Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[3point14]

Are we talking about introducing legislation to deal with this sort of thing?

Or are we talking about punching people in the street because you don't like their political views?

 

[uke2se]

Are we talking about introducing legislation to deal with this sort of thing?

Or are we talking about punching people in the street because you don't like their political views?

Let's talk about legislation for now. Punching is, after all, a last resort when there's no legislation to bring to effect.

What kind of legislation would be possible to provide consequences for people who advocate genocide on American citizens? If they're Muslim and in a foreign country, you bomb them to death. How about domestically?

 

[Belz...]

No, you haven't.

Again, you don't like my answer because it's not the definitive, solves-everything solution you asked for. I'm so sorry about that.

 

[Belz...]

You have taken no issue with the assassination of people solely for promoting terrorism, that makes it clear that killing people solely for their political views is not a fundamental problem for you as long as it is has proper state sanction.

What? What in the blue hell are you talking about?

So how do we get to be at war with Nazi's like spencer so that we can kill them like we do muslims who advocate violence in a similar fashion to him?

I'm sorry, but this is so incoherent that I don't even know what to answer.

I think you're so far into your fantasy scenarios that you're having a discussion with yourself at this point. Either make an actual point using what people have actually done and said here, or admit that you don't have a point beyond silly strawmen and ridicule.

 

[theprestige]

So how do we get to be at war with Nazi's like spencer so that we can kill them like we do muslims who advocate violence in a similar fashion to him?

Spencer doesn't advocate violence.

 

[uke2se]

Again, you don't like my answer because it's not the definitive, solves-everything solution you asked for. I'm so sorry about that.

It's not that I don't like the answer. It's that it's not an answer to what I asked. Would you like to answer what I asked, or would you like to not answer what I asked? You haven't answered thus far.

To be completely transparent, the Point of my question was for us to examine what - if anything - would make you consider violence an acceptable approach. I'm fully ok with you saying that violence is never acceptable, but I don't think you actually believe that. Few do, after all. It's a matter of where the line is drawn, how you define "self defense" and so on. It's not my intention to set up a 'gotcha' or anything like that.

I feel that there's a naivete and a whole heap of self delusion among people who could never consider violence as an acceptable course of action. We accept violence as acceptable every day, after all.

 

[Belz...]

It's not that I don't like the answer. It's that it's not an answer to what I asked. Would you like to answer what I asked, or would you like to not answer what I asked? You haven't answered thus far.

You asked me about concentration camps, which is such a crazy and over-the-top suggestion as to not warrant an answer. Why didn't you ask about showers and ovens, instead?

You want to know exactly at which point mob violence is ok? I've told you that I don't have an answer to that but that rule of law must be maintained. How is that not an answer?

To be completely transparent, the Point of my question was for us to examine what - if anything - would make you consider violence an acceptable approach. I'm fully ok with you saying that violence is never acceptable, but I don't think you actually believe that.

No, I don't believe that. But there are no hard-and-fast rule as to when we should just drop democracy and freedom of speech and just go full reign of terror on others. How does one determine when it's justified to tear down civilisation?

 

[uke2se]

No, I don't believe that. But there are no hard-and-fast rule as to when we should just drop democracy and freedom of speech and just go full reign of terror on others. How does one determine when it's justified to tear down civilisation?

That's the issue, isn't it? Although I would put it in different terms: How does one determine that it's necessary/ok to use non-democratic means to protect democracy?

That's what it's about when we're dealing with Nazis, after all. They want to tear down democracy, and lately, they have been quite effective in gaining influence through democratic means.

Let me create a different hypothetical that you might find less extreme than the concentration camps one (even though the current US regime has used concentration camps as a positive example):

The Trump regime manage to pass laws requiring the internment of foreign born Muslims on US soil. Would it - in your view - be morally acceptable for someone to resist the implementation of these laws using violence?

ETA: Thank you for finally answering my question. If you had simply said that you don't have an answer the first time around, I would never have pushed it. And, for the record, no, you did not say that. I've quoted what you said.

 

[Cavemonster]

Far too feeble, I think. It's like asking if one would go back in time to 1921, after the formation of the NSDAP but before the Beer Hall Putsch, and kill Hitler. And everyone replying, "no, but I would slap him good, because it's important to use violence against Nazis!"

Not to mention that the actual Nazis were embroiled in literal gang warfare against rival fascists and competing communist factions. They actually understood the effective use of violence as a political tool. Our modern slap-hats, like the pussy marchers and the Occupiers, have confused form for function. They're cargo-cult protestors.

Ironically, it's the witches who understand that their actions are supposed to have a purpose, who aren't just making empty gestures for gestures' sake, but to have an intended result.

I agree with you about OWS, but I think you're being uncharitable with the women's march. Sure among the marchers there surely were many who didn't have a clear goal, but there are also organizers involved who are playing a long game. Any protest should have as its aim either real pressure on decision makers or replacing them. The decision makers in question in this case are elected politicians. The aim of many organizers involved in the march is to be able to bring out votes by 2018, and for sitting politicians, the threat of votes by 2018. No single march acheives change by itself, not even marches by MLK or Ghandi. Instead all successful marches are part of a long game. Get their issues in the press. Rally their allies, tell the emotional story to rally hearts and minds. Keep your base excited and foster team identity. All of this in this case is to bring out votes. To create a voting block that politicians feel they'll have to cater to or risk their jobs, and if needed replace those politicians.

This is exactly what the tea party did, and they were somewhat successful with it. This is what the smartest people involved in the current protests are doing.

And it isn't really a unique cargo cult factor. In successful political movements in the past the footsoldiers didn't always understand the strategies by which their protests really worked.

 

[sadhatter]

How about just genocide advocates? Clearly advocating terrorism is fine for a death sentence as we bomb people who do that all the time. So simply advocating violence in general is enough to earn a death sentence by drone. That is how law and order works.

The difference is capability, if spencer and the crew ever become able to send out groups of thus, then start doing so, then violence is acceptable. I'd even go a half step before and say if irrefutable proof was gained that they had a planned event to enact violence that a violent preemptive attack would be acceptable if police were unable or unwilling to stop it.

If you feel he is doing something illegal, get police involved, if there is not a law on the books then work the political system to get one enacted.

But you won't do this because you know a law of "people don't get to say things that make me uncomfortable" wouldn't fly, or worse would get added, but seeing as we live in a democracy it would apply to everyone. Which is literally the opposite of what you want.

 

[Belz...]

That's the issue, isn't it? Although I would put it in different terms: How does one determine that it's necessary/ok to use non-democratic means to protect democracy?

How do you know that those actions protect democracy and don't instead undermine it?

That's what it's about when we're dealing with Nazis, after all. They want to tear down democracy, and lately, they have been quite effective in gaining influence through democratic means.

I think you're overstating this case and overestimating them.

The Trump regime manage to pass laws requiring the internment of foreign born Muslims on US soil. Would it - in your view - be morally acceptable for someone to resist the implementation of these laws using violence?

Not sure. Do I have that option?

ETA: Thank you for finally answering my question. If you had simply said that you don't have an answer the first time around, I would never have pushed it.

 

[uke2se]

How do you know that those actions protect democracy and don't instead undermine it?

I don't. It's all feeling.

I think you're overstating this case and overestimating them.

I don't. I think this is the core of our disagreement.

Not sure. Do I have that option?

How do you mean? You always have the option to resist.

If you mean, do you have the option to say "not sure", then yes, you do. It might cause you to start thinking about how you casually dismiss violence as an option though.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't. It's all feeling.




I don't. I think this is the core of our disagreement.




How do you mean? You always have the option to resist.

If you mean, do you have the option to say "not sure", then yes, you do. It might cause you to start thinking about how you casually dismiss violence as an option though.

What tends to leadto better outcomes, arguement based on feeling and belief or those based on logic reason and discourse.

Considering you admit your position is based on feeling, you have some serious thinking to do.

 

[uke2se]

What tends to leadto better outcomes, arguement based on feeling and belief or those based on logic reason and discourse.

Considering you admit your position is based on feeling, you have some serious thinking to do.

I am thinking seriously about this. I simply expect the rest of you to do so as well. That's my point in my latest line of inquiry. It's easy and it feels good to simply declare that violence never solves anything. It gets trickier when you actually start thinking about it.

 

[Belz...]

If you mean, do you have the option to say "not sure", then yes, you do.

Good.

It might cause you to start thinking about how you casually dismiss violence as an option though.

There's nothing casual about my dislike for political violence.

 

[Meed]

How about just genocide advocates? Clearly advocating terrorism is fine for a death sentence as we bomb people who do that all the time. So simply advocating violence in general is enough to earn a death sentence by drone. That is how law and order works.

Yeah, clearly everything other than genocide advocacy is just equally valid differences of opinion. If you take issue with someone advocating for rape you are a bad person. Only genocide is a bad thing, except for the Armenian genocide, which was clearly fine, and not a real genocide, because the US won't recognize it, so obviously it wasn't a problem. You stood by and where people executed by bombs in Cambodia as the nukes were dropped on Nagasaki, but that's all good, so long as the right to punch Nazis is still intact I guess. That is how motor scooters work. /ponderingturtle-mode

What? What in the blue hell are you talking about?

I'm sorry, but this is so incoherent that I don't even know what to answer.

I think you're so far into your fantasy scenarios that you're having a discussion with yourself at this point. Either make an actual point using what people have actually done and said here, or admit that you don't have a point beyond silly strawmen and ridicule.

I think he's trying to say that you support drone strikes against people who advocate for terrorism and therefore you are being hypocritical for not supporting punching Richard Spencer? That is just my best guess, TBH. I have no idea where the drone strikes thing came from though.

 

[Belz...]

I think he's trying to say that you support drone strikes against people who advocate for terrorism and therefore you are being hypocritical for not supporting punching Richard Spencer? That is just my best guess, TBH.

That'd be weird since that's not only entirely off topic, but also unrelated to anything I've ever said.

 

[Emily's Cat]

At what Point after the Nazi takeover in Germany would you consider it morally justified for Jews to take to violence to fight back against transgressions?

As soon as violence is used against them. At that point, they have my full support in retaliating against their aggressor in kind.


ETA: Alternately... when they are willing to commit to an all out civil war and sacrifice law in order to achieve their ends.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I feel that there's a naivete and a whole heap of self delusion among people who could never consider violence as an acceptable course of action. We accept violence as acceptable every day, after all.

I won't speak for Argumemnon, but only for myself. I have no objection to violence; I strongly object to aggression. If aggression is turned against you, or a loved one, or an innocent... by all means unleash violence to end that aggression. Then stop.

Words are not sufficient aggression to warrant a violent reprisal. No matter how odious or vile those words are, they are insufficient to justify violence in response. The person who resorts to violence in response to words is the aggressor, and should, by my moral platform, be met with swift and violent retribution for that action.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's nothing casual about my dislike for political violence.

Ditto this.