Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Ziggurat]

And mearly raising money and funding terrorism isn't a big deal either, you can be in congress and do that. Look at Peter King and how he supported and raised funds for the IRA. Clearly beating the crap out of him would be totally acceptable.

Your posts are incoherent. Your complaints about other cases do not indicate how to respond in this case. Make an argument about what the standard should be, and how it should apply in this case. Otherwise, start a different thread about other cases you've got a problem with.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Your posts are incoherent. Your complaints about other cases do not indicate how to respond in this case. Make an argument about what the standard should be, and how it should apply in this case. Otherwise, start a different thread about other cases you've got a problem with.

Statements or questions meant to test or challenge consistency or breadth of applicability are quite related to the topic. You're just trying to dodge the issue while pretending like you aren't dodging the issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

Statements or questions meant to test or challenge consistency or breadth of applicability are quite related to the topic. You're just trying to dodge the issue while pretending like you aren't dodging the issue.

What's there to dodge? His posts aren't coherent enough to constitute any sort of challenge. Seriously, what's his point?

Is he claiming that our standard for permissible speech is too broad?

Is he claiming that Awlaki didn't do anything illegal?

Is he claiming that Spencer did do something illegal?

Until he clarifies, there's simply no point in responding further than I already have.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What's there to dodge? His posts aren't coherent enough to constitute any sort of challenge. Seriously, what's his point?

Is he claiming that our standard for permissible speech is too broad?

Is he claiming that Awlaki didn't do anything illegal?

Is he claiming that Spencer did do something illegal?

Until he clarifies, there's simply no point in responding further than I already have.

So do you want to delve into the specifics of the applicability of those comparisons by asking for clarification or do you want to go with a dismissive 'start another thread about that?'

 

[Ziggurat]

So do you want to delve into the specifics of the applicability of those comparisons by asking for clarification or do you want to go with a dismissive 'start another thread about that?'

Since nobody's position on those other cases was even established, how can the comparison even be useful to demonstrate either consistency or hypocrisy? They can't.

turtle thought he had a gotcha, but he didn't. And no, I'm not interested in pursuing his gotchas. Why would I be? They do not in fact add nothing to the conversation.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And mearly raising money and funding terrorism isn't a big deal either, you can be in congress and do that. Look at Peter King and how he supported and raised funds for the IRA. Clearly beating the crap out of him would be totally acceptable.


And promoting and advocating genocide is covered. Just like advocating terrorism. Unless of course you have the wrong skin tone then they take you out. There have been several targets who have been justified by them recruiting and proselytizing for terrorists. But when it is cleansing the untermensch it is all good.

And I guess it would have been Okay to lynch Tiberius Gracchus because he was a populist demagogue?

 

[Mumbles]

Here's another tic nitpick: the constitution doesn't grant rights; rather it prevents the government from curtailing them.

Yep. Spencer simply lacks discretion. the US expect to allow people to rally and march (although some folks don't get even that - Ferguson, Baltimore, I'm looking at you), but when you stand in front of a crowd and shout Nazi slogans, while some in the crowd throw out Nazi salutes, expect many folks to take offense, and possibly to get punched in your entire face.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Yep. Spencer simply lacks discretion. the US expect to allow people to rally and march (although some folks don't get even that - Ferguson, Baltimore, I'm looking at you), but when you stand in front of a crowd and shout Nazi slogans, while some in the crowd throw out Nazi salutes, expect many folks to take offense, and possibly to get punched in your entire face.

So does that mean if someone holds protests against the IRA does that mean it's okay to expect them to check everywhere for bombs? After all, violence should be an immediate first resort to anybody who dares challenge the righteous anger of the oppressed? For the record, I'm from Northern Ireland, and I've seen where the song and dance of "Let's normalise violence when it comes to people you disagree with" went.

 

[theprestige]

And I guess it would have been Okay to lynch Tiberius Gracchus because he was a populist demagogue?

I think ponderingturtle has a parallel argument going, that he imagines is winnable by appeal to poe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And I guess it would have been Okay to lynch Tiberius Gracchus because he was a populist demagogue?

The problem there as that tradition gave the senate the thought that they had any actual power over laws. And which form of genocide was Gracchus advocating that got him killed?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think ponderingturtle has a parallel argument going, that he imagines is winnable by appeal to poe.

True just like the idea of traveling back in time to kill Hitler is immoral. You can't kill him before he does anything after all.

Hmm now I am seeing an Alt history where Graccus was killed by a time traveler.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The problem there as that tradition gave the senate the thought that they had any actual power over laws. And which form of genocide was Gracchus advocating that got him killed?

Tiberius was killed because the Senate thought he wanted to make himself king, and making violence an acceptable first resort if you disagree with someone set the Roman Republic into terminal decline. But if you want advocacy of ethnic cleansing as an example, let's go to Northern Ireland and ask ourselves whether would it be okay for an Irish Republican to engage in a mass shooting against an Orange Order Parade. Or if it is okay for an anti-choicer to bomb an abortion clinic.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Ponderingturtle's thesis is "Only nazis/bad guys will be punched!". Except, as Northern Ireland has shown, when you open the pandora's box of normalising political violence, there is no going back. When people felt that the Provisional IRA were justified, it enabled a culture of violence and terror that led to 30 years of martial law and the permanent erosion of the rule of law, where it is normal to have torture as "alternative justice". Where it is normal to check under cars. Where it is normal to receive bullets in the post. Where it is normal to carry a handgun if you feel your life is at risk, which is a big thing in a UK context. Where it is normal to fear things like this happening again. And you might think "it's justified they're people i don't like", but that's the problem. There is no objective definition of "Nazi" or "fascist". It eventually becomes "People I don't like".

 

[jimbob]

Ponderingturtle's thesis is "Only nazis/bad guys will be punched!". Except, as Northern Ireland has shown, when you open the pandora's box of normalising political violence, there is no going back. When people felt that the Provisional IRA were justified, it enabled a culture of violence and terror that led to 30 years of martial law and the permanent erosion of the rule of law, where it is normal to have torture as "alternative justice". Where it is normal to check under cars. Where it is normal to receive bullets in the post. Where it is normal to carry a handgun if you feel your life is at risk, which is a big thing in a UK context. Where it is normal to fear things like this happening again. And you might think "it's justified they're people i don't like", but that's the problem. There is no objective definition of "Nazi" or "fascist". It eventually becomes "People I don't like".

Yes. There I wouldn't trust myself to assign political figures as appropriate victims of punching, let alone anyone else.

However, if you issue threats, you can't complain if a victim retaliates.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. There I wouldn't trust myself to assign political figures as appropriate victims of punching, let alone anyone else.

However, if you issue threats, you can't complain if a victim retaliates.

What threats? What victim?

 

[jimbob]

What threats? What victim?

I was making the point that threats are not free speech and there is a bit of an overlap. NWO Sentryman mentioned that they came from Northern Ireland, and that has a history of actions that are intimidating, even if there is nothing overt, so it is difficult when the intimidation is a dog whistle.

 

[Checkmite]

I've read reports that Spencer crashed a college libertarian convention this weekend and tried to set up a table without permission, before security introduced him to the sidewalk.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I've read reports that Spencer crashed a college libertarian convention this weekend and tried to set up a table without permission, before security introduced him to the sidewalk.

If you'll watch this video, you'll see that Spencer was:

1.) Invited by some attendees
2.) Reasonable
3.) Self-controlled
4.) Confronted by loud, emotional people who created the disruption which was then ultimately used as the reason to eject Spencer

A restaurant employee comes over early on and asks for calm and a lower volume level for the sake of other customers. Spencer stands up and agrees with this black restaurant employee and tells those who have been loudly, emotionally yelling at him that he's happy to calmly answer any questions any of them have. This intervention briefly introduces a period of calmer back and forth before the anti-Spencer folks get loud and emotional again, and then are reinforced by people who weren't present for the restaurant employee's intervention. The video cuts off but it seems very safe to assume that in the end, Spencer was ejected because he was the outsider and it was the easiest way to end the confrontation even though Spencer was the least guilty of anyone in terms of being disruptive.

Video features:

1.) Spencer having pleasant, calm interaction with a black man and a Latino man (the Latino appears to be one of the libertarian attendees who invited Spencer, is sitting next to him, and defends him against the more irrational people.)

2.) Loud, emotional mob yelling at Spencer and creating disruption as Spencer calmly sits at a boot with some friends who invited him and offers to have rational debate, which most demonstrate they are incapable of doing.

3.) Spencer being accused of saying and advocating things he has never said or advocated.

 

[Checkmite]

Video features:

1.) Spencer having pleasant, calm interaction with a black man and a Latino man (the Latino appears to be one of the libertarian attendees who invited Spencer, is sitting next to him, and defends him against the more irrational people.)

2.) Loud, emotional mob yelling at Spencer and creating disruption as Spencer calmly sits at a boot with some friends who invited him and offers to have rational debate, which most demonstrate they are incapable of doing.

3.) Spencer being accused of saying and advocating things he has never said or advocated.

So in other words, as I said before, Spencer crashed a conference he wasn't actually invited to in any meaningful sense, full of people hostile to his point of view who engaged in a show of spirited but non-violent speech against him until someone in charge at the conference became aware of his unwanted presence and dealt with the problem appropriately.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Tiberius was killed because the Senate thought he wanted to make himself king, and making violence an acceptable first resort if you disagree with someone set the Roman Republic into terminal decline. But if you want advocacy of ethnic cleansing as an example, let's go to Northern Ireland and ask ourselves whether would it be okay for an Irish Republican to engage in a mass shooting against an Orange Order Parade. Or if it is okay for an anti-choicer to bomb an abortion clinic.

Jesus, the Roman Republic declined because of economical and demographic changes resulted in professionalized armies loyal to their general rather than the state. The Gracchi were part of this only in the sense that they attemptee to push through land reform, which was probably the only way to address the issues, but which was politically unacceptable to the senate. The idea that he wanted to make himself king was just a pretext to lynch Gracchus.