Far-right activist Richard Spencer is punched on camera while being interviewed - General

Just treating them as ideological differences or "someone's opinion" is the first step to it being accepted, though. Its language that normalizes. "Someone's opinion" is a phrase that people use in more contemporary debates; Christianity vs. Atheism, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. Belief in ethnic cleansing or belief that people whose skin is different are a different species is ethically and scientifically wrong - and therefore it does not deserve to be imbued as much value as other, more logical mainstream ideologies do.

[QUOTE=drafting;51715534]Just treating them as ideological differences or "someone's opinion" is the first step to it being accepted, though. Its language that normalizes. "Someone's opinion" is a phrase that people use in more contemporary debates; Christianity vs. Atheism, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. Belief in ethnic cleansing or belief that people whose skin is different are a different species is ethically and scientifically wrong - and therefore it does not deserve to be imbued as much value as other, more logical mainstream ideologies do.[/QUOTE] I dont necessarily think anyones arguing that they're in any way justified or right in their opinions, or should even be given the time of day. Just, y'know. You dont need to commit assault and battery to tell someone to fuck off.

[QUOTE=drafting;51715534]Just treating them as ideological differences or "someone's opinion" is the first step to it being accepted, though. Its language that normalizes. "Someone's opinion" is a phrase that people use in more contemporary debates; Christianity vs. Atheism, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. Belief in ethnic cleansing or belief that people whose skin is different are a different species is ethically and scientifically wrong - and therefore it does not deserve to be imbued as much value as other, more logical mainstream ideologies do.[/QUOTE] Just because an opinion is scientifically wrong does not make it not an opinion, I could argue that flat earthers and theists alike lack scientific backing, yet their beliefs are their opinions still. And ethics is entirely subjective in the first place, what we consider "true" ethics is our [U]collective opinion[/U] of right and wrong.

[QUOTE=RB33;51714318]If you're gonna go after nazis and make them the exception to the law, allowing you to punch them and so on. You're gonna weaken the system you're trying to defend. Democracy and rule of law. [/QUOTE] Honestly one of my favorite movie scenes. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk[/media]

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51715264]Way to miss the point. The Nazis came to power through the "proper channels", legally. They told the populace that they would make the country better and blamed the jews and other non-German ethnic groups for the problems the country were having. Where did I say it was inevitable? All I'm saying is that giving them a platform is opening up the possibility of a repeat of the events that led to them siezing power, and that denying that possibility from existing is clearly better than taking a chance on the future.[/QUOTE] No, the Nazis came to power through an overzealous treaty of versailles creating the perfect climate for such rhetoric to thrive. It has nothing to do with "proper channels". It's not about who speaks, but who listens. Content people have no need or want of such rhetoric, but for angry divided people with unaddressed needs - it's music to their ears. Keep making this mistake at your own peril, as otherwise history is doomed to repeat itself.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51715264]Way to miss the point. The Nazis came to power through the "proper channels", legally. They told the populace that they would make the country better and blamed the jews and other non-German ethnic groups for the problems the country were having. Where did I say it was inevitable? All I'm saying is that giving them a platform is opening up the possibility of a repeat of the events that led to them siezing power, and that denying that possibility from existing is clearly better than taking a chance on the future.[/QUOTE] Okay so you think that allowing nazis to use "proper channels" is "opening a possibility" of fascism taking over but you don't think that allowing the government to chose arbitrarily who can use the "proper channels" and who can't isn't. [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51715264]Which has definitely never, ever happened before, would definitely be unjustified, and would definitely 100% be worse than waiting until the shooting started.[/QUOTE] What? Cops preemptively murder people with mental problems who own guns? You might want to tone down on the condescending sarcasm because I can't understand what the hell you are talking about. [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51715264]Do you guys not teach kids about WW2, the Nazis and the atrocities they committed?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51715264]Again, do you guys not teach kids about WW2, the Nazis, and the atrocities they committed? People know what the Nazis did. Some people, with access to all the facts and figures about them, think that it's good. There are people out there who hold these views but are silent about them because of the aforementioned stigma against those views - but as soon as they see that there are other people who think that way, that they aren't alone, that those views are being spread on public platforms, they're encouraged by that stuff, and believe those views are justified.[/QUOTE] 1. Yeah they get to learn about the nazis and then someone convinces them that it's going to be the best thing for their country. And instead of talking to them and proving that wrong you're going to punch them. You are only reinforcing their ideas because you are proving to them that they are being oppressed. They won't go "maybe I shouldn't be a nazi because people punch me". You're only going to make more nazis. 2. If the topic is discussed in public then the opposing ideas and arguments will be heard by them. If you push it off to their echochambers and never actually talk to them you pretty much guarantee they won't change their mind. 3. You think that showing them in public will encourage them and justify their views but you don't think that violence and making exceptions in law to keep them silenced won't?

punching an ideology in the face just because its an ideology only portraits it as the weak one and fuels the sympathy of others towards it. nothing justifies an ideology nor fuels sympathy towards it than a martyr.

[QUOTE=Camdude90;51715326][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juxn289fV7E[/media] relevant video[/QUOTE] I agree with him to a certain extent. I think the only (or biggest depending on what you thought of the video) flaw in his argument is that being gay, muslim, black, etc. isn't the same as being a white supremacist or a neo-nazi. Him saying that beating up neo-nazi's is wrong because beating up gay people is wrong is fallacious. Being gay or black isn't a belief or "something you feel strongly about", it's an inseperable part of your identity. He's right but that part doesn't really convince me.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51714223]And to the smarmy guys in the thread[/QUOTE] lol so anyone who doesn't like violence and the perpetual cycle of it because it gets justified by both ends as "we're the good guys" is "swarmy" I love this generation

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51716661]I agree with him to a certain extent. I think the only (or biggest depending on what you thought of the video) flaw in his argument is that being gay, muslim, black, etc. isn't the same as being a white supremacist or a neo-nazi. Him saying that beating up neo-nazi's is wrong because beating up gay people is wrong is fallacious. Being gay or black isn't a belief or "something you feel strongly about", it's an inseperable part of your identity. He's right but that part doesn't really convince me.[/QUOTE] Choosing who you love and what ideology you want to follow are both decisions that are made by the individual. You may not like them for it, but you just have to deal with it. You shouldn't punch either of them, unless they are directly harming you.

[QUOTE=RB33;51716740]Choosing who you love and what ideology you want to follow are both decisions that are made by the individual. You may not like them for it, but you just have to deal with it. You shouldn't punch either of them, unless they are directly harming you.[/QUOTE] "Choosing who you love is a decision made by the individual" is factually incorrect in the context of orientation.

[QUOTE=xagnu;51716204]No, the Nazis came to power through an overzealous treaty of versailles creating the perfect climate for such rhetoric to thrive. It has nothing to do with "proper channels". It's not about who speaks, but who listens. Content people have no need or want of such rhetoric, but for angry divided people with unaddressed needs - it's music to their ears. Keep making this mistake at your own peril, as otherwise history is doomed to repeat itself.[/QUOTE] While the Nazis certainly didn't come to power through "proper channels", it's worth pointing out that the Treaty of Versailles was a rather normal response, not unlike German plans in the event they had won the war. (Caucasus going to the Ottomans, British and French colonial holdings to the Germans, German sphere of influence in Ukraine and the Baltics). The Nazis came to power by exploiting the weaknesses in the foundation of the Weimar Republic, including the fact that leaders of the Republic in its later years (Bruning, von Papen, Schleicher) had an utter contempt for democracy and would rather rule using presidential decrees instead of the Reichstag. At least part of the equation was right-wing jurists who chose to give light sentences to the Nazis after their first attempt to violently overthrow the government, owing to their extreme nationalist sympathies. All in all, the rise of the Nazis was far more complicated than "proper channels" vs. Hitler's rhetoric, and really has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not it was right to punch Richard Spencer.

I think a lot of people here assume the assailant punched him for his "political views". It could just be that he thought he was a smug piece of shit that spews hatred. Anyone with any political viewpoint could be guilty of that. I find the idea of being a bigger asshole to an asshole isn't the way to go, but it's kinda implied if you talk shit you could get hit if the right kind of person hears it. Also engaging in discussion with neo-nazis, white supremacists, and general extremists is not the way to go. You discussing with them is not going to change anything, they themselves have to actually experience something that will change them. You discussing the merits and detriments of fascism with them isn't going to convince them. The way you limit their influence is to constantly shun and point out how wrong they are. Right extremism has only been building over the past years because people are becoming complacent and normalized to their awful ways. This so called "alt right" is gaining popularity because people simply do not want to rationally show the world what kind of degenerates they are.

[QUOTE=daschnek;51718401]While the Nazis certainly didn't come to power through "proper channels", it's worth pointing out that the Treaty of Versailles was a rather normal response, not unlike German plans in the event they had won the war. (Caucasus going to the Ottomans, British and French colonial holdings to the Germans, German sphere of influence in Ukraine and the Baltics). The Nazis came to power by exploiting the weaknesses in the foundation of the Weimar Republic, including the fact that leaders of the Republic in its later years (Bruning, von Papen, Schleicher) had an utter contempt for democracy and would rather rule using presidential decrees instead of the Reichstag. At least part of the equation was right-wing jurists who chose to give light sentences to the Nazis after their first attempt to violently overthrow the government, owing to their extreme nationalist sympathies. All in all, the rise of the Nazis was far more complicated than "proper channels" vs. Hitler's rhetoric, and really has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not it was right to punch Richard Spencer.[/QUOTE] The specifics aren't relevant, the point is that it was the circumstances of post-war Germany that lead to the rise of Nazism, rather than some naive contemporary notion that it could've been avoided by sweeping it under the carpet with hate speech legislation or other such tactics employed today. In essence, if the people are angry and divided the conditions are suited for rhetoric to exploit that anger and division. Punching people for their views no matter how disgusting only inflames the situation and helps no one.

[QUOTE=RB33;51716740]Choosing who you love and what ideology you want to follow are both decisions that are made by the individual. You may not like them for it, but you just have to deal with it. You shouldn't punch either of them, unless they are directly harming you.[/QUOTE] How do you mean choosing who you love? If people can't choose who they love, why does the concept of "the one" exist?

[QUOTE=drafting;51719233]How do you mean choosing who you love? If people can't choose who they love, why does the concept of "the one" exist?[/QUOTE] It is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming. It's the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite sincerest efforts was impossible to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision

[QUOTE=drafting;51719233]How do you mean choosing who you love? If people can't choose who they love, why does the concept of "the one" exist?[/QUOTE] As to what sex/gender they love. Not to particular individuals.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51719356]It is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming. It's the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite sincerest efforts was impossible to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision[/QUOTE] Get back to your TV-filled room, old coot!

[QUOTE=Slim Charles;51713428]A bit off-topic here but I find it pretty disheartening that neo-nazi and racist groups have sullied the whole concept of "white pride", I think being proud of your race, culture or identity whatever isn't a bad thing as-long as you don't go as far to say one race is objectively better. I'm a Mixture of Anglo-Indian, Scottish and English and I take a great amount of pride in what my ancestors did and who they were as a people. So I find it a bit sad when I see stuff like "Take this white pride" or "white pride doesn't belong in this century" but I do understand at the same time the people saying those stuff are generally saying it against the tainted nazi/white supremacist concept of white pride what is really just white supremacy. And by the way this is coming from me a brown-olive person.[/QUOTE] I don't see the point in feeling proud of whatever part of this rock you were born on. You can aknowledge the accomplishments in the history of the people around you without turning it into a pride thing. I was born and currently live in Norway, a country that is known for being a welfare state with prisons focused on rehabilitation and a solid economy thanks to the oil that was discovered 40 years ago. Yet I don't feel any pride in being Norwegian. I had no say in where I was born, I had nothing to do with whatever the people before my time did. At the very least I can only be thankful that I wasn't born in a country with a generally shit quality of life/instability/under an authoritarian government/in war. But frankly I would be fine with being born almost anywhere else. To feel pride is by definition to attach oneself to past accomplishments and positive traits, not mistakes and flaws. I think it is as important to aknowledge flaws and mistakes as it is to accomplishments. And believe it or not, Norway currently has flaws and have made mistakes in the past, just like every country and every person. Then again, I am a cosmopolitan existentialist. My utopian vision is of a world where there are no national borders and differences between people doesn't matter. I won't tell anyone to not be proud of their country or w/e, but I will encourage people to rethink the concepts of pride and nation.

Well I don't believe in a world with no borders on the fundamental reason that I think it's impossible even farcical because of peoples differences in cultural etc. But I don't really want to turn this into a debate about a globalist society. I think blind nationalism can lead to terrible things their's no denying that. but I think when it comes to yourself individually you can learn a lot from your family their countries and their identity as people; where they came from, their experiences and beliefs. I'm not proud of their achievements as if they're my own I'm proud of them as people and what they created.

[QUOTE=Camdude90;51701339]i too advocate violence against people with opinions i don't like[/QUOTE] I wish my human-human empathy extended all the way to Nazis. Wait, no I don't.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;51725410]I wish my human-human empathy extended all the way to Nazis. Wait, no I don't.[/QUOTE] Do you enjoy being pointlessly edgy?

[QUOTE=Thlis;51715605]Honestly one of my favorite movie scenes. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk[/media][/QUOTE] This scene has never been more fitting for this time.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711165][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2tBDxiWIAAERRo.jpg:large[/IMG][/QUOTE] He never wrote that. Additionally, you took the piece out of context: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20120318092641/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right[/url] [img]https://vgy.me/ZscKyY.png[/img]

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51736084]He never wrote that. Additionally, you took the piece out of context: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20120318092641/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right[/url] [img]https://vgy.me/ZscKyY.png[/img][/QUOTE] So has he ever made a statement like that? I am curious cause from what I seen of Richard Spencer interviews he never mentions this.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51736100]So has he ever made a statement like that? I am curious cause from what I seen of Richard Spencer interviews he never mentions this.[/QUOTE] Never did. In fact, the article itself was taken out of context. In the next paragraph, the author wanted to highlight how ridiculous those questions were since the press made those exact questions towards the majority demographic. I knew that there was fishy about the tweet and lo and behold, it was full of complete shit. Unfortunately, people decided to believe in it rather than think for themselves. Whenever you see claims like that, always question.

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51736128]Never did. In fact, the article itself was taken out of context. In the next paragraph, the author wanted to highlight how ridiculous those questions were since the press made those exact questions towards the majority demographic. I knew that there was fishy about the tweet and lo and behold, it was full of complete shit. Unfortunately, people decided to believe in it rather than think for themselves. Whenever you see claims like that, always question.[/QUOTE] Yah, I just did the research. He has used the term "Peaceful ethnic cleansing," but never elaborated what that would be. And in the context of the speech it could just be him suggesting that people shouldn't inter-marry or some crap. But yeah, looks like Spencer isn't threatening anyone anytime soon still since he is going through democratic practices.