Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Thermal]

It's not a contradiction, and you either haven't bothered to try, or simply can't remember when we had this conversation before. Because you forget one important detail:

I believe the one who punches the Nazi should be tried for it.
Do you remember? The conversation we had about how one can think something is morally right, but disallowed by the law?

Remember?

With an addition, if I may? That the neo should expect no assistance from others that is not required by law.

 

[Belz...]

I believe the one who punches the Nazi should be tried for it.

Do you remember?

Yes. It is, however, irrelevant. Because, remember, I said that it creates a political climate where it becomes acceptable to punch people, and thus undermines the rule of law.

Remember?

Well, if you three don't agree with me, I might as well surrender, right? After all, you are the arbiters of what is right.

I wasn't making an argument from popularity. Stop frothing at the mouth. Next you'll be accusing me of being a Nazi.

You have some sort of need to make me change my mind or admit that I'm wrong about my beliefs.

On a skeptics forum, no less! Imagine that!

Yes.

That's the most stupid thing I've heard all year.

 

[uke2se]

Yes. It is, however, irrelevant. Because, remember, I said that it creates a political climate where it becomes acceptable to punch people.

Remember?

That's not the argument you were making. You were accusing me of not believing in the rule of law. You were wrong. It won't hurt to admit it.

I wasn't making an argument from popularity. Stop frothing at the mouth. Next you'll be accusing me of being a Nazi.

Then what were you doing?

On a skeptics forum, no less! Imagine that!

I didn't know that to be a skeptic you had to have some manic need to make other people agree with you. I thought skeptics could agree to disagree, especially when the matter at hand wasn't empirical data. I guess I'm just not your kind of skeptic.

That's the most stupid thing I've heard all year.

That's because you dishonestly cut off the part of my post explaining my reasoning. Try honesty.

 

[Belz...]

That's not the argument you were making. You were accusing me of not believing in the rule of law.

Obviously, since you think punching people is ok, and you think you being arrested for it makes it all alright by ignoring the other consequences of your actions. You don't believe in the rule of law.

Then what were you doing?

Trying to get you to reexamine your fanatical beliefs but I see that's a waste of time.

I didn't know that to be a skeptic you had to have some manic need to make other people agree with you.

Nice moving of the goalposts. You said:

You have some sort of need to make me change my mind or admit that I'm wrong about my beliefs.

Stop trying to squirm out of your own words.

That's because you dishonestly cut off the part of my post explaining my reasoning. Try honesty.

I honestly cut the part of your post explaining your reasoning because it's irrelevant. The Nazis may have started out doing what Spencer is doing, but they also breathed oxygen. Do you breathe oxygen, sir? The difference is that they DID murder millions of people.

 

[uke2se]

Obviously, since you think punching people is ok, and you think you being arrested for it makes it all alright by ignoring the other consequences of your actions. You don't believe in the rule of law.

What legal consequences am I ignoring?

Trying to get you to reexamine your fanatical beliefs but I see that's a waste of time.

You keep to your own fanatical beliefs instead.

Nice moving of the goalposts. You said:



Stop trying to squirm out of your own words.

I'm not. I said the same thing both times. It seems you are having a very hard time understanding me. Maybe you should just ignore my posts in the future?

I honestly cut the part of your post explaining your reasoning because it's irrelevant.

No, you dishonestly cut it, and it is relevant.

The Nazis may have started out doing what Spencer is doing, but they also breathed oxygen. Do you breathe oxygen, sir? The difference is that they DID murder millions of people.

You really don't know much about history, do you? Spencer espouses Nazi beliefs. He's advocating for the same things the (historical) Nazis did. We have an opportunity to learn from history, but you simply deny what's right in front of you.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sorry that you don't see it. You're the one who's arguing for tearing down the foundations of American democracy.

It wouldn't be the first time the British have tried this.

 

[Belz...]

What legal consequences am I ignoring?

Where did I say "legal consequences"? I said consequences, and I've already listed them to you twice.

You keep to your own fanatical beliefs instead.

Yes, I'm pretty strict about rule of law and the maintaining of a functional democracy. I make no apologies for that.

I said the same thing both times.

Now you're outright lying. Wanting someone to agree with you is NOT the same as wanting to point out their errors.

It seems you are having a very hard time understanding me.

It's not my fault if your definitions are... fluid.

Maybe you should just ignore my posts in the future?

And allow your nonsense to go unchallenged? You should know me better than that by now.

No, you dishonestly cut it, and it is relevant.

I just explained to you why it's irrelevant. You have done nothing in this thread but make bald claims and nay-say the people who explain to you why you're wrong.

You really don't know much about history, do you? Spencer espouses Nazi beliefs. He's advocating for the same things the (historical) Nazis did.

And as I pointed out earlier, he's in no position to carry out anything ressembling what the Nazis did. Ergo, he will be unable to be "as bad" as them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a figure of speech, referring to the legal principle that in some contexts, taunts and similar are a form of incitement to violence, and are not protected speech.

Is that legal context actually legal? I'm currently under the impression that verbal taunts, no mater how odious, are insufficient to justify physical retaliation in the eyes of the law. For example... Personally I would not be offended by a person enacting physical violence against Fred Phelps and his ilk... but I would still expect them to be charged with aggravated assault.

Incitement to violence is a crime, and can be addressed through the legal system. Attacking a person who you think is inciting violence still isn't acceptable, and still constitutes assault. The fact that they were perceived as inciting violence doesn't exempt the assault from being a criminal act as well.

Short version: two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[jimbob]

Is that legal context actually legal? I'm currently under the impression that verbal taunts, no mater how odious, are insufficient to justify physical retaliation in the eyes of the law. For example... Personally I would not be offended by a person enacting physical violence against Fred Phelps and his ilk... but I would still expect them to be charged with aggravated assault.

Incitement to violence is a crime, and can be addressed through the legal system. Attacking a person who you think is inciting violence still isn't acceptable, and still constitutes assault. The fact that they were perceived as inciting violence doesn't exempt the assault from being a criminal act as well.

Short version: two wrongs don't make a right.

This link looks pretty kosher (but INAL nor a US citizen)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568

 

[Emily's Cat]

Would you consider it as violence is being directed at them when political leaders stand on a podium and calls for ethnic cleansing targeting them? Or would they have to wait for said ethnic cleansing to actually begin?

Only if there is a reasonable expectation that such actions are imminent and plausible.

If Trump loses his mind (more) and starts saying he's going to send all people of middle-eastern decent to an internment camp, that by itself is insufficient to excuse an attempt on his life from rightly being condemned as attempted murder, with all the attendant legal ramifications of that act.

If, however, Trump's blathering results in active steps by congress, law enforcement, and/or the military, then that represents an imminent threat that justifies self-defense.

Words alone are insufficient. Words with imminent action can constitute a threat.

Well, that's interesting.

In that case, there's a recognition that the rule of law is being actively and willfully discarded. Civil war, rebellion, and similar political uprisings sacrifice law in order to force their outcomes on society. Sometimes those outcomes are net beneficial. Sometimes they aren't. But in all those cases, law is clearly being set aside.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In your opinion. Obviously, I don't fully agree.

In my opinion, as well as the opinion of the law enforcement community and the judiciary branch of the US.

You're welcome to disagree, certainly. Just know that acting on that belief constitutes a criminal action on your part, and leaves you rightfully subject to the consequences of that criminal activity. As long as you are willing to make that sacrifice and accept the consequences of your criminal behavior, that is a choice that you can make.

But if you expect that your belief should trump the rule of law, and that the rights of other people should be sacrificed to your belief... that's an entirely different sort of argument.

 

[Belz...]

Only if there is a reasonable expectation that such actions are imminent and plausible.

If Trump loses his mind (more) and starts saying he's going to send all people of middle-eastern decent to an internment camp, that by itself is insufficient to excuse an attempt on his life from rightly being condemned as attempted murder, with all the attendant legal ramifications of that act.

If, however, Trump's blathering results in active steps by congress, law enforcement, and/or the military, then that represents an imminent threat that justifies self-defense.

Words alone are insufficient. Words with imminent action can constitute a threat.

Thank you, Cat. I believe this is where I was leaning towards as a response to Uke's question to me about when violence would be acceptable to me in this situations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

[Godwin] Nazis found an answer, should we just accept theirs? [/Godwin]

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Let me get this straight...

It is your opinion that a given person has beliefs that you find counter to a democratic environment. Such person has not actually effected any change to the democratic environment, he merely holds beliefs that you find incompatible with your beliefs regarding democracy.

And you feel that it is acceptable for you to actively disregard and ignore the fundamental precepts of democracy, in order to protect democracy from beliefs that you dislike?

And that makes sense to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

As long as you are willing to acknowledge that your actions constitute a criminal activity in opposition of the foundations of a democratic society, by all means do what you will. I will continue to support the rule of law within a democracy, and will advocate that you be penalized to the full extent of the law.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Okay, so anybody remember the poster a while back who punched an old Israeli traveler to the UK in the stomach (then ran away), and excused his actions by claiming that he was teaching them a lesson for "supporting" Israel's actions, because he believed that their lack of active violence against Israel constituted support?

He also believed he was supporting democracy.

 

[varwoche]

The slippery slope in that thread was created by the people who said that punching a Nazi would lead to civil war.

Nonsense of a high order. The slippery slope was entirely of your making. You started out advocating that "only nazis" should be subject to vigilante justice, and then you moved the goalposts once it became clear that Milo isn't a nazi.

 

[jimbob]

In my opinion, as well as the opinion of the law enforcement community and the judiciary branch of the US.

You're welcome to disagree, certainly. Just know that acting on that belief constitutes a criminal action on your part, and leaves you rightfully subject to the consequences of that criminal activity. As long as you are willing to make that sacrifice and accept the consequences of your criminal behavior, that is a choice that you can make.

But if you expect that your belief should trump the rule of law, and that the rights of other people should be sacrificed to your belief... that's an entirely different sort of argument.

Indeed, and there is a reason why the house of Commons in the UK has two red lines down the floor.


Secretary Kerry in the UK House of Commons Chamber by U.S. Department of State, on Flickr

It is because British politics used to be bloody, and those were two swords-lengths apart - stopping bloodshed.

Only if there is a reasonable expectation that such actions are imminent and plausible.

If Trump loses his mind (more) and starts saying he's going to send all people of middle-eastern decent to an internment camp, that by itself is insufficient to excuse an attempt on his life from rightly being condemned as attempted murder, with all the attendant legal ramifications of that act.

If, however, Trump's blathering results in active steps by congress, law enforcement, and/or the military, then that represents an imminent threat that justifies self-defense.

Words alone are insufficient. Words with imminent action can constitute a threat.

Pretty much this - I'd say that as long as a reasonable person could feel intimidated, they'd not be to blame for responding with violence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So do I.

By advocating that people actively break the law and applauding criminal actions? How do you figure?

 

[Belz...]

Okay, so anybody remember the poster a while back who punched an old Israeli traveler to the UK in the stomach (then ran away), and excused his actions by claiming that he was teaching them a lesson for "supporting" Israel's actions, because he believed that their lack of active violence against Israel constituted support?

He also believed he was supporting democracy.

That's some mighty cognitive dissonance right there.

Do you have a link to that?