Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[uke2se]

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

I'm sorry, but I won't allow myself to be baited by obvious trolling.

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

Ok.

Here's Richard Spencer:

He's a Nazi:

Here's a Nazi:

=

Got it?

 

[Joe Random]

Punch, brothers, punch! Punch with glee!
Punch your nearest neighbor ; he might be a Nazi!


Completely down the rabbit hole we've gone.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, but I won't allow myself to be baited by obvious trolling.

You must be joking. That is the exact same logic you're using. If you really think that violence is the solution to speech, then YOU are the enemy of democracy. The very thing you seek to destroy.

Ok.

Here's Richard Spencer:

He's a Nazi:

Here's a Nazi:

=

Got it?

Again, I'm of the opinion that you're not being serious.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're missing the point. Spencer is a Nazi.

If someone doesn't claim to be a Nazi (and AFAIK Spencer doesn't), how exactly do you determine if someone is a Nazi? Where exactly do you draw the line between being a Nazi and having some other set of objectionable beliefs?

 

[uke2se]

You must be joking. That is the exact same logic you're using. If you really think that violence is the solution to speech, then YOU are the enemy of democracy. The very thing you seek to destroy.

No, I'm not. I'm the one who wants to defend democracy against someone who's political goal is to destroy it.

Again, I'm of the opinion that you're not being serious.

I'm serious. You wanted me to walk you through it. Do you understand now? Spencer is equally bad as the Nazis because Spencer is a Nazi. It's quite simple.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm not. I'm the one who wants to defend democracy against someone who's political goal is to destroy it.

How do you defend democracy by advocating political violence, stifling free speech and ignoring the rule of law? Aren't those three things the very antithesis of democracy?

I'm serious. You wanted me to walk you through it. Do you understand now? Spencer is equally bad as the Nazis because Spencer is a Nazi. It's quite simple.

No I need you to explain to me how advocating for non-violent ethnic cleansing (whatever the hell that means) is equivalent to killing 60 million people through war and murder.

 

[uke2se]

How do you defend democracy by advocating political violence, stifling free speech and ignoring the rule of law? Aren't those three things the very antithesis of democracy?

By attacking enemies of democracy.

No I need you to explain to me how advocating for non-violent ethnic cleansing (whatever the hell that means) is equivalent to killing 60 million people through war and murder.

It's not equivalent. I never said it was. I said Spencer was as bad as the Nazis because he's a Nazi.

Did you know that there were Nazis who didn't work in concentration camps and had no hand in killing Jews? Those people are still as bad as the Nazis, because they were still Nazis.

 

[Belz...]

By attacking enemies of democracy.

I've just explained to you why YOU are one of those enemies. Are you planning on punching yourself?

It's not equivalent. I never said it was.

You said, and I quote:

Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis.

Every bit. Words have meaning, uke. Either he's AS BAD as the real Nazis were, or he isn't.

Did you know that there were Nazis who didn't work in concentration camps and had no hand in killing Jews? Those people are still as bad as the Nazis, because they were still Nazis.

Including Oskar Schindler?

 

[uke2se]

I've just explained to you why YOU are one of those enemies. Are you planning on punching yourself?

If I punch someone in defence of democracy, I'll suffer the legal consequences.

You said, and I quote:



Every bit. Words have meaning, uke. Either he's AS BAD as the real Nazis were, or he isn't.

Are you having trouble following this sentence:

"Richard Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis because he is a Nazi."

?

You may note that I did not say "Spencer has killed 6 million Jews". Just that he was as bad as the Nazis. You're right. Words have meaning. You just don't understand the words used, apparently.

Including Oskar Schindler?

An exception, I'd say. I sure wouldn't punch him.

 

[Belz...]

If I punch someone in defence of democracy, I'll suffer the legal consequences.

You are deliberately missing the point, here: you are creating a political climate where it's ok to commit violence so long as you justify it with morality.

Are you having trouble following this sentence:

"Richard Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis because he is a Nazi."

?

No, actually. You didn't say "he's exactly like a Nazi because he's a Nazi". You said "He's AS BAD as a Nazi." Do you see the difference between the two?

An exception, I'd say. I sure wouldn't punch him.

Seems like just being a Nazi isn't enough, eh?

 

[uke2se]

You are deliberately missing the point, here: you are creating a political climate where it's ok to commit violence so long as you justify it with morality.

That political climate is created when someone can spew the crap Spencer spews from a podium and do it without consequences.

No, actually. You didn't say "he's exactly like a Nazi because he's a Nazi". You said "He's AS BAD as a Nazi." Do you see the difference between the two?

Nope. I don't see a meaningful difference. I have been fairly clear that I think Spencer is a Nazi.

Seems like just being a Nazi isn't enough, eh?

There's a difference between Schindler (being a party member for business reasons in an authoritarian state and then using that influence to save a bunch of people) and Richard Spencer.

But you run off and declare victory. That's fine with me.

 

[varwoche]

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

In which case, ponderingturtle needs to change their criteria to: advocates genocide or provides a platform for people who advocate genocide.

Assuming you represented the article accurately that is. Because you didn't provide a quote, and because you're operating on emotion, I'm a tad bit skeptical.

It's not that I care a great deal about the boundaries of Spencer's repugnant ideas. However i am interested in the boundaries of those who oppose free speech as we know it.

 

[Belz...]

That political climate is created when someone can spew the crap Spencer spews from a podium and do it without consequences.

Now you're just being nonsensical. You're the one doing the punching; the "consequence" you allude to is your own, deliberate actions. It's you who's a danger to democracy.

Nope. I don't see a meaningful difference.

Then you're having a problem with the word "bad".

There's a difference between Schindler (being a party member for business reasons in an authoritarian state and then using that influence to save a bunch of people) and Richard Spencer.

Of course there is, which is why I pointed him out as a flaw in your thinking. A Nazi isn't as bad as the Nazis just because he's a Nazi. You seem determined not to question your own thinking, here.

 

[uke2se]

In which case, ponderingturtle needs to change their criteria to: advocates genocide or provides a platform for people who advocate genocide.

Assuming you represented the article accurately that is. Because you didn't provide a quote, and because you're operating on emotion, I'm a tad bit skeptical.

It's not that I care a great deal about the boundaries of Spencer's repugnant ideas. However i am interested in the boundaries of those who oppose free speech as we know it.

In Sweden, Spencer would have been prosecuted for hate speech by now, so you can speak for yourself there.

 

[Belz...]

It's not that I care a great deal about the boundaries of Spencer's repugnant ideas. However i am interested in the boundaries of those who oppose free speech as we know it.

Killing free speech to preserve democracy. I'd rather have the former than the latter, in a scenario where I could only have one.

 

[Belz...]

In Sweden, Spencer would have been prosecuted for hate speech by now, so you can speak for yourself there.

Seems those crazy scandinavians respect the rule of law.

 

[uke2se]

Now you're just being nonsensical. You're the one doing the punching; the "consequence" you allude to is your own, deliberate actions. It's you who's a danger to democracy.

Nope. I'm the one defending democracy from someone who wants to tear it down.

Then you're having a problem with the word "bad".

Or it is you who have a problem with the word "bad".

Of course there is, which is why I pointed him out as a flaw in your thinking. A Nazi isn't as bad as the Nazis just because he's a Nazi. You seem determined not to question your own thinking, here.

He's not a flaw in my thinking. He's an exception.

 

[Meed]

Ok.

Here's Richard Spencer:

He's a Nazi:

Here's a Nazi:

=

Got it?

This is silly. First of all, why would you say "Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis" then, as opposed to "Spencer is one of the Nazis"? Second, "the Nazis" were a German political party in the 1930s and 1940s who killed tens of millions of people and started a world war. When you refer someone as "as bad as the Nazis" it strongly implies that that is who you're referring to. There are Neo-Nazis today (I don't think Spencer identifies as such or belongs to any organizations identifying as such, though he does seem to hold some similar views and also seems to be influenced/inspired by the actual Nazis).

When you falsely, misleadingly and/or dishonestly attack someone, I think it can create the impression that there aren't legitimate criticisms to be made against said person. Or that an honest description of them wouldn't be enough to create a bad impression. That's partly why stuff like this bothers me (aside from the fact that it's also bad in principle). Richard Spencer is a bad hombre, no question. He seems to be an anti-semitic, white supremacist. Why is that not bad enough, as far as explaining why he's scummy goes?

When you're defending or advocating assaulting people for what they've said and who they are, I'd say that makes it doubly important to not misrepresent what they've said and who they are.

 

[uke2se]

Seems those crazy scandinavians respect the rule of law.

So do I.

 

[uke2se]

This is silly. First of all, why would you say "Spencer is every bit as bad as the Nazis" then, as opposed to "Spencer is one of the Nazis"?

I said that as well.

Second, "the Nazis" were a German political party in the 1930s and 1940s who killed tens of millions of people and started a world war. When you refer someone as "as bad as the Nazis" it strongly implies that that is who you're referring to with "the Nazis". There are Neo-Nazis today (I don't think Spencer identifies as such or belongs to any organizations identifying as such, though he does seem to hold some similar views and also seems to be influenced/inspired by the actual Nazis)

Pedantic. He's a neo-Nazi then.

When you falsely, misleadingly and/or dishonestly attack someone, I think it can create the impression that there aren't legitimate criticisms to be made against said person. Or that an honest description of them wouldn't be enough to create a bad impression. That's partly why stuff like this bothers me (aside from the fact that it's also bad in principle). Richard Spencer is a bad hombre, no question. He seems to be an anti-semitic, white supremacist. Why is that not bad enough?

When you're defending or advocating assaulting people for what they've said and who they are, I'd say that makes it doubly important to not misrepresent what they've said and who they are.

Spencer is a Nazi in my opinion. I'm not falsely or dishonestly attacking him. I'm advocating consequences for speech like that Spencer spews.