jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on Submitted on
169 points (71% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

welcome to/r/IAmA

unsubscribe from this subredditsubscribe to this subreddit14,857,180 readerssubscribers
3,590 users here nowonline
Submit an AMA
Request an AMA
Hide AMA Requests

Please check out our Rules and FAQs

Click here to request being added to our calendar.
Click here to search AMAs by category!
AMAs are scheduled in Eastern Time (GMT-5:00).
Date Time Person Description
26 Jan 12pm James S.A. Corey Author of The Expanse
26 Jan 2pm Steven & Deanna Adler Author of Sweet Child of Mine
26 Jan 3pm Thomas Gold DJ/producer
26 Jan 6pm Ken LaCorte Ran FoxNews.com for the last 10 years
27 Jan 9am Mikko Hypponen Computer Security Expert
27 Jan 7pm Brad DeLong Economist
30 Jan 2pm Kristin Judge National Cyber Security Alliance
30 Jan 2:30pm The Sunshine Makers Cosmo Feilding Mellen & Tim Scully
31 Jan 1pm Rick Hall UCF Videogame Prof, AAA Game Dev, Author
2 Feb 12pm Dan Schachner Puppy Bowl Referee
2 Feb 1pm Cameron Brown co-founder of Against Gravity
2 Feb 1pm Rob Byers Production specialist at NPR
3 Feb 3pm Barnstorm VFX & Theory Studios VFX Artists: Man in the High Castle
8 Feb 3pm Ronald Fry Author, Speaker, Green Beret

see more...

Submitting:

AMAs should be about:

All AMAs require proof.

Request threads

  • Requests must be reasonable and realistic. All requests must have 5 questions for the person being requested.
  • Requests for celebrities must contain their public contact info in the body of the request.
  • See here for information about requests

Commenting:

Please note:

Other:

Useful Links!

FacebookTwitterInstagramGoogle Calendar

Please check out our Rules and FAQs

created by 32bitesa community for
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]sethincarnate 0 points1 point2 points  (9 children)
This is just ignorant.
[–]RIPdeadswitch 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
Are there any errors in what I said?
[–]sethincarnate 2 points3 points4 points  (7 children)
You know there are a billion laws in place to protect people's constitutional rights from things like battery for instance. You don't get to punch someone for speaking anymore than you can burn down a church.
Basically you just don't believe in equal protection. In which case, why stop at punching him? He should be executed. We should also execute members of the KKK, the Black Panthers, people with communist leanings, the list goes on.
[–]RIPdeadswitch 2 points3 points4 points  (6 children)
Since we're veering into false equivalencies pretty fast here let's just verify here: Punching someone =/= burning down a chuch=/=government action restricting speech, and that's why there are separate laws in place to address each one of those things.
As to your actual argument. There are many laws in place to prosecute people for assault and/or battery for any reason, with no mention of the constitution. I'm actually pretty sure the constitution does not mention either assault or battery.
As far as equal protection: Once again, that refers to the government making or enforcing laws.
“
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As this instance seems to be one private citizen challenging the views of another private citizen, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with our discussion. Or are you of the opinion that all people are the government?
Punishment of any kind by the government? That would violate the equal protections clause.
From what happened here, it seems that young Spencer wanted the world to be his safe space, where he could put out any ideas and they would only be challenged on terms that he found acceptable. He found out that the world is not his safe space, and that other people do not always react in the way he would like. Like I said, he should learn from this experience, and decide if continuing to push his ideas on the world is worthwhile. That decision is all his. No one is silencing him, or policing his beliefs. Especially not the government.
EDIT: corrected spelling.
[–]sethincarnate 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
That was an interesting reply. It seems you feel government coercion is wrong but force by individuals is okay (despite laws to the contrary). What's the difference? An individual is no less capable than the government at taking away someone else's freedom. And you know that. You are counting on it. You're simply trying to disguise it by saying that if the assaulting individual is not a member of the state then he can't actually take away someone else's freedom. That's simply not true and you know it. It doesn't matter who's holding the gun.
At the end of the day, you can justify assaulting someone in order to hopefully change their view. In the absence of an oppressive government, you want vigilante justice to use force against people who think in a way you don't agree with. I'm just trying to understand the extent of your psychosis by asking what you think is the next step if they don't yield to being punched in the face. Again, should they be executed?
[–]RIPdeadswitch 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
FYI, if you're taking the position that people should not be attacked, but reasoned out of their position, personal insults are not really the best way to do it.
“
You know there are a billion laws in place to protect people's constitutional rights from things like battery for instance.
This whole thread has been me correcting your misunderstandings of our legal system. If you're going to go around espousing how much you are a fan of constitutionally protected free speech, you should really at least make an attempt to understand what it is. Likewise if you want to bring up equal protection under the law. It almost makes me think that you really don't understand laws, and just like to repeat slogans that you have heard somewhere else. It's also possible that you are one of the Kremlin's trolls, but that would just be ridiculous right? To prevent that let's try to avoid talking about things that you don't understand in the future ok?
Moving right along, there's quite a field of strawmen that you have constructed, so let's go through each one and correct things:
Force by institutions and individuals has shaped the whole of human history, and for a very long time that was existence. The rule of law is a small check against that, and if people are civil, civil laws are all that are necessary. However, the use of force in society is still very much present. It's the reason some people (law enforcement and military included) openly carry weapons, and it's the reason that most people don't insult Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson to his face. The laws exist to give people protections against the raw use of force in modern society. There is a concept called "deterrent violence" which is behind concepts like corporal punishment, military strategy, and concealed carry laws in American society. I don't know how familiar you might be with it, so let me lay it out. It is basically that violence, or the threat of violence is the basis for peace and civil society.
Now, to those men of straw:
“
It seems you feel government coercion is wrong but force by individuals is okay (despite laws to the contrary).
I never took the position that assailant should not be held responsible, and if an honest attempt by the police is not made to find and charge this individual, that is a violation of equal protection under the law. That would be a very troubling, as well as an illegal thing to do.
“
What's the difference? An individual is no less capable than the government at taking away someone else's freedom.
To a prisoner, there may be no difference. However, according to laws that govern our society, there is a difference. If the government attempts to silence or infringe on free speech that is a violation of the law. If you have a problem with that, well, I can't help you, but you do have the freedom to find a different society. Maybe someplace with a few more laws is what you're looking for.
“
At the end of the day, you can justify assaulting someone in order to hopefully change their view.
See paragraph 4. You're like a broken record sometimes. For someone who claims to love freedom as much as you do, you must appreciate that everywhere cannot be your safe space, and as much as you seem to want to legislate the disarming and forced pacifism of the population there are many people that would be very opposed to that in a very violent way.
“
I'm just trying to understand the extent of your psychosis.
See paragraph 1.
“
what you think is the next step if they don't yield to being punched in the face. Again, should they be executed?
As you can see in my first comment that you for some reason thought was a threat of governmental action, I am concerned for young spencer. Either his parents are very proud, or very scared of the fact that he got punched in the face and is now an internet joke. From the way you are talking about executing people and legislating the disarming of the populace, you do not seem to be a parent, or at least an American parent. So let me try to explain this to you: If you're on TV representing a neonazi movement, and you get punched in the face, then nothing happens to the person that punched you, that is humiliating. It is also painful. It may be the first time that has happened to him, and as I said before
“
I'm not advocating violence against him, but perhaps for the first time in his life he understands exactly how ridiculous and toxic free society finds him and his ideas. Just like with a child, they can be punished and warned to keep them from running into traffic, but at a certain point they make that decision for themselves
[–]sethincarnate 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
"I never took the position that assailant should not be held responsible, and if an honest attempt by the police is not made to find and charge this individual, that is a violation of equal protection under the law. That would be a very troubling, as well as an illegal thing to do."
For me, this is what I want to hear from everyone who thinks this Spencer guy getting punched is the greatest thing since VE Day. I didn't gather this from your previous replies, and it is the heart of the debate in my opinion. We don't justify assaulting people for voicing their opinions and at the same time deserve a civil society. People shouldn't get to do intolerant things in the name of tolerance without being called out for it. People can disagree in a civil manner without needing to behave like children or barbarians. We can defeat fascism, in this example, without acting like fascists to one another.
As for much of the rest of this last response from you, I actually think we mostly see eye to eye.
[–]RIPdeadswitch 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Well, maybe you should try asking. There is no question of arrest or prosecution anywhere in this thread other than our discussion.
However, this is where we differ. I think (as I said in my original comment) that I do think that young 'spence getting opposed in this way is a great thing. I think it was incredibly lucky for him that it was only a fist out of nowhere, and not a bat or a gun. He has been given a gift that most extremists do not get. He has been given the gift to reflect and make future decisions on how society reacts to his ideas.
The other main place where we differ is that I believe in the freedom of citizens to express their views, and do not believe that the populace needs to be preemptively disarmed and pacified by a police/nanny state. As I stated before:
“
it seems that young Spencer wanted the world to be his safe space, where he could put out any ideas and they would only be challenged on terms that he found acceptable. He found out that the world is not his safe space, and that other people do not always react in the way he would like.
This is one of the keys to free society. Nearly any position will have opposition, and it is up to the citizen to decide if their position is one that they feel strongly enough to continue on when the opposition is more than words. Look at the BLM, civil rights, WWICO movement. In all of these cases people were/are being killed by agents of the government, and the group affected still chose to continue putting forward their ideology for change in society.
Your statements seem to indicate that you feel differently.
“
We can defeat fascism, in this example, without acting like fascists to one another.
I don't know if you're aware, but facists/nazis/communists (villified group of choice) did not invent, or perfect violence as a political tactic.
“
You know there are a billion laws in place to protect people's constitutional rights from things like battery for instance.
What would be the next method of force we should use against him to make sure he exercises his freedom of speech in a more agreeable way?
Basically you just don't believe in equal protection.
Taken together, once again create a very problematic picture of how you feel society should be policed and citizen's speech and activity regulated by the state. I was not sure if this was just a devil's advocate argument that you were trying, so I looked at your posting history and found:
“
As I stated before, and I had hoped was one of the things we saw eye to eye about.
“
You must appreciate that everywhere cannot be your safe space, and as much as you seem to want to legislate the disarming and forced pacifism of the population there are many people that would be very opposed to that in a very violent way.
There is risk inherent in a free society. The only way to remove that is in a police/nanny state, and old "BigBen Bigcock" Franklin had a great quote about that:
“
While in this society you are free to believe the way that you want, there are those who would oppose the loss of that liberty for the safe space that you would like America to be. I hope you don't run afoul of them. am2b solutions tend to be much more permanent than a punch to the face.
[–]sethincarnate 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
"Well, maybe you should try asking."
Do you argue with your friends and family like this? I tried to end this debate in the nicest way I could, and you started back immediately with this little snarky comment and another thousand words. As if that wasn't enough evidence just how argumentative you are, you went through my comment history and cherry picked a discussion to turn that into an argument too? Does this seem normal for what should be a short, casual debate with a stranger on the internet?
This debate can't continue. Not only are you creeping me out, but I can't tell you how ignorant you sound to me trying to paint me as an anti-gun, safe space SJW. You don't know me. These are just pathetic attempts to paint me as the one with extreme views while you equate this powerless Spencer jackass to the British occupation so that you can justify assaulting people who don't think like you do in the name of your perverse understanding of liberty.
[–]RIPdeadswitch 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
“
Do you argue with your friends and family like this?
You mean, do I remind them that we live in a shared reality? Yes.
“
I tried to end this debate in the nicest way I could, and you started back immediately with this little snarky comment and another thousand words.
I was clarifying my position. You claimed:
“
I actually think we mostly see eye to eye.
and I wanted to make sure that you understood where our positions differ. After all, throughout this thread you seemed to have trouble grasping concepts like the first amendment, and equal protection under the law so I did feel like a clarification was necessary.
I stand by my previous statement. you said:
“
For me, this is what I want to hear from everyone who thinks this Spencer guy getting punched is the greatest thing since VE Day.
I just pointed out the simple fact that you did not ask the question. There's no snark there, once again just pointing out that we do live in the same reality.
“
you went through my comment history and cherry picked a discussion to turn that into an argument too?
There's no argument, once again just pointing out where and how our positions differ. Just reminding you we live in the same reality.
“
Does this seem normal for what should be a short, casual debate with a stranger on the internet?
As I stated, I was not sure if you were taking a hyperbolic stance in our discussion to prove a point, or if that was your true belief. It turns out that safety over freedom is your overarching ideology.
“
I can't tell you how ignorant you sound to me trying to paint me as an anti-gun, safe space SJW.
I just quoted what you said. You can interpret your words any way you want. If you don't like the way that makes you out to be... That sounds like a problem you have in your own head. In our shared reality, those were your positions.
“
You don't know me.
This is true, the only thing I do know is what you have said. I'm sorry your words upset you, but please understand that they are your words.
“
You equate this powerless Spencer jackass to the British occupation.
I'm sorry to point this out, but you're the only one who has mentioned the British in this thread. Once again, shared reality.
“
So that you can justify assaulting people who don't think like you do.
Once again, as I said before, and you quoted because you seemed to agree with it at the time.
“
I never took the position that assailant should not be held responsible, and if an honest attempt by the police is not made to find and charge this individual, that is a violation of equal protection under the law. That would be a very troubling, as well as an illegal thing to do.
I think really, the crux of your argument falls into what you see as:
“
your perverse understanding of liberty.
I think this is the only point of disagreement that we have. The things I have advocated for in this conversation are:
  1. The government should not restrict free speech (also known as the first amendment to the US constitution)
  2. The government should not disarm the population (also known as the second amendment to the constitution)
  3. Individuals in a free society can make their own decisions, but should be held accountable for those decisions.
  4. There is risk inherent in a free society. (The debate of freedom vs. safety in society has been going on formally since Hobbes in the 17th century, most people land somewhere in the middle, you seem to land fairly on the side of authoritarian government securing safety for all).
If you want further clarification on those points, that might be good conversation, I would like to understand how any of those are antithetical to a free society. This conversation was never a debate, it started out with me correcting your mistaken opinion on the rights put forth in the first amendment of the constitution, it then continued with me correcting your opinion on what equal protection under the law meant, and me reminding you of the differences of a free vs. a safe civil society.
I'm glad that you feel like you've gained enough from it to be finished. If you want any further clarifications, you know where to find me!
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
css by /u/qtxπ Rendered by PID 3370 on app-118 at 2017-01-26 21:54:09.399062+00:00 running e7d275e country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%