|
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. |
Looking back I'm really surprised no one died from protester-supporter based violence during the campaign. You'd think with all the emotions and all of the incidents someone somewhere would have gotten killed accidentally or murdered.
|
On January 24 2017 03:15 Sermokala wrote:
Looking back I'm really surprised no one died from protester-supporter based violence during the campaign. You'd think with all the emotions and all of the incidents someone somewhere would have gotten killed accidentally or murdered.
Its no surprise.
White kids were present, white women were present, and white celebrities were present. Not just physically (white allies have always been present) but from a marketing perspective.
Police brutality during Woman's March does not sound pleasing to white people the same way Police brutality during Minorities March does. As such, the big guns gets pulled back a lot easier, and cops actually do their jobs of upholding the peace instead of tearing the peaceful to pieces.
|
On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote: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? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off.
Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable.
The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that.
They're literally arguing for spontaneous street violence against unsuspecting victims who are not being violent, and they firmly believe that they're good people. Yet since they're literally advocating for street violence *NOW*, they're more deserving of getting decked in the face themselves than Spencer is.
|
On January 24 2017 03:15 Sermokala wrote:
Looking back I'm really surprised no one died from protester-supporter based violence during the campaign. You'd think with all the emotions and all of the incidents someone somewhere would have gotten killed accidentally or murdered.
That's because the violence is typically a very small percent of the actual demonstrations.
|
On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote: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? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that.
The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space.
People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens.
|
Its simple:
"Free speech" vs the feeling the person(s) your talking to.
Nah, violence isn't good but... well... sometimes hitting soneone is the only decent response (i did this exactly once in 20 years of adulthood and boy, its staggering how i don't regret it to this day).
Edit: if they just walked up to him and attacked they are obv. Retards.
|
On January 24 2017 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote: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? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that. The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space. People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens.
It seems you mistake me for someone with a "side" in this particular issue. I don't give a shit that individuals get attacked really, the fact that people feel it's justified, whether it's on the "right" or the "left" doesn't change anything. You don't attack nazis and you don't attack whacky berniebros.
But the circlejerks about how it's "fine" to attack non-violent people because they "deserve it" are fucked in the head.
|
|
|
On January 24 2017 03:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote: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? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that. The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space. People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens. It seems you mistake me for someone with a "side" in this particular issue. I don't give a shit that individuals get attacked really, the fact that people feel it's justified, whether it's on the "right" or the "left" doesn't change anything. You don't attack nazis and you don't attack whacky berniebros. But the circlejerks about how it's "fine" to attack non-violent people because they "deserve it" are fucked in the head.
There has not been a single "circle jerk"-like post regarding the propriety of violence in the face of those who advocate genocide in this thread; in fact, the back and forth on it between those who eschew any and all forms of violence versus those who think otherwise has been one of the cleaner conversations in memory. Accordingly, your "I don't have a side but one side is fucked in the head, stop jerking each other off" bit seems entirely off-base, particularly given how little you've contributed to the at-times far more heated debates we've been having these past two weeks.
|
On January 24 2017 02:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 02:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 24 2017 02:30 Sermokala wrote:
If he had been killed by the punch or the fall after the punch he would have been made into a martyr for nazies and we would never hear the end of it. The fact that people would advocate any sort of violence to combat different viewpoints no matter how abborant is shameful.
You can't stay on the moral high ground of equality and tolerance if you advocate for descrimination and intimidation. I dont think anyone here is advocating for either of those things. I don't even know why the conversation has gone on for as long as it has. Both sides agree that it shouldn't have happened. Some people just tried elaborating on the motivation of the person who threw the punch, and others took that as condoning violence, which it clearly isn't. People are advocating for punching nazies and saying that it was okay that the guy was punched. The fact that its okay to them because of his beliefs is discrimination and the violence they feel is appropriate because of his beliefs is intimidation. I would read the last couple pages again if you don't think people are arguing that it should have happened or not. There was even a gun control joke.
I went back and re-read and I couldn't find anyone condoning the punch beyond calling it a funny but inappropriate action.
^ same as above...
The only thing that has been discussed is the fact that its no surprise that someone lashed out against his highly charged speech and personality, not that its ok, or that its good. Not everyone has self control and if you go into a group that doesn't agree with your views then you should be ready for some form of retaliation. if its a group of well mannered people it will be in the form of a yelling match. If it is a rowdy crowd then it will likely be much more than that. .
|
So it seems only the right wing press will be getting called on in Press Conferences from now on.
|
There is also a distinct difference between Team Liquid Poster A thinking that it's alright to punch nazis and it actually being legal to punch nazis.
Should the guy be prosecuted for assault? That's up to Spencer, but if I were him I totally would for that sucker punch. It shouldn't be legal to assault people, even nazis. But we are perfectly within our rights to say on the internet we think he deserved it, and that guy may have punched him expecting to be arrested. That would be his own form of violent protest.
And I question the assertion that he is "non-violent." Just because he may have never raised his own hand to strike someone else does not make his movement any less dangerous.
|
On January 24 2017 03:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:34 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 24 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote:On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 23 2017 14:56 Djzapz wrote: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? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. Well, it's arguably a politically motivated assault on a person, I don't know that it bears as little weight as a bar fight. Also bullshitting is not a "punchable offense", so I don't understand why you bring that up. In any case it's not acceptable. The lack of a movement to punch Spencer is true enough, but if you were to read on social medias you'd quickly find a lot of people who literally say "you should always punch nazis" and attacking nazis is always fine and acceptable. Some will add that you should seek them out and attack them. When confronted, the double down and say that yes, street violence IS fine provided the people you attack are vile enough. They see no irony in that. The same thing happened when people got hospitalized during Trump gatherings during the campaign. All my conservative friends would then post non-stop about how they deserved it, how the victims of assault had it coming, and that they should go back to their safe space. People get riled up and violent during these types of events (same with sports, bars, etc...) and when you have someone come in saying or representing a topic, idea, or ideal that angers that crowd--then violence happens. It seems you mistake me for someone with a "side" in this particular issue. I don't give a shit that individuals get attacked really, the fact that people feel it's justified, whether it's on the "right" or the "left" doesn't change anything. You don't attack nazis and you don't attack whacky berniebros. But the circlejerks about how it's "fine" to attack non-violent people because they "deserve it" are fucked in the head. There has not been a single "circle jerk"-like post regarding the propriety of violence in the face of those who advocate genocide in this thread; in fact, the back and forth on it between those who eschew any and all forms of violence versus those who think otherwise has been one of the cleaner conversations in memory. Accordingly, your "I don't have a side but one side is fucked in the head, stop jerking each other off" bit seems entirely off-base, particularly given how little you've contributed to the at-times far more heated debates we've been having these past two weeks.
I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't been on this thread in the last two weeks, and my criticism of the circlejerks that I've seen are not shit I've seen on here, I was not at all criticizing the people of TL.
Not sure what you're going on about.
I want to stress the point that the notion that I've contributed "little" in the "more heated" discussions is quite an understatement as, as I've said, I've been completely absent. So what the fuck are you talking about Farva?
On January 24 2017 04:00 ZasZ. wrote:
There is also a distinct difference between Team Liquid Poster A thinking that it's alright to punch nazis and it actually being legal to punch nazis.
Should the guy be prosecuted for assault? That's up to Spencer, but if I were him I totally would for that sucker punch. It shouldn't be legal to assault people, even nazis. But we are perfectly within our rights to say on the internet we think he deserved it, and that guy may have punched him expecting to be arrested. That would be his own form of violent protest.
And I question the assertion that he is "non-violent." Just because he may have never raised his own hand to strike someone else does not make his movement any less dangerous.
How do we determine that a movement is dangerous though? Does it cause harm to people? Not right now. Previously I made the argument, as a pro-choice guy myself, that someone could be of the belief that abortions are "dangerous" and "violent" because it's the act, as they might argue, of "killing a baby". So if we label people presenting a "violent ideology" but not acting upon it as violent people whom perhaps we can physically attack and not be morally reprehensible for doing so, who draws the line? Who decides...
|
On January 24 2017 03:57 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 02:59 Sermokala wrote:On January 24 2017 02:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 24 2017 02:30 Sermokala wrote:
If he had been killed by the punch or the fall after the punch he would have been made into a martyr for nazies and we would never hear the end of it. The fact that people would advocate any sort of violence to combat different viewpoints no matter how abborant is shameful.
You can't stay on the moral high ground of equality and tolerance if you advocate for descrimination and intimidation. I dont think anyone here is advocating for either of those things. I don't even know why the conversation has gone on for as long as it has. Both sides agree that it shouldn't have happened. Some people just tried elaborating on the motivation of the person who threw the punch, and others took that as condoning violence, which it clearly isn't. People are advocating for punching nazies and saying that it was okay that the guy was punched. The fact that its okay to them because of his beliefs is discrimination and the violence they feel is appropriate because of his beliefs is intimidation. I would read the last couple pages again if you don't think people are arguing that it should have happened or not. There was even a gun control joke. I went back and re-read and I couldn't find anyone condoning the punch beyond calling it a funny but inappropriate action.
He's talking about social media. And I definitely have my fair share of friends posting the Captain America #1 cover of him punching Hitler many times the past day or so. Reddit has also mad a now popular gif of the event.
My conservative friends did similar things when people got punched or attacked in Trump rallies. And the constant "motorbikers for trump" constantly telling folks that they are ready for physical altercations does not mitigate the violence narrative either.
My personal take on the matter is that when pushed, people will do violent things. And that is true for either side. The left has been having a moral high ground debate with an opponent who gets excited about marching around town with rifles in full display; at some point, a liberal is going to get sick and tired of taking the high road and might, to a specifically loud nazi, just punch him.
|
On January 24 2017 04:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:57 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 24 2017 02:59 Sermokala wrote:On January 24 2017 02:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 24 2017 02:30 Sermokala wrote:
If he had been killed by the punch or the fall after the punch he would have been made into a martyr for nazies and we would never hear the end of it. The fact that people would advocate any sort of violence to combat different viewpoints no matter how abborant is shameful.
You can't stay on the moral high ground of equality and tolerance if you advocate for descrimination and intimidation. I dont think anyone here is advocating for either of those things. I don't even know why the conversation has gone on for as long as it has. Both sides agree that it shouldn't have happened. Some people just tried elaborating on the motivation of the person who threw the punch, and others took that as condoning violence, which it clearly isn't. People are advocating for punching nazies and saying that it was okay that the guy was punched. The fact that its okay to them because of his beliefs is discrimination and the violence they feel is appropriate because of his beliefs is intimidation. I would read the last couple pages again if you don't think people are arguing that it should have happened or not. There was even a gun control joke. I went back and re-read and I couldn't find anyone condoning the punch beyond calling it a funny but inappropriate action. He's talking about social media. And I definitely have my fair share of friends posting the Captain America #1 cover of him punching Hitler many times the past day or so. Reddit has also mad a now popular gif of the event. My conservative friends did similar things when people got punched or attacked in Trump rallies. And the constant "motorbikers for trump" constantly telling folks that they are ready for physical altercations does not mitigate the violence narrative either. My personal take on the matter is that when pushed, people will do violent things. And that is true for either side. The left has been having a moral high ground debate with an opponent who gets excited about marching around town with rifles in full display; at some point, a liberal is going to get sick and tired of taking the high road and might, to a specifically loud nazi, just punch him.
Oh, well that wasnt clear to me from his original post and his follow up to my post made that even less clear. If he was in fact referring to places outside of TL then hell yes I agree, but that has been happening on both sides since the dawn of time and I doubt it will ever stop.
|
President Donald Trump reinstated an executive order Monday barring US foreign aid from going to any non-governmental organization (NGO) that either provides abortion services, or even discusses abortion with its patients as an option for family planning.
...
“Trump’s global gag rule will obstruct and destroy the work of health care providers who are often women’s main — and sometimes only — source for reproductive health care, and their entry point for receiving a wide range of primary health care services,” said Suzanne Ehlers, president and CEO of PAI, in a statement.
...
The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of their services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017-2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.
Source
|
ah yes, the old back and forth on that abortion rule. I'm sure no consideration was given to the minor national security implications.
|
Whatever side you are on politically this man is an embarrassment:
|
He refuses to say what the unemployment rate Trump is starting with. Already getting the excuses ready for when it is higher 4 years from now than it is today.
|
Mexico's economy minister said his country was ready to renegotiate trade rules with the United States and that any change in U.S. tax policy that affected imports would have to be countered with a "mirror action" in Mexico.
U.S. President Donald Trump told a meeting with U.S. executives on Monday that companies would face a "major border tax" if they shifted jobs outside the United States. Such a measure could affect Mexico's exports to the United States, its top trading partner.
"If there is any action that punishes imports to the North American market and encourages U.S. exports, you have to reflect it in a mirror action to counteract the change of incentives that this would make for activity and investment in Mexico," Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said in an interview in the newspaper El Universal on Monday.
Trump said on Sunday he planned talks soon with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to begin renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He was expected to issue an executive order to start the process as early as Monday, NBC News reported, citing an unidentified White House official.
Guajardo said Mexico was ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump, but it was not possible to detail what Mexico would seek in the talks until Trump's administration had made its own plans clear.
"The dialogue has not yet begun, we cannot get ahead of ourselves," he said.
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who is facing a deep slump in popularity, is set to meet Trump on Jan. 31 following meetings between senior officials of both administrations in Washington this week.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
