Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[trustbutverify]

Spencer was just kicked out of CPAC

But not literally kicked. Still good.

 

[quadraginta]

But not literally kicked. Still good.

No. Not literally. The end result was much the same though.

He flounced out in a snit after his feelings were hurt because someone accused him of being a leftist, tried to climb on a soapbox at the event door, and was told he wasn't welcome back in and was creating a disturbance, so he needed to go away.

 

[trustbutverify]

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

But predictable. There have been some strange bedfellows, though.

 

[trustbutverify]

No. Not literally. The end result was much the same though.

He flounced out in a snit after his feelings were hurt because someone accused him of being a leftist, tried to climb on a soapbox at the event door, and was told he wasn't welcome back in and was creating a disturbance, so he needed to go away.

Did Spencer have any membership or other official standing in CPAC? If so, was it cancelled?

 

[quadraginta]

Did Spencer have any membership or other official standing in CPAC? If so, was it cancelled?

Beats me. All I've read so far was that they wouldn't let him back in.

Not sure how he got in to begin with.

 

[Checkmite]

Beats me. All I've read so far was that they wouldn't let him back in.

Not sure how he got in to begin with.

General admission ticket, I presume. They did mention something about refunding his ticket price.

 

[trustbutverify]

General admission ticket, I presume. They did mention something about refunding his ticket price.

They did issue him a press pass... hopefully not knowing who he was.

 

[caveman1917]

In addition to the abhorrence of punching someone just because you disagree with them

Oh good, we finally know why he was punched, it was because his puncher "just disagreed with him". Amazing how you got that information, I though the puncher wasn't even identified yet. Could you share with us how you got this information, exactly? Surely you aren't just making random **** up for the good "letting Nazis organize" cause.

the assault of anyone simply weakens any arguments against the speaker

Does it? That's amazing, I though an argument stood on its own merits. The things you learn around here.

after all, they'd say, if you have to resort to violence, you've probably lost the argument.

Who would say that?

In addition, how on earth are we going to know who the unethical are if they aren't allowed to voice their abhorrent views?

Why should they care what you know? Besides, if you find that a problem, there are many ways you could probably help solve it. Such as inviting people to alt-right events, generally helping to spread the message. That'll let people know who the "unethical" are.

I don't care who was punched, punching people in the street for any reason other than defence of self or others is simply unacceptable.

Punching Nazis is self-defence by default.

 

[Belz...]

Punching Nazis is self-defence by default.

Is that your belief system?

How about punching other people you disagree with?

 

[caveman1917]

Is that your belief system?

Yes it is.

How about punching other people you disagree with?

Wut?

 

[Belz...]

Wut?

Well, Nazis, in and of themselves, aren't committing any crime by just being Nazis. The only reason, then, why you think it's ok to punch them is because their ideology is abhorrent to you i.e. you disagree with it strongly. I'm simply wondering if punching people you disagree with is a general tenet of your belief system.

 

[3point14]

Oh good, we finally know why he was punched, it was because his puncher "just disagreed with him". Amazing how you got that information, I though the puncher wasn't even identified yet. Could you share with us how you got this information, exactly? Surely you aren't just making random **** up for the good "letting Nazis organize" cause.

Easy tiger! From what I've seen, it was unprovoked. If I am in error I will gladly back up and admit it. In the video I've seen, there is no provocation. There's no need to go for the full set of asterisks, just point out that I might be mistaken.

Does it? That's amazing, I though an argument stood on its own merits. The things you learn around here.

From a public perception point of view, yes. In terms of a critical thinking outlook, you're correct.

I'm going to interrupt myself here and wonder why I have provoked your ire so with my firm stance against random violence? I am confused by your apparent strength of feeling here.

Who would say that?

Those who support the punched man.1

Why should they care what you know? Besides, if you find that a problem, there are many ways you could probably help solve it. Such as inviting people to alt-right events, generally helping to spread the message. That'll let people know who the "unethical" are.

It's about what we all know. Nobody can garner an accurate impression of anyone else's position if the person is gagged in some way. If there are things they believe but cannot say then one cannot garner a clear impression.

Punching Nazis is self-defence by default.

No, no it isn't. Vigilantism is never the answer. The answer is due process.


Again: Free speech - Not just for those you agree with.


and, again - why so mad at me?

 

[caveman1917]

Easy tiger! From what I've seen, it was unprovoked. If I am in error I will gladly back up and admit it. In the video I've seen, there is no provocation. There's no need to go for the full set of asterisks, just point out that I might be mistaken.

If you just make stuff up then of course you might be mistaken.

I'm going to interrupt myself here and wonder why I have provoked your ire so with my firm stance against random violence? I am confused by your apparent strength of feeling here.

What random violence? How did you determine it was random? Surely you're not just piling making stuff up on making stuff up.

Those who support the punched man.

That would be, by and large, neo-nazis. Your point being?

It's about what we all know. Nobody can garner an accurate impression of anyone else's position if the person is gagged in some way. If there are things they believe but cannot say then one cannot garner a clear impression.

What belief, exactly, has Spencer been unable to say and therefor not allow anybody to garner an accurate impression of his position?

Again: Free speech - Not just for those you agree with.

Again, how did you determine that the reason was "not agreeing with him"? Surely you're not just piling making stuff up on making stuff up on making stuff up.

and, again - why so mad at me?

Defending neo-nazis' right to organize under some misguided "free speech" banner, and piling presumption on presumption to support your case.

 

[Belz...]

Again, how did you determine that the reason was "not agreeing with him"?

Your own words.

Defending neo-nazis' right to organize under some misguided "free speech" banner, and piling presumption on presumption to support your case.

Yeah, free speech is overrated. Better shut down some people's right to it. Problem is, who decides which ideologies are permitted? You?

 

[caveman1917]

Well, Nazis, in and of themselves, aren't committing any crime by just being Nazis. The only reason, then, why you think it's ok to punch them is because their ideology is abhorrent to you i.e. you disagree with it strongly.

This doesn't follow.

 

[Belz...]

This doesn't follow.

Then by all means: why is it OK to punch them? Why do you consider it self-defense to attack people who haven't committed a crime?

 

[caveman1917]

Your own words.

Quote or it didn't happen.

 

[Belz...]

Quote or it didn't happen.

Sure:

Punching Nazis is self-defence by default.

I'll remind you that being a neo-Nazi is not a crime. I eagerly await your explanation as to why it's not just for strongly disagreeing with their ideology.

 

[caveman1917]

Then by all means: why is it OK to punch them?

Because it works.

Why do you consider it self-defense to attack people who haven't committed a crime?

What does this "crime" thing suddenly have to do with anything? The holocaust was legal, therefor it would not be self-defence for someone to attack the people implementing it?

 

[caveman1917]

Sure

That quote doesn't say that Spencer was punched because his puncher didn't agree with him, not in the slightest.

I'll remind you that being a neo-Nazi is not a crime.

You say that like it means something.

I eagerly await your explanation as to why it's not just for strongly disagreeing with their ideology.

Wonder why you're still waiting, it's not like I haven't said so in this very thread multiple times already.