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.
Which leads me to believe that you're still just looking for what you want to see. As far as you seem to be concerned, white supremacist = Nazi.
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.
Hmm? He has been condemned, a bunch of times there. The main point directly in contention here is whether we should keep our condemnations reasonable and well supported, though, it seems. Also no, ethnic cleansing in general and genocide are not equally condemnable, at last check, and rather points at you continuing to try to grasp at straws.
You're missing the point. Spencer is a Nazi. Hence, he's as bad as the Nazis.
Meanwhile, it seems that you've quite failed to demonstrate that the claim, "Spencer is a Nazi," is actually true. Rather, you seem to just be repeatedly asserting it with incredibly flimsy evidence and hoping that bluster will make up for the inadequacy there. You do realize, I hope, that you're pretty much forcing people to take up the annoying task of defending someone that they don't really like for the sake of upholding their ideals of and desire for reasonable and rational discourse.
No, I'm not. I'm the one who wants to defend democracy against someone who's political goal is to destroy it.
You seem to be lacking in positive evidence for either of those claims. I can believe that you believe that you're trying to do so, but even if so, you seem to be horribly misguided when it comes to methodology.
In Sweden, Spencer would have been prosecuted for hate speech by now, so you can speak for yourself there.
And? Engaging in notably lesser forms of hate speech than the Nazis engaged in is not the same as being a Nazi. We can ignore actions, of course, given that Spencer's not in a position where his actions can be meaningfully compared to theirs. Also, employing or advocating legal action is not the same as employing or advocating vigilante/criminal action. How, exactly, do you think that the quoted here would be a meaningful argument to address any of the objections to your claims?
The slippery slope in that thread was created by the people who said that punching a Nazi would lead to civil war.
Misrepresenting what people actually said wins you no points.
