Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Belz...]

There isn't anything wrong with it, it is covered by free speech, if you take issue with someone advocating genocide that is your problem and makes your a bad person. The only thing you can do is ignore them and hope their followers set outside the law and then maybe you can do something. Otherwise you are in the situation like those good american christians who helped set up death to homosexual laws in africa. Bad people maybe but not really bad enough to do anything about.

Yeah that's the whole idea of free speech, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with advocating genocide.

Tell me, where do you stop censorship of free speech? What is allowed?

 

[uke2se]

Yeah that's the whole idea of free speech, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with advocating genocide.

Just out of interest, what do you think should be done about people who openly and with a large platform promotes genocide? What do you think is a reasonable reaction from people who belong to the groups Spencer wants to commit genocide to?

 

[Belz...]

Just out of interest, what do you think should be done about people who openly and with a large platform promotes genocide?

See below. I know that abandoning the rule of law isn't the solution.

What do you think is a reasonable reaction from people who belong to the groups Spencer wants to commit genocide to?

Pressuring venues to disinvite them, spreading the word, making them social pariahs, mocking them and debunking their nonsense.


You know, speech.

 

[theprestige]

What strawman? That Richard Spencer advocates ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is not the same thing as genocide.

 

[uke2se]

See below. I know that abandoning the rule of law isn't the solution.



Pressuring venues to disinvite them, spreading the word, making them social pariahs, mocking them and debunking their nonsense.


You know, speech.

But minorities, especially minorities that are suspicious to around half the population of a country, don't really have that much clout when it comes to persuading the masses.

When do you think it's ok to do anything else than protesting and pressuring venues? Before or after mass-deportations/concentration camps?

 

[Belz...]

But minorities, especially minorities that are suspicious to around half the population of a country, doesn't really have that much clout when it comes to pursuading the masses.

First of all, I'd like to see your numbers for that "around half" figure.

Second, that doesn't prevent the majority from speaking out. Third, I find it odd that you're treating people as groups rather than individuals. Nothing's preventing a black person, for example, from making a Youtube video or newspaper article about the issue.

When do you think it's ok to do anything else than protesting and pressuring venues? Before or after mass-deportations/concentration camps?

You're not helping your case with hysterical hypotheticals.

As others have pointed out, once you abandon rule of law and decide to take matters into your own hands, you're not only legitimising violence as a response to political opposition for your enemies as well, but opening a pandora's box on your side as well, and history shows that you're not going to limit your own violence to just the Nazis, if we can call them that.

 

[uke2se]

First of all, I'd like to see your numbers for that "around half" figure.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/american-attitudes-toward-the-middle-east-and-israel/

I rounded up from 46%

Second, that doesn't prevent the majority from speaking out. Third, I find it odd that you're treating people as groups rather than individuals. Nothing's preventing a black person, for example, from making a Youtube video or newspaper article about the issue.

But the issue isn't really getting the message out. The issue is getting people to listen. Especially the people who make the decisions.

You're not helping your case with hysterical hypotheticals.

I'll make a note of that in case I ever find the urge to create any hysterical hypotheticals.

As others have pointed out, once you abandon rule of law and decide to take matters into your own hands, you're not only legitimising violence as a response to political opposition for your enemies as well, but opening a pandora's box on your side as well, and history shows that you're not going to limit your own violence to just the Nazis, if we can call them that.

Would you mind answering the question? At what point is it ok to go further than what you have defined as "speech"? What would have to happen for you personally to be ok with someone punching a Nazi?

 

[Belz...]

https://www.brookings.edu/research/american-attitudes-toward-the-middle-east-and-israel/

I rounded up from 46%

What does this have to do with anything? How does any of that translate into your claim?

But the issue isn't really getting the message out. The issue is getting people to listen.

Spencer has the same problem, though. Speech that recalls Hitler's own, for instance, tends to touch a few emotional strings, and there are plenty of people to compare him to Adolf. There's no shortage of people willing to listen to that. So where's the problem?

I'll make a note of that in case I ever find the urge to create any hysterical hypotheticals.

You don't think mentioning concentration camps is going a bit too far?

Would you mind answering the question?

I have, in the paragraph you quoted. You may not like the answer, but that's what you get if you want to live in a free country. If you don't, of course, the answer would be different.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, here's another strawman: that this is somehow what I was talking about. What I was responding to was right there in the post you quoted:



Nobody said that.

They are just treating it as any other disagreement. Clearly advocating genocide really is no different from any other political policy. That is why using violence to end any of them is equally wrong.

The message is that it is no different than any other political disagreement and political disagreements can't be ended by violence. Or you get Norther Ireland or some such. Not sure which side was pro genocide there at the start of it.

 

[Belz...]

They are just treating it as any other disagreement. Clearly advocating genocide really is no different from any other political policy. That is why using violence to end any of them is equally wrong.

Then how would you deal with it? How would you set the boundaries of that solution?

It'd be much more productive if you answered those questions rather than constantly strawman other people's positions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah that's the whole idea of free speech, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with advocating genocide.

Tell me, where do you stop censorship of free speech? What is allowed?

So you need to campaign for Scott Lively. On Trial for crimes against humanity for merely advocating the death of gays. That is the real kind of free speech champion you need.

He only advocated putting gays to death clearly covered by his free speech and not a crime against humanity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then how would you deal with it? How would you set the boundaries of that solution?

It'd be much more productive if you answered those questions rather than constantly strawman other people's positions.

Clearly there is nothing and you go along with it.

 

[Belz...]

So you need to campaign for Scott Lively. On Trial for crimes against humanity for merely advocating the death of gays. That is the real kind of free speech champion you need.

He only advocated putting gays to death clearly covered by his free speech and not a crime against humanity.

That's all unfortunate and all but you are not addressing anything I've said.

Clearly there is nothing and you go along with it.

Wow, in response to my request to post something substantial rather than strawmen, you strawman my position. Well played.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's all unfortunate and all but you are not addressing anything I've said.

Not even going to venture an opinion for someone getting charged with crimes against humanity for merely advocacy work? As long as it is done though legal channels all the deaths are fine.

 

[Praktik]

There are a number of people in the US who advocate, defend and/or carry out violence, shutting down speech and so on against people they don't like. Left wing anarchists (who are a small minority, but can still cause real damage), in particular, seem to favor this. In my college town, for example, anarchists disrupted a meeting held by a nonprofit that was aimed at discussing ways to help the local homeless population, because the meeting organizers didn't submit to their demands to add LGBT issues to the meetings agenda. They also sabotaged and vowed to destroy a small vegan bakery here based on a one-sided claim that they had mistreated a employee. Then you have bigger things, that involve much more than just anarchists, like the Milo rioting and other attempts to prevent controversial figures from speaking at Universities.

I don't think we're about to approach the downfall of society or anything, but I do see this stuff as a large enough problem that it's worth speaking out against it. Richard Spencer being punched is just one small instance, in the grand scheme of things, and of course, on its own it's not a big deal. When it becomes broadly defended, I see that as a larger problem. It's still probably not of massive importance on its own, but it's one of many things that should be spoken out against.

You make a lot of valid points and this is a well-reasoned post. I suppose I wonder how much we're actually taking part in a Culture War argument vs an argument on whether political violence will actually lead to widespread problems if a single incident like this isn't checked.

Why not consider the shooting of the police officer in Dallas, or the long chain of innocent blacks shot in major cases that galvanized society with a ton of media attention and fallout and reactions?

What about the martyrdom of Ray Finicum and the long boil of Y'all Qaeda inspired violence from Ruby Ridge through Waco and Oklahoma up to the Oregon and Bundy standoffs?

What about the pernicious spread of extremist ideologies driving self-radicalized lone wolves?

I mention these merely to point out that there are LOT of things happening simultaneously.

If we were truly concerned about violence leading to more violence and ensuring we have the appropriate response to it, wouldn't the punch of Richard Spencer be among the most unimportant and least influential things we could talk about if that was our concern?

Since this thread has actually accumulated many, many pages - I submit that our interest in this story has less to do with worries about policial violence and more about how this story is situated in a culture war fault line in an election year.

That or perhaps posters are really unexposed to other cases of violence and politically motivated violence and so focus on this from a poverty of exposure and/or imagination.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If we were truly concerned about violence leading to more violence and ensuring we have the appropriate response to it, wouldn't the punch of Richard Spencer be among the most unimportant and least influential things we could talk about if that was our concern?

From my perspective, the punching of Richard Spencer is not a big deal. The support and accolades for that punch from liberals and progressives on this site is a very big deal.

Generally speaking, democrats/liberals/progressives have always been the ones arguing for violence as a last resort, arguing that aggression and violence are anathema to a civilized society. Liberals have historically argued for free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble. To see those exact same people turn 180 and argue that enacting physical violence against someone on the basis of their beliefs is acceptable, is quite disturbing. To see them seek to prevent assembly for people they don't like, to see them want to silence the voice of people that they disagree with... it's in direct conflict with everything that the progressive movement is supposed to stand for. The amount of rationalization being applied in this thread is very worrisome to me.

 

[applecorped]

The progressives new clothes.

 

[Praktik]

From my perspective, the punching of Richard Spencer is not a big deal. The support and accolades for that punch from liberals and progressives on this site is a very big deal.

As a window into the tribalism endemic to the human condition I agree its troubling - but I still think there are "bigger deals" when it comes to how tribalism and motivated reasoning allows for violence and violations of rights to be rationalized away.

The whole debate is a microcosm of tribalism and even the subject of the discussion, Richard Spencer, can properly be seen as a pernicious influence in terms of stoking tribal divides.

In fact I think Ricard Spencer - himself - is a "very big deal" when it comes to how I worry about the pernicious and corrosive effect of tribalism on social and community bonds. Nazi ideology is a very troubling manifestation of tribal psychology in the modern world.

In fact he's probably a "bigger deal" in this respect than the moment of the punch itself. The punch is probably most worrying in how it allows him to play the martry, gain sympathy and galvanize his supporters - than it is in terms of the specific violation against a single individual.

 

[Belz...]

Not even going to venture an opinion for someone getting charged with crimes against humanity for merely advocacy work? As long as it is done though legal channels all the deaths are fine.

No because you've refused to substantially address my own points and questions. Why should I answer the same question twice even when it's rephrased?

But fine, if it'll get the ball going: it's ridiculous to accuse someone of crimes against humanity for speech. At best, it'd be inciting violence.

Now, could you grow a pair and address the stuff I posted?

 

[Joe Random]

From my perspective, the punching of Richard Spencer is not a big deal. The support and accolades for that punch from liberals and progressives on this site is a very big deal.

Generally speaking, democrats/liberals/progressives have always been the ones arguing for violence as a last resort, arguing that aggression and violence are anathema to a civilized society. Liberals have historically argued for free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble. To see those exact same people turn 180 and argue that enacting physical violence against someone on the basis of their beliefs is acceptable, is quite disturbing. To see them seek to prevent assembly for people they don't like, to see them want to silence the voice of people that they disagree with... it's in direct conflict with everything that the progressive movement is supposed to stand for. The amount of rationalization being applied in this thread is very worrisome to me.

Agree very much with the above. And the thing is, the entire incident and reactions to it don't have to be the most significant thing in the air right now to warrant attention. The fact that purportedly liberal people are suddenly rolling up characters for a Fascists and Fisticuffs (4th ed.) LARP session should get called out, even if there are more serious issues as well (the old 'why bother with Hep-C when we haven't cured cancer yet?' thing).

We were supposed to be the tolerant ones, but now we've decided physical assault in response to offensive speech is completely appropriate. I guess it just goes to show that for some people it was never about acceptable actions, but rather acceptable targets.