Newton's Bit said: "Hypocrisy isn't a problem for those who commit violence over verbal disagreements."
You responded: "Yep there is nothing fundamentally wrong about advocating genocide, it is just one of those things."
Implying that Newton's Bit said there is nothing fundamentally wrong about advocating genocide, when they didn't. That was the strawman. You then went on to make another one...
"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."
And another one here...
"They are just treating it as any other disagreement. Clearly advocating genocide really is no different from any other political policy."
Being dishonest about things other people have said is not a nice thing to do, first of all (I'm sure you would not enjoy it if it were applied to yourself), but more importantly, it makes it very hard to have a coherent discussion. Maybe it wasn't intentional dishonesty, but at very least you're making a lot of uncharitable and unwarranted assumptions about other peoples' views and then treating them as if they were fact.
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?
I know you weren't asking me, but...
As far as I can tell after a bit of googling, Richard Spencer has not actually advocated genocide. I could be wrong, though. I don't know much about the man.
Treating it as a hypothetical... I think it depends. If it were to fall under "inciting" then they should be punished by the justice system. If not, well personally I think I would either just ignore someone like that, or call them an ******* and move on. I wouldn't want to give them more attention than they deserved.
I'm curious what you think the best response to such a person is. Also, I'm curious what you think punching people accomplishes. Way more people have heard of Richard Spencer now,
because he was assaulted. I had no idea who he was beforehand. So I think, it's not only wrong, but also counter productive.
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.
It's not my position that a single incident left unchecked will lead to widespread problems. I'm approaching this from the perspective of something like "Is it okay to assault people who express beliefs that one considers abhorrent?" One's position on Spencer's assault implies a position on the broader question.
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.
I'd never talked about Richard Spencer until a couple days ago and I've talked a lot about police violence, for the record. Though, I won't claim the amount of time I spend talking about things is proportional to their importance, by any means. That's probably not a good thing, but it seems to be human nature. I've had lengthy debates on things like whether apples are better than bananas, and analog vs digital clocks.
But yes, the actual assault is very unimportant and insignificant on its own. It's only important to the extent that it's an opportunity to discuss the larger principle of values.
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.
Agreed.
