need to be linked to before they shut it down?

We aren't discussing stormfront. We're discussing Spencer. Your inability to address the topic of conversation is pathetic.

 

[theprestige]

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

Jury nullification is an outcome of due process. Vigilantism an abandonment of due process.

A lynching is also someone being judged by their peers. But it is far from the heart of the society of justice that we value.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We aren't discussing stormfront. We're discussing Spencer. Your inability to address the topic of conversation is pathetic.

We are discussion free speech and when it becomes inciting terrorism. Now clearly calling for the extermination of entire races isn't enough for you. Other people disagree.

 

[Ziggurat]

We are discussion free speech and when it becomes inciting terrorism.

No we weren't. You were throwing out irrelevant straw men with the apparent and unsupported assumption that Spencer was already well over that line.

Now clearly calling for the extermination of entire races isn't enough for you. Other people disagree.

If you think Spencer has incited criminal action, then I suggest you try to pursue legal action against him. Good luck with that, the courts are unlikely to agree.

 

[applecorped]

Sad times at ISF.

 

[Belz...]

No we weren't.

Actually, he was. Turtle was discussing speech that inspired violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, he was.

Yes, he. Not we. "Inspired" is meaningless, only incited matters. And he's doing a pretty crappy job of that too, since he has yet to point to any specific speech or the violence it incited, or even present a standard for what he thinks incitement should mean.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, he. Not we. "Inspired" is meaningless, only incited matters. And he's doing a pretty crappy job of that too, since he has yet to point to any specific speech or the violence it incited, or even present a standard for what he thinks incitement should mean.

So what is the difference? A lot of the public advocates of terrorism are not inciting by the normal legal definitions of it, they are not calling to attack a specific target but in much more generalized fashions rather like Spencer.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, he. Not we.

That's what I said. But in responding to him, one could forgive him for thinking you were discussing it with him.

"Inspired" is meaningless, only incited matters.

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what is the difference?

Google it. This is well-established law.

A lot of the public advocates of terrorism are not inciting by the normal legal definitions of it

You might be surprised to find out that we're not targeting those people for drone strikes.

 

[varwoche]

So what is the difference? A lot of the public advocates of terrorism are not inciting by the normal legal definitions of it, they are not calling to attack a specific target but in much more generalized fashions rather like Spencer.

Who in particular do you refer to here? If they aren't in the USA, it's a red herring. If you're talking about military action -- whatever we may think about the legality/morality of such action -- that too is a red herring. These aren't comparable scenarios.

If the people you refer to are in the USA, and if you sucker-punch one of them, I imagine you'll be subject to the same laws as if you sucker-punch Spencer.

 

[theprestige]

ponderingturtle, what violence has Spencer incited? Specifically, I mean.

How does punching him serve society by putting a stop to the specific incitement you have in mind?

 

[dudalb]

Obnoxious, bigoted jerks have a right to free speech like everybody else.
Frankly, it freedom of speech applies only to those with "respectable opinions" it is a bad joke.

 

[ponderingturtle]

ponderingturtle, what violence has Spencer incited? Specifically, I mean.

How does punching him serve society by putting a stop to the specific incitement you have in mind?

Do we wait until we have an activist to provably be shown to have inspired a specific terrorist act before they get on the bombing list?

Then can we get the republicans who were spouting lies and propaganda who inspired the planned parenthood shooter a year and a half ago?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Obnoxious, bigoted jerks have a right to free speech like everybody else.
Frankly, it freedom of speech applies only to those with "respectable opinions" it is a bad joke.

Then we need to stop bombing those who's goals it is to merely inspire terrorist actions. That is a serious infringement on their rights to free speech. Instead we need to engage them in discussion.