Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[uke2se]

You already have a problem here. Spencer hasn't advocated genocide. (By all means, correct me if I'm wrong!) What now?

He ran an article advocating it in his magazine. The article posed the question "do we need the black race"?

 

[Aridas]

He ran an article advocating it in his magazine. The article posed the question "do we need the black race"?

And the point that he apparently wasn't the one running the magazine when the article was put up was brought up repeatedly, earlier in the thread. Next?

 

[uke2se]

And the point that he apparently wasn't the one running the magazine when the article was put up was brought up repeatedly, earlier in the thread. Next?

Really? The article was posted in february of 2012. As far as I can see, Spencer was still the editor in chief by then. The article was written by the person who co-founded the website with Spencer.

Spencer has also advocated eugenics for black people.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/the_hatemonger_next_door/

And according to the SPLC, he once called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of the US in an interview.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0

 

[Belz...]

It appears to me that you don't even want to consider where you draw the line.

You are wrong. I've thought about it and came up with nothing. Sometimes "I don't know" is the only answer one can arrive at, and in these cases I err on the side of caution.

 

[Aridas]

Really? The article was posted in february of 2012. As far as I can see, Spencer was still the editor in chief by then. The article was written by the person who co-founded the website with Spencer.

Pretty sure that I saw the point made. To be fair about it, though, I don't actually care enough about either the article or Spencer to investigate it further, so I could easily be confusing it with some similar case a little. On a quick peek back, though, it was also claimed that the article itself was a pointed bit of parody, though, which was very soon followed by an article by the same author, using practically the same arguments for white people with the same conclusion.

Spencer has also advocated eugenics for black people.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/the_hatemonger_next_door/

That he's a white supremacist is a quite defensible position, yes. The only thing I saw in that article that could count as advocating genocide would be the claim that he was advocating forced sterilization, though. Being in favor of forced sterilization could arguably be considered to be in favor of genocide, but that line looks like something that the author of the Salon article made up as spin and isn't. It actually clashes a bit with the quoted bit right before it, after all and the quote after fits just fine with the quote before.

And according to the SPLC, he once called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of the US in an interview.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0

...Giving the example of a border that was simply redrawn, by the look of it. Nothing even remotely genocidal about that, really.

 

[uke2se]

Pretty sure that I saw the point made. To be fair about it, though, I don't actually care enough about either the article or Spencer to investigate it further, so I could easily be confusing it with some similar case a little. On a quick peek back, though, it was also claimed that the article itself was a pointed bit of parody, though, which was very soon followed by an article by the same author, using practically the same arguments for white people with the same conclusion.



That he's a white supremacist is a quite defensible position, yes. Possibly being in favor of forced sterilization could arguably be considered to be in favor of genocide, but that line looks like something that the author of the Salon article made up. It actually clashes a bit with the quoted bit right before it, after all.



...Giving the example of a border that was simply redrawn, by the look of it. Nothing even remotely genocidal about that, really.

Well then. Spencer doesn't actually promote genocide. The Magazine he edited simply joked about it (and it was hilarious). Spencer also doesn't promote eugenics, a reporter simply made up what he said (he didn't). He does promote "peaceful ethnic cleansing" but that simply means re-drawing the borders (it doesn't, he's talking about sending people home), so it doesn't count.

All in all, there's nothing to see here folks.

 

[uke2se]

You are wrong. I've thought about it and came up with nothing. Sometimes "I don't know" is the only answer one can arrive at, and in these cases I err on the side of caution.

Maybe then you should consider that other people have found an answer and accept that?

 

[Aridas]

Well then. Spencer doesn't actually promote genocide. The Magazine he edited simply joked about it (and it was hilarious). Spencer also doesn't promote eugenics, a reporter simply made up what he said. He does promote "peaceful ethnic cleansing" but that simply means re-drawing the borders (it doesn't, he's talking about sending people home), so it doesn't count.

All in all, there's nothing to see here folks.

You do realize that it's important to pay attention to one's own biases when evaluating how valid and meaningful evidence actually is, right? What you've presented doesn't seem to actually fit your rhetoric or support it very well at all. By the look of it, there's plenty of claims that invite plenty of condemnation other than "Spencer wants genocide!" that are quite easily supportable, but you're remarkably hung up on that particular one. Perhaps you should do a little introspection about why? Is it because you're so set on trying to make him out to be as bad as the Nazis or to actually be one that you're so insistent on that? You've seen plenty of posters link to links that actually disprove the point they're trying to make, have you not? For your own sake, try not to be like them and give up on reason and rationality in favor of a fantasy.

 

[uke2se]

You do realize that it's important to pay attention to one's own biases when evaluating how valid and meaningful evidence actually is, right? What you've presented doesn't seem to actually fit your rhetoric or support it very well at all. By the look of it, there's plenty of claims that invite plenty of condemnation other than "Spencer wants genocide!" that are quite easily supportable, but you're remarkably hung up on that particular one. Perhaps you should do a little introspection about why? Is it because you're so set on trying to make him out to be as bad as the Nazis or to actually be one that you're so insistent on that? You've seen plenty of posters link to links that actually disprove the point they're trying to make, have you not? For your own sake, try not to be like them.

My links don't disprove what I say, so I'm nothing like those posters. Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis.

Does this trigger you in any way?

 

[Aridas]

My links don't disprove what I say, so I'm nothing like those posters. Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis.

Does this trigger you in any way?

Hmm. I'm in favor of valid arguments being presented and the support of reason and rationality, when it comes to this thread and many of the others that I've participated in. I'm slightly triggered in that your arguments haven't been well in line with any of those for much of this thread, but only in a loose use of the word. With that said, it's true that those links aren't actively disproving you, yes, but they're really not actually supporting you, either, which is not a far step away from that. I brought it up more as an alarm for you before you feel the need to descend further into invoking fallacy.

 

[Aridas]

Alright, then, though, let's look at these again since you're still set on it.

Well then. Spencer doesn't actually promote genocide.

That seems to be the case.

The Magazine he edited simply joked about it (and it was hilarious).

Was it? I didn't read it. I doubt I would have found it particularly hilarious, either, given me. Parody isn't always actually funny to most people, after all.

Spencer also doesn't promote eugenics, a reporter simply made up what he said (he didn't).

Take a look back at the article. In the relevant part of the article, the reporter directly quoted Spencer, except for the line where the author pointedly inserted a personal interpretation that Spencer was talking about forced sterilization that is not really supported by the quote itself.

He does promote "peaceful ethnic cleansing" but that simply means re-drawing the borders (it doesn't, he's talking about sending people home), so it doesn't count.

Even if you are correct there, ethnic cleansing includes much more than genocide and that isn't genocide. Plenty to condemn otherwise, though, of course.

All in all, there's nothing to see here folks.

When it comes to support for your argument? Yes. When it comes to demonstrating that there's a lot of other stuff to have a problem with with regards to Spencer? Sure that's there, but that had already been well established.

 

[uke2se]

Take a look back at the article. In the relevant part of the article, the reporter directly quoted Spencer, except for the line where the author pointedly inserted a personal interpretation that Spencer was talking about forced sterilization that is not really supported by the quote itself.

I believe it's fully supported by the quote itself, but that Spencer didn't actually use the word 'eugenics', only described a process that would entail eugenics.

Even if you are correct there, ethnic cleansing includes much more than genocide and that isn't genocide. Plenty to condemn otherwise, though, of course.

Let's condemn him then. Let's not bicker and argue about whether the neo-Nazi supports genocide or if only the magazine he edited does, or if he only supports ethnic cleansing. Either is equally condemnable, and that's really the point, isn't it? Everything else is FUD.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe then you should consider that other people have found an answer and accept that?

Gee, you know what that reminds me of?

Me: There's no evidence for God.
Theist: How do you explain the existence of the universe?
Me: I don't.
Theist: See? Maybe you should consider that other people have found an answer.

 

[Belz...]

Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis.

Every bit as bad as people who got SIXTY million people killed?

Come on.

Let's condemn him then.

How about we condemn him for what he's actually done rather than make stuff up about him?

 

[theprestige]

All in all, there's nothing to see here folks.

There's plenty to see. Just not the one thing everyone keeps pointing to when they try to justify the violence.

 

[uke2se]

Every bit as bad as people who got SIXTY million people killed?

Come on.

"Heil Trump, heil victory"

How about we condemn him for what he's actually done rather than make stuff up about him?

I am.

 

[Belz...]

"Heil Trump, heil victory"

That doesn't sound quite as bad as killing sixty million people. Forgive me for being old fashioned.

I am.

You said he was every bit as bad as people who killed sixty million people. That doesn't sound very rational.

 

[uke2se]

That doesn't sound quite as bad as killing sixty million people. Forgive me for being old fashioned.

You're missing the point. Spencer is a Nazi. Hence, he's as bad as the Nazis.

You said he was every bit as bad as people who killed sixty million people. That doesn't sound very rational.

If you took the time to think about it, it's actually completely rational. It's easier to react by jerking your knees tho.

 

[Belz...]

You're missing the point. Spencer is a Nazi. Hence, he's as bad as the Nazis.

And since you're advocating violence against him, would that make you as bad as the IRA?

If you took the time to think about it, it's actually completely rational.

Really? How about you walk me through it, then?

 

[theprestige]

I am.

You're condemning him for genocide, which falls into the "making stuff up" category.

You're also advocating violence in response to made up stuff, which falls into the "acting like a Nazi" category.

Is it time for us to resort to vigilante justice against you, before your poisonous ideas take root and slaughter us all?