|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 14:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:45 Djzapz wrote:
I'm sure this was discussed here before but that mad cunt Richard Spencer got punched in the face and I can't help to find that pretty amusing on an emotional level, but it fucking blows my mind to see how many people condone it and reason out why it's fine to punch a white supremacist who doesn't incite violence.
People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
Then there's the overtly ridiculous quote "When you frame nazis as just people with different political views, you are legitimizing genocide as a political position." It seems to me like genocide is a political position, it's the shittiest one of them all but it's a political position nonetheless, and so long as you're not calling for it to take place it seems to me like it's an expression that should be allowed to be expressed. And if it's hate speech (I'm not a fucking lawyer) then sue him don't fucking punch him. I'm not surprised that guy who wrote about whether we should eliminate the African American races gets punched in the face when he goes outside. And that point, you're just asking to get punched. If his opinions were dressed so provocatively then maybe his face would be safe--can't blame the lower class from reacting on instinct. I'm definitely not surprised and I'm not going to shed a tear, I looked at the video and it felt nice. But it's increasingly clear to me that the "regressive left" has no respect for the tenets of shit like the first amendment. "I can punch a nazi because I find his ideology distasteful. He can't punch me because my ideology is good." What if I think I should be able to punch you because you abort babies and I think killing babies is more disgusting than genocide? That's a retarded thing to think but why the fuck do these people think they get to draw the line? They're so incredibly delusional.
because most people don't have that much training in ethics, and overestimate their ability to make the correct decisions. and the less they know, they more they think they know what they're doing.
|
On January 23 2017 15:03 mustaju wrote:
I agree with djzapz that violence (unless used in self-defence) against Spencer is not justified. It might feel good, but all it does is make him a martyr.
the United States as a nation aren't exactly intolerant towards vigilantism, in fact American culture is pretty full of it. I'm somewhat surprised that the legalism kicks in when a legitimate nazi gets knocked down.
I also heavily disagree that this is ineffective. These people really thrive on their machismo and superiority image. Footage like this is probably really humiliating to them.
I think the larger point here is that the American state has no immune system to counter extremism. In most other nations you have hate speech laws. (which effectively is a threat of state violence, should they ignore them), that would have shut this guy up a long time ago. In the US there simply exists nothing like this.
Before someone is going to make the argument that this is all speech and has no effect on the real world, I still remember the Sarah Palin crosshair map and the aftermath.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 23 2017 15:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 15:03 mustaju wrote:
I agree with djzapz that violence (unless used in self-defence) against Spencer is not justified. It might feel good, but all it does is make him a martyr. the United States as a nation aren't exactly intolerant towards vigilantism, in fact American culture is pretty full of it. I'm somewhat surprised that the legalism kicks in when a legitimate nazi gets knocked down. I also heavily disagree that this is ineffective. These people really thrive on their machismo and superiority image. Footage like this is probably really humiliating to them. I think the larger point here is that the American state has no immune system to counter extremism. In most other nations you have hate speech laws. (which effectively is a threat of state violence, should they ignore them), that would have shut this guy up a long time ago. In the US there simply exists nothing like this. Before someone is going to make the argument that this is all speech and has no effect on the real world, I still remember the Sarah Palin crosshair map and the aftermath.
I was not aware of the lack of hate speech laws. Still, vigilantism worries me, especially if it is used as a political tool. It feeds into their narrative and reduces the potency of moral arguments. Furthermore, his response was that they might need to start actively defending them selves, and that can easily turn ugly.
|
If somebody punched me, can I pull out my gun and kill him?
|
On January 23 2017 16:14 riotjune wrote:
If somebody punched me, can I pull out my gun and kill him?
Pretty sure in the USA you are a hero if you do that lol
User was warned for this post
|
On January 23 2017 11:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 11:02 mustaju wrote:@Igne - Very interesting perspective, I have to say, and it certanly addresses a lot of concerns a lot of people are having. Here are my thoughts on some of the subjects, and some of my developments. I think your argument references the philosophical concept of Eternal Recurrence, but I do think that Eternal Recurrence is an oversimplification by the virtue of a modern perspective. An interesting case study is that the first parallel people had with Lenin and Hitler during their emergence was Napoleon, and comparing these figures might create parallels, but some quite clear differences from a later observers view. That is not to say that people don't study historical movements and develop them for their own purposes. The current post Truth environment most reminds me of the concept of the Big Lie Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. This I think has been coupled with post-modernist thought exercises about the limits of perception of objective truth as well as an unhealthy dose of moral relativism. Where moral relativism can be used to be a point for reflection and debate, it has been morphed into a nonconstructive partisanship tool. There are lots of Foreign Policy articles about Putin's use of it in Russia, and internet trolls are a very effective symptom of it. (The FP articles are behind a paywall, but this Atlantic piece is also worth a read) As for Clausewitz's assertion that politics is war through other means, it presupposes that power distribution is a zero sum game. Considering that Clausewitz was a general living in the 19th century, his view points are clearly not invalid, but somewhat influenced by his circumstances. Democracies were designed to be more flexible and responsive than Monarchies, and Liberal Democracies were made to be resistant to short-sighted mob rule. Arguably, they are a victim of their own success, since successful strategies are just not reformed all that often. However, the problems you mentioned are in my opinion still best addressed in a Fukuyamaesque democratic format, and the current crisis has created better conditions for slow methodical and structural change rather than a revolutionary creative destruction format. As a species, we don't have much room to mess up, and neo-authoritarianism uses might be by far the most effective in information manipulation, but it has created conditions where it's own reforms of capitalism would be incredibly difficult to carry out, because it relies on a system of entrenched capitalist elites everywhere. TLDR: Let's learn from history, but let's not use 19th century solutions for 21-st century problems. firstly i obviously think trump was a mistake. i don't want to be misinterpreted as thinking that trump is a progression. i appreciate your points and i think the concept of The Big Lie has a lot going for it as an interpretative tool in this environment, at least as long as you bear in mind that it is an inherently political tool. i also should state that i think liberal democracy has a lot going for it in comparison to 19th century forms of government. but i think you are making a fundamental error in the logical leap that because liberal democracy is in many ways better that it has eliminated the undercurrent of war that constantly churns under a lawful peace. you could look at another essay by Benjamin on divine violence where he makes the case that law-giving is always an act of violence. Benjamin and Foucault complement each other on this point. one of liberal democracy's greatest tricks is producing this illusion through its erasure of marginalized people. this is the invisible ideology that everyone who grew up after WW2 breathes without knowing it.
You call it an illusion, I call it reality. Life on the margins has gotten consistently better throughout the last 70 years. Margins will, of course, exist forever. But it isn't even a close comparison. Being a poor African is better today than it was in the 50s, and the same for being a poor minority in the US.
That's not to say the number of disgruntled people who feel marginalized has diminished, but that's because feeling marginalized is subjective, whereas whether you have a home, enough food and relatively few diseases that kill your babies is an absolute measure of how shitty people have it.
|
On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 14:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:45 Djzapz wrote:
I'm sure this was discussed here before but that mad cunt Richard Spencer got punched in the face and I can't help to find that pretty amusing on an emotional level, but it fucking blows my mind to see how many people condone it and reason out why it's fine to punch a white supremacist who doesn't incite violence.
People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
Then there's the overtly ridiculous quote "When you frame nazis as just people with different political views, you are legitimizing genocide as a political position." It seems to me like genocide is a political position, it's the shittiest one of them all but it's a political position nonetheless, and so long as you're not calling for it to take place it seems to me like it's an expression that should be allowed to be expressed. And if it's hate speech (I'm not a fucking lawyer) then sue him don't fucking punch him. I'm not surprised that guy who wrote about whether we should eliminate the African American races gets punched in the face when he goes outside. And that point, you're just asking to get punched. If his opinions were dressed so provocatively then maybe his face would be safe--can't blame the lower class from reacting on instinct. I'm definitely not surprised and I'm not going to shed a tear, I looked at the video and it felt nice. But it's increasingly clear to me that the "regressive left" has no respect for the tenets of shit like the first amendment. "I can punch a nazi because I find his ideology distasteful. He can't punch me because my ideology is good." What if I think I should be able to punch you because you abort babies and I think killing babies is more disgusting than genocide? That's a retarded thing to think but why the fuck do these people think they get to draw the line? They're so incredibly delusional.
If his most recent article says:
"Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.
Then would it be safe to say that people responding to his words be acting in self defense? Especially when his speech is literally asking to wipe out a race?
Especially since it's written in an article that suggests whites are currently victims of genocide and that they should respond in kind to blacks?
Let's look at the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Looking at those words, were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?
|
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right.
|
His first amendment right to freedom of speech was obviously not violated just because he got assaulted by a random guy. Congress/ the federal government isn't part of the assault scenario. He got assaulted and what the assaulter did is illegal; if he were found, he'd be arrested. And he should be. But as far as whether or not people agree morally with punching a Nazi in the mouth... well, let's just say that both Captain America and Indiana Jones did it too, and surely people shouldn't be surprised that he was punched. I'd rather have a dialogue with the guy than punch him, but not everyone can control their anger against incendiary, toxic people. Also, his hate wasn't directed at me, so it's harder for me to relate to the kind of anger felt by those who are targeted, systemically oppressed, and constantly viewed as inferior.
|
You change a few superficial things and a lot of the people defending him would be calling to lock him up and waterboard him.
The guy's a terrible human being and someone punched him. It's called a Saturday. I don't care much whether it was "right".
Paid government enforcers are out here systemically abusing people and their rights, A wannabe Nazi getting punched and the guy getting away is about as important of a moral question as what to do with holey socks imo.
|
On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right.
While I, in general, am opposed to violence, in specific cases I can see valid justifications. In particular hate speech, I would argue, is equivalent to, and sometimes worse than physical assault. If enough people start believing hate speech, whole groups get excluded for no reason other than their skin color, descendancy or sexual preference. So is it better or worse to run a campaign that advocates social exclusion of all gays, or to beat a single gay guy (with as sole reason because he's gay). What about someone advocating violence against gays? And if you were a gay person hearing someone spew vitriolic speech at you, would you not want to make him stop, possibly by punching him in the face?
And if you think gays are a bad example, substitute blacks, jews or women for them in the example.
|
On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right.
A guy who professionally insults people getting punched is simply him getting what he's asking for. Much the same reason thatif you went into a bar yelling out "let's kill black people" that there is a high chance you'll get socked in the face.
It does not change the dialogue, but do you really think Spencer cares about making dialogue? Do you really think he cares and has power to do anything other than insult people?
He's just a loud tool attacking people who went outside and got punched for the words he said. Does that mean that I would punch someone myself? No--but can't say I'm surprised that Spencer got punched.
|
Only because his views are obviously deplorable. The moral question isn't really about if a nazi gets punched did he just get what was coming to him. I think the real question is what I stated in my previous post, and some people have already confirmed my suspicions. Are views someone holds, or even statements they make, the same as a physical threat. Some are arguing that it can be, and that 'self-defence' can be justified. Now, you won't find many people defending Spencer, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with a scenario where someone who says something much milder than anything Spencer says gets punched with similar justification.
edit:
On January 23 2017 20:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right. A guy who professionally insults people getting punched is simply him getting what he's asking for. Much the same reason thatif you went into a bar yelling out "let's kill black people" that there is a high chance you'll get socked in the face. It does not change the dialogue, but do you really think Spencer cares about making dialogue? Do you really think he cares and has power to do anything other than insult people? He's just a loud tool attacking people who went outside and got punched for the words he said. Does that mean that I would punch someone myself? No--but can't say I'm surprised that Spencer got punched.
It isn't surprising, I even explicitly said it wasn't at all surprising. What I care about is the conflation of words with action, with the belief that someone holding some insane and disgusting view is the same as them physically threatening you and thus you punching them being justified.
Do you really think that the person who punched him was acting in self defense? Was him yelling out on a street corner putting anyone in immediate physical danger? Of course not.
|
On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right.
Sums it up.
Are homosexuals allowed to punch radicals muslims?
*We are extremely tolerant as long as you don't disagree with us*
|
Y'all are missing the point; punching a nazi illegally is entirely the point of the act. As is the case with most legitimate acts of civil disobedience, one must suffer the public and legal consequences in order for the act to serve as an appropriate gesture of opposition. Should punching a nazi be legal? Nah, but again, if you're looking at the legal contours of freedom of speech here, you're focusing on the wrong thing.
|
On January 23 2017 20:49 Kickstart wrote:Only because his views are obviously deplorable. The moral question isn't really about if a nazi gets punched did he just get what was coming to him. I think the real question is what I stated in my previous post, and some people have already confirmed my suspicions. Are views someone holds, or even statements they make, the same as a physical threat. Some are arguing that it can be, and that 'self-defence' can be justified. Now, you won't find many people defending Spencer, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with a scenario where someone who says something much milder than anything Spencer says gets punched with similar justification. edit: Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 20:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right. A guy who professionally insults people getting punched is simply him getting what he's asking for. Much the same reason thatif you went into a bar yelling out "let's kill black people" that there is a high chance you'll get socked in the face. It does not change the dialogue, but do you really think Spencer cares about making dialogue? Do you really think he cares and has power to do anything other than insult people? He's just a loud tool attacking people who went outside and got punched for the words he said. Does that mean that I would punch someone myself? No--but can't say I'm surprised that Spencer got punched. It isn't surprising, I even explicitly said it wasn't at all surprising. What I care about is the conflation of words with action, with the belief that someone holding some insane and disgusting view is the same as them physically threatening you and thus you punching them being justified. Do you really think that the person who punched him was acting in self defense? Was him yelling out on a street corner putting anyone in immediate physical danger? Of course not.
A known hate speech author shows up to an anti-hate speech assembly to continue to verbally publicly attack the people who surround him and suddenly getting punched for it is not something surprising. Much like if he had walked into a bar and started telling everyone there that drunks are awful people--he would also get punched there.
If he had gone to a hate rally amongst fellow conservatives, I'm sure he'd had gotten a blowjob.
The audience you surround yourself in while you make your speeches matter; depending on the type of response you are seeking.
|
The only reason this scenario is even somewhat complex is because of how disturbing his views are. We could endlessly get bogged down in things like "At what point, if ever, is it justified to assault (or something worse) a nazi". My point is that viewing this incident as a "legitimate act of civil disobedience" is itself problematic. Is it legitimate to physically assault a nutty street preacher? Is it a legitimate act of civil disobedience to attack someone who calls you a faggot or a nigger? What about someone who wears a shirt that has either of those printed on it?
edit:
On January 23 2017 21:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 20:49 Kickstart wrote:Only because his views are obviously deplorable. The moral question isn't really about if a nazi gets punched did he just get what was coming to him. I think the real question is what I stated in my previous post, and some people have already confirmed my suspicions. Are views someone holds, or even statements they make, the same as a physical threat. Some are arguing that it can be, and that 'self-defence' can be justified. Now, you won't find many people defending Spencer, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with a scenario where someone who says something much milder than anything Spencer says gets punched with similar justification. edit: On January 23 2017 20:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right. A guy who professionally insults people getting punched is simply him getting what he's asking for. Much the same reason thatif you went into a bar yelling out "let's kill black people" that there is a high chance you'll get socked in the face. It does not change the dialogue, but do you really think Spencer cares about making dialogue? Do you really think he cares and has power to do anything other than insult people? He's just a loud tool attacking people who went outside and got punched for the words he said. Does that mean that I would punch someone myself? No--but can't say I'm surprised that Spencer got punched. It isn't surprising, I even explicitly said it wasn't at all surprising. What I care about is the conflation of words with action, with the belief that someone holding some insane and disgusting view is the same as them physically threatening you and thus you punching them being justified. Do you really think that the person who punched him was acting in self defense? Was him yelling out on a street corner putting anyone in immediate physical danger? Of course not. A known hate speech author shows up to an anti-hate speech assembly to continue to verbally publicly attack the people who surround him and suddenly getting punched for it is not something surprising. Much like if he had walked into a bar and started telling everyone there that drunks are awful people--he would also get punched there. If he had gone to a hate rally amongst fellow conservatives, I'm sure he'd had gotten a blowjob. The audience you surround yourself in while you make your speeches matter; depending on the type of response you are seeking.
You are talking past me instead of addressing what I am saying. This is the third time I am saying it is not surprising. Maybe a more direct question to you would make my position clearer:
Was the punch in your mind justified or not?
|
Is it legal to punch him in the face? No and the police should do their job and try to find him and punish him accordingly.
Would the US be better off with some hate speech laws so people like him could be legally prosecuted for advocating genocide? Hell yes.
|
If you wanna send a message and punch a street preacher and get arrested, then that's fine, that is your prerogative. However, it won't send the same message as punching a nazi, and no, endlessly begging the question with hypotheticals doesn't change that. Looking for a "justification" signals your negative reception of the message sent by the man who punched Spencer, which is not surprising given the range of figures you believe comparable. However, there is no essential thing called "justification" that turns a supposedly wrongful act into a rightful one, the term is instead a placeholder for the reconciliation of the various representative values and moral calculations being made in public space. Accordingly, it'd probably save everyone a lot of time if you just said "I don't like what he did and I think it was wrong" and leave it at that.
|
On January 23 2017 21:10 Kickstart wrote:The only reason this scenario is even somewhat complex is because of how disturbing his views are. We could endlessly get bogged down in things like "At what point, if ever, is it justified to assault (or something worse) a nazi". My point is that viewing this incident as a "legitimate act of civil disobedience" is itself problematic. Is it legitimate to physically assault a nutty street preacher? Is it a legitimate act of civil disobedience to attack someone who calls you a faggot or a nigger? What about someone who wears a shirt that has either of those printed on it? edit: Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 21:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 20:49 Kickstart wrote:Only because his views are obviously deplorable. The moral question isn't really about if a nazi gets punched did he just get what was coming to him. I think the real question is what I stated in my previous post, and some people have already confirmed my suspicions. Are views someone holds, or even statements they make, the same as a physical threat. Some are arguing that it can be, and that 'self-defence' can be justified. Now, you won't find many people defending Spencer, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with a scenario where someone who says something much milder than anything Spencer says gets punched with similar justification. edit: On January 23 2017 20:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 20:25 Kickstart wrote:
Punching someone you disagree with is never justified. For some time now people have been playing this game of claiming that certain speech is equivalent to physical assault. This is of course absurd, but its been pushed so much that now a not insignificant number of people seem to think it is fine to punch a far right nutcase for holding nutty views.
Your feelings being hurt is not the same as you being physically assaulted. You don't get to say 'he hurt my feelings so me punching him is justified'. Doesn't matter if its some pr hungry white nationalist or some random person wearing a MAGA hat.
It's just childish, and while I don't have any sympathy for a cowardly racist who happened to get punched, it still wasn't right. A guy who professionally insults people getting punched is simply him getting what he's asking for. Much the same reason thatif you went into a bar yelling out "let's kill black people" that there is a high chance you'll get socked in the face. It does not change the dialogue, but do you really think Spencer cares about making dialogue? Do you really think he cares and has power to do anything other than insult people? He's just a loud tool attacking people who went outside and got punched for the words he said. Does that mean that I would punch someone myself? No--but can't say I'm surprised that Spencer got punched. It isn't surprising, I even explicitly said it wasn't at all surprising. What I care about is the conflation of words with action, with the belief that someone holding some insane and disgusting view is the same as them physically threatening you and thus you punching them being justified. Do you really think that the person who punched him was acting in self defense? Was him yelling out on a street corner putting anyone in immediate physical danger? Of course not. A known hate speech author shows up to an anti-hate speech assembly to continue to verbally publicly attack the people who surround him and suddenly getting punched for it is not something surprising. Much like if he had walked into a bar and started telling everyone there that drunks are awful people--he would also get punched there. If he had gone to a hate rally amongst fellow conservatives, I'm sure he'd had gotten a blowjob. The audience you surround yourself in while you make your speeches matter; depending on the type of response you are seeking. You are talking past me instead of addressing what I am saying. This is the third time I am saying it is not surprising. Maybe a more direct question to you would make my position clearer: Was the punch in your mind justified or not?
I am not talking past you. I am telling you that the events that transpired is normal.
If I walked into a Klan meeting, talked about how awesome blacks and gays are, and got punched. The first thing the police will ask me is "why did you praise black people in the middle of a clan meeting? That's just instigating violence."
Now we have a klan supporter walking into a protest against klan supporters and klan supported--and he got punched for it.
You keep wanting to make this discussion about whether or not we feel justified in punching a person none of us in this thread actually punched. That is not the realities of the situation. The realities of the situation is that if you go into a crowed of people who are there specifically because of people like you, and you start spouting off about the things that crowed is protesting against--then you should expect to be punched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
