Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Belz...]

Not just any far left, but far left fascists

Yes, just like Muslim Catholics, these are the worst kind.

 

[Praktik]

Yes, just like Muslim Catholics, these are the worst kind.

...if anyone was begging for a face punch, its them

PICK A SIDE!!

 

[sadhatter]

Trend analysis helps there - are there more and more parents doing so, like say in Orange County?

Then you can make plausible claims about the road to hell. Vaccination rates are reported. One parent not vaccinating in a place that isn't Orange County may very well "not make a big difference". In Orange County, the cumulative effect of each incremental non-vaxer could be even more important.

Even so - if Orange County undervaccinates the incoming pockets of disease will likely cause some reversing of the course Into Hell. Measles outbreaks and the resulting coverage in the news and talk in the community will rollback the progress of anti-vaccination ideas.

So too with the dramatic implosion that could be set into motion by the punch of Richard Spencer. As people see the open license on punching from people like me not caring as much and more and more faces are punched - there could be countermoves in society from across society as people see the bitter fruit of the epidemic of Face Punching setting in. If its an isolated incident it may amount to a whole lot of nothing, in terms of societal impact (this is my position)

I agree that on a completely theoretical basis - the punching of Richard Spencer and people like me not being super upset about it - could lead to a Civil War Hellscape.

I just don't agree that this is a plausible or realistic scenario. I see no trend analysis that can place the punching of Richard Spencer into the position of being such an important Moment that we must now all join hands and work overtime to hold back an imminent wave of political violence. I see no one considering the general respect for rule of law in this society and how any wave of political violence will create reactions in society that may counteract it. There seems to be a thinking that society is so fragile that it could fall apart at any moment from one face-punch.

Wow just like an anti vaxxer you reply with a wall of text saying nothing.

 

[sadhatter]

I think thats what people are saying - that the punching of Richard Spencer could lead us into an Irish style Civil War.

No that's not what people are saying.

They are saying condoning this act is the first step toward violence being an acceptable methods of debate.

No this single incident will not break the world, but condoning it could be the first step toward a very ugly future.

By your logic as long as it's done slowly any terrible act is okay. "What me burning this one cross on a lawn is going to lead to civil war? Get real".

 

[quadraginta]

That's just beautiful. Alt-right is far-left. That's just... amazing.

You can't make this stuff up.

As Colbert demonstrated for years on his show, you don't really need comedy writers to make the Right Wingnuts look ridiculous. All you have to do is report what they are saying and doing with a straight face. The comedy is already there.

 

[quadraginta]

No that's not what people are saying.

They are saying condoning this act is the first step toward violence being an acceptable methods of debate.

No this single incident will not break the world, but condoning it could be the first step toward a very ugly future.

<snip>

I can extrapolate an ugly future from some of the other stuff that's been condoned in politics the last couple of years.

And it's happened a lot more than once.

Do you think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Violence against minorities is normalized when you allow people to call for ethnic cleansing without consequence.

Imposing consequences doesn't imply vigilante violence. There are plenty of ways to impose consequences without flouting the rule of law and advocating violence as an appropriate response to words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's up to them. Are you saying people aren't using the justification that someone is a Muslim to assault them now?

Do you find it appropriate and acceptable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm a bit funny when it comes to things like this...

Did the guy deserve to be punched? Probably, yes.
Am I particularly sorry for him that he was punched? Not really - see above.
Is it right/lawful/should he have been punched? No. Violence isn't the answer.

That is a perfectly reasonable perspective as far as I'm concerned. And in general, I agree. Some people do deserve to be punched in my opinion. If they get punched I doubt I will feel any sympathy for them because in my opinion they deserve to be punched. But I will loudly insist that the punching was inappropriate and unacceptable, and will seek the arrest of the puncher.

Because it doesn't matter how I feel. It doesn't matter whether I like the person or not. It matters whether it is legal and justifiable.

 

[Praktik]

No that's not what people are saying.

They are saying condoning this act is the first step toward violence being an acceptable methods of debate.

No this single incident will not break the world, but condoning it could be the first step toward a very ugly future.

By your logic as long as it's done slowly any terrible act is okay. "What me burning this one cross on a lawn is going to lead to civil war? Get real".

Ya I can see your point, like really, I do.

But I still think, if acts of violence leading to the Downfall of Society are being considered, this is a micro moment.

I worry more about relations between police and impoverished neighbourhoods - in terms of acts of violence leading to Crumbling of Everything We Hold Dear - these sit in a longer term, ugly trend and lately this has gotten worse.

Even so I have high confidence in the ability of American society to overcome this - it has overcome far worse, including intermittent bouts of large scale riots and an actual Civil War.

Perhaps this is why I am so bemused by the appeals to the Road to Hell sitting around the corner from the punch of a stupid nazi on camera.

Its gonna amount to less than nothing in 5 years, probably 6 months from now this thread will be dead and no one will ever revive it unless Spencer hits the news for some tawdry scandal and people want to relive this amazing moment in Spencer History.

 

[sadhatter]

I can extrapolate an ugly future from some of the other stuff that's been condoned in politics the last couple of years.

And it's happened a lot more than once.

Do you think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw?

Depends on the circumstance, care to provide them?

I doubt they will be as clear cut as not using violence against dissenting opinion though.

Or hell, why don't we just fight it out? One of is going to say something the other doesn't like, I'm sure.

 

[sadhatter]

Imposing consequences doesn't imply vigilante violence. There are plenty of ways to impose consequences without flouting the rule of law and advocating violence as an appropriate response to words.

The problem is they know if they tried to get this enacted as a law they would get laughed out by all sides.

 

[Praktik]

Wow just like an anti vaxxer you reply with a wall of text saying nothing.

at risk of derail, I see no relation between what I said and what an anti-vaxxer would say - I resent the implication because I think in a thread mocking the-antivax mindset we would find ourselves in amazing agreement on almost everything.

What a bunch of maroons!

Not sure you read that post of mine all that charitably - so maybe let me register this complaint and we can avoid the embarrassment of drawing out a long set of posts arguing back and forth about whether or not my logic and post does or does not seem similar to something a hypothetical anti-vaxxer would say.

When I wrote those words, I had a meaning in mind - I'm sorry that none of it came across for you and I will endeavour to do better.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The problem is they know if they tried to get this enacted as a law they would get laughed out by all sides.

Enacting what as law?

 

[sadhatter]

Ya I can see your point, like really, I do.

But I still think, if acts of violence leading to the Downfall of Society are being considered, this is a micro moment.

I worry more about relations between police and impoverished neighbourhoods - in terms of acts of violence leading to Crumbling of Everything We Hold Dear - these sit in a longer term, ugly trend and lately this has gotten worse.

Even so I have high confidence in the ability of American society to overcome this - it has overcome far worse, including intermittent bouts of large scale riots and an actual Civil War.

Perhaps this is why I am so bemused by the appeals to the Road to Hell sitting around the corner from the punch of a stupid nazi on camera.

Its gonna amount to less than nothing in 5 years, probably 6 months from now this thread will be dead and no one will ever revive it unless Spencer hits the news for some tawdry scandal and people want to relive this amazing moment in Spencer History.

How do you think things become the norm? People do them and other people condone it.

Ilk just do it this one time, nothing will happen. That is addict logic, not sound logic.

At what point would you see a problem? 10 people 1000 people, 1000? Whatever number you want, it all stays with 1.

 

[sadhatter]

Enacting what as law?

What was the point in punching him?

 

[Praktik]

How do you think things become the norm? People do them and other people condone it.

Ilk just do it this one time, nothing will happen. That is addict logic, not sound logic.

At what point would you see a problem? 10 people 1000 people, 1000? Whatever number you want, it all stays with 1.

I guess the question is - are we seeing a "1" that is in a series that will culminate in many more "1s" and eventual crumbling of the rule of law and All We Hold Dear?

Possibly.

or its a "1" in an intermittent series of incidents that exist with many other uncountable incidents that work for/against the Rule of Law and social stability?

Real question is are there enough other things going on so this "1" and whatever causal chain it is a part of won't have the power to overwhelm us and become part of our undoing.

I'm 100% in agreement that violence is wrong and even if I didn't agree with that, the pragmatic game theorist inside me knows this plays into the hands of would be martyrs like Spencer so its foolish.

What i'm wondering is if really there is all that much at stake here, at the end of the day.

Or is this just a proverbial fart in a windstorm

 

[Emily's Cat]

at risk of derail, I see no relation between what I said and what an anti-vaxxer would say - I resent the implication because I think in a thread mocking the-antivax mindset we would find ourselves in amazing agreement on almost everything.

What a bunch of maroons!

Not sure you read that post of mine all that charitably - so maybe let me register this complaint and we can avoid the embarrassment of drawing out a long set of posts arguing back and forth about whether or not my logic and post does or does not seem similar to something a hypothetical anti-vaxxer would say.

When I wrote those words, I had a meaning in mind - I'm sorry that none of it came across for you and I will endeavour to do better.

FWIW, I thought your meaning was clear, and that it was an apt analogy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do you think things become the norm? People do them and other people condone it.

Ilk just do it this one time, nothing will happen. That is addict logic, not sound logic.

At what point would you see a problem? 10 people 1000 people, 1000? Whatever number you want, it all stays with 1.

I think you may have missed his objective. His point was that the first handful of events can bve ignored as having no consequence. Because they're seen as having no consequence, they have a risk of becoming "normalized" - people see that there's no consequence and assume that it is acceptable. But at a certain point (which is fuzzy and can't be defined), he believes that society in general would react to that normalization and slap it back down.

He drew an analogy to vaccinations in OC. The first few parents who declined to vaccinate their children weren't seen as a threat. It wasn't a big deal. But as other parents followed suit, the impact of the anti-vaccination mind-set begins to be felt. At some point (which isn't necessarily a hard number), the herd immunity is at risk and we see outbreaks of measles and whooping cough. {To clarify the analogy, this would be the escalation of violence as a response to speech).

Where I see the analogy failing is that there is still a strong anti-vaccination movement despite outbreaks of 'extinct' illnesses, and the clear threat to herd immunity. This corresponds to NWO Sentryman's concerns with respect to the escalation and normalization of violence in Ireland. The cost may be too high by the time society reacts without prompting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What was the point in punching him?

That they didn't like what he was saying? I'm still confused regarding your point. Are you saying that punching people in response to them saying things you don't like is under consideration as a law? I'm not sure what it is that you think would be enacted as law.