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
203 points (85% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

welcome tor/politics

subscribe to this subredditunsubscribe from this subreddit3,257,481 readerssubscribers
18,478 users here nowonline

Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating.

/r/Politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

Our full rules Reddiquette

Comment Guidelines:
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Be civil ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Do not post users' personal information. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Vote based on quality, not opinion. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Submission Guidelines:
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)See our on-topic statement here.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Articles must be published within the last 31 days. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Submissions must be an original source. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Articles must be written in English ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Spam is bad! ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
' ', counter(1.39936e+296)Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. ' ', counter(1.39936e+296)The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

Events Calendar

Other Resources:

Full list of Related Subreddits

Chat with us on OrangeChat/IRC

  • Click here to join our channel via webchat with easy log-in. Alternatively, to connect via IRC, point your client to #politics on irc.snoonet.org, port 6667.

Follow us on Twitter

Events Calendar

Register To Vote

created by speza community for
You are not a subscribed member of this community. Please subscribe to enable voting.
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]ProfessorMaxContempt 35 points36 points37 points  (77 children)
I bet that was fun. How do we donate to the defense fund for the puncher? Spencer is a racist sack of shit who is only brave enough to speak because he knows he won't get hit for it. If he believes in keeping browns down he should be willing to fight for it.
[–]_JohnTheSavage_ 2 points3 points4 points  (76 children)
Don't support violence or defend those who perpetrate it. He has a right to speak and making him a victim is stupid. It has garnered him attention. It will garner him sympathy, and rightly so. I hope the idiot who assaulted him gets caught, convicted and does time. He deserves it.
Moreover, it will encourage Spencer and his followers to arm themselves. Violence begets violence. Who the fuck do you think has most of the AR-15s? Newsflash: It's not New York and LA liberals.
Of course, Richard Spencer deserves to suffer from some sort of debilitating disease and/or discover that he's actually 1/8 Jewish and 1/8 Asian. In a country of mutts like ours notions of racial purity are all the more absurd.
You fight idiocy like his with mockery and ridicule. If the Neanderthal in the video had half a brain he would have realized that loud protest of Spencer's words was the appropriate response. Spencer and his supporters are outnumbered and can be shouted down. Idiocy like this assault puts him on center stage.
[–]taking60off 28 points29 points30 points  (42 children)
“
He has a right to speak
No he doesn't. He lost that when he became a nazi.
We're not going to have a public debate on the merits of genocide in this country. Anybody who wants one can kindly go to hell. You can't deal with the insanity spencer represents through discourse.
The German left tried that with Hitler.
Never again.
[–]Tenacious_Ceeee 29 points30 points31 points  (6 children)
Fascists want to hide behind the very freedoms they wish to take away and only respond to violence. You don't get rid of rats by leaving food out for them.
[–][deleted]  (4 children)deleted/removed
[deleted]
    [–]Leftberg 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Ace bait mate
    [–]herewardwakes -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    Communists want to hide behind the very freedoms they wish to take away and only respond to violence. You don't get rid of rats by leaving food out for them.
    [–]herewardwakes 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    “
    No he doesn't. He lost that when he became a nazi.
    And here we have the true nature of the hard left, all the rights they claim to believe in, all their talk of tolerance and equality, it's all lies.
    In reality they believe that they have the right to control our societies, to determine who can speak and determine what you can and can't think.
    These people murdered four times as many people as the Nazis, but because they've determined that their cause is just, those lives are worth less than the lives of people murdered in the name of other ideologies.
    [–]IllCaesar 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    “
    The German left tried that with Hitler.
    Even Hitler said that their mistake was trying to talk it out. At a certain point discourse fails and violence must be resorted to. I feel safe drawing that line at when somebody enlists with the greatest evil in the history of mankind.
    [–][deleted]  (1 child)deleted/removed
    [deleted]
      [–]herewardwakes 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      They never have done, it was useful while they were trying to take down the conservative establishment from the sixties onwards, now that they're the establishment it no longer serves any purpose for them, and in fact it can only be a threat to their dominance.
      [–]buckingbronco1 [score hidden]  (1 child)
      Found the authoritarian.
      [–]taking60off [score hidden]  (0 children)
      So...believing in fighting fascism makes me a fascist?
      Gotcha.
      [–]tenparsecs[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
      How would you best like to kill someone who has been labeled a Nazi?
      [–]taking60off 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
      with kindness, clearly.
      [–]gres06 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      On Reddit, typically just ignoring it will make it go away. But those aren't real Nazi's they are just pretend keyboard ones.
      [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (25 children)
      “
      Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. - Noam Chomsky
      Our founding fathers enshrined our right to free speech in the Constitution. Don't like it? Get the Constitution changed. Good luck with that.
      [–]taking60off 5 points6 points7 points  (24 children)
      “
      Tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of violence, and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the creation of a humane society. Such a society does not yet exist; progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale. As deterrents against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo-colonial massacres, violence and suppression are promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.
      This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested. The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice: laissez-faire the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities.
      Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives. The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency; they are less vociferous against the proud presentation, in word and deed and pictures, of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs--the mature delinquency of a whole civilization.
      In other words, tolerance as a political idea is often self defeating. You cannot have a free society if you tolerate forces that will destroy it. I am not talking about disagreement itself here but the actual protection of clearly malevolent forces by people who think that by protecting these forces they are safeguarding freedom. What they are actually doing is destroying it.
      [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 1 point2 points3 points  (9 children)
      Our right to speech is about protecting ourselves from our government. Empower a government to suppress speech and they will inevitably abuse that power to stifle their political opponents. Those who defend our right to free speech are safeguarding our hard won freedoms of which it's the cornerstone.
      Freedom of speech is a two way street. You can shout them down. You can protest their events. Assaulting them? That makes you the fascist and them the victim.
      [–]taking60off 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
      Who said anything about the government? You don't need to be a government to smash the fash my friend!
      “
      Assaulting them? That makes you the fascist and them the victim.
      No it doesn't. But not destroying their ability to organize helps them win.
      Nobody who fights fascism is a fascist because they fought fascism. That's fucking idiotic. And it's a prime example of the kind of self defeating, naive, crap ol' Herbert was talking about up above. You'd tell people not to defend themselves against actual threats to their lives.
      [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
      “
      You'd tell people not to defend themselves against actual threats to their lives.
      No. I'm telling people not to assault people exercising their free speech rights. There are restrictions on those rights to make inciting violence criminal, for example. You know, like encouraging people to commit violent assaults.
      I'd certainly caution you that those assaulted will likely exercise their right to defend themselves. Violence is never the answer because it only begets more violence.
      [–]taking60off 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
      “
      I'm telling people not to assault people exercising their free speech rights.
      Those people don't have rights, again. They wish to destroy the rights of others. Their end game is genocide. There is no rational reason to tolerate them or grant them the luxury of a platform. None.
      Humanity went through this bullshit once. Exterminate it. That conversation is over friend.
      “
      Violence is never the answer because in only begets more violence.
      Against nazis. You keep leaving out that they deserve little else.
      [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      “
      Those people don't have rights, again.
      How do you plan to identify "those people" who "don't have rights?" Remember, you need to be vigilant! Maybe we should make them wear patches or something so "good" people can easily identify them?
      “
      They wish to destroy the rights of others.
      Of course! They're insidious and greedy, sneaky little bastards. Just picture them in the shadows plotting to destroy our rights. Don't you think we need more of a "final solution" to this problem?
      “
      Their end game is genocide. There is no rational reason to tolerate them or grant them the luxury of a platform. None.
      I'm with you. What do you propose?
      “
      Humanity went through this bullshit once. Exterminate it. That conversation is over friend.
      Alright, I can't keep it up. As you've demonstrated, fascism is never the answer.
      Never again.
      [–][deleted]  (3 children)deleted/removed
      [deleted]
        [–]taking60off -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
        Why are you so hellbent on defending the rights of people who want to commit genocide?
        [–]mcmeaningoflife42 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        It's ok it's an act
        [–]herewardwakes 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        “
        You cannot have a free society if you tolerate forces that will destroy it
        So we can't tolerate leftism. Got it.
        Here's a good summary of Marcuse's view from wiki;
        “
        Modern Capitalism had created false needs and false consciousness geared to consumption of commodities: it locked one-dimensional man into the one-dimensional society which produced the need for people to recognize themselves in their commodities and find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced. Most important of all, the pressure of consumerism had led to the total integration of the working class into the capitalist system. Its political parties and trade unions had become thoroughly bureaucratized and the power of negative thinking or critical reflection had rapidly declined. The working class was no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change. As a result, rather than looking to the workers as the revolutionary vanguard, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between radical intellectuals and those groups not yet integrated into one-dimensional society, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other race and other colours, the unemployed and the unemployable. These were the people whose standards of living demanded the ending of intolerable conditions and institutions and whose resistance to one-dimensional society would not be diverted by the system. Their opposition was revolutionary even if their consciousness was not.
        Literally sounds like the Democrats current playbook; abandon the white working class because they were no longer useful tools for destroying Western civilization, and create a new alliance of useful idiot minorities to use.
        [–]Cannon1 0 points1 point2 points  (8 children)
        “
        You cannot have a free society if you tolerate forces that will destroy it.
        Speech is not force. If you suppress subversive speech, you drive it underground. When that happens, it festers and multiplies like mold. The best way to combat it is to have it in the open and soundly refute it.
        Do you really want the powers that be to have dominion over what is "acceptable speech"?
        [–]taking60off 2 points3 points4 points  (7 children)
        “
        Speech is not force
        Words are the root of all action. Hitler started with speech.
        “
        If you suppress subversive speech, you drive it underground. When that happens, it festers and multiplies like mold.
        Lolno. What actually happens is that it remains politically impotent and isolated. Tell me, do you see much dissent in North Korea? Keep the fuckers underground and they can't seize power can they?
        “
        The best way to combat it is to have it in the open and soundly refute it.
        You're assuming fascism is built on a logic one can debate with. It isn't. It's all emotion, there is nothing to argue with. Fascists are emotionally manipulating people. If you give them a platform they already win. There is no rationally arguing against the kind of person who thinks genocide is "ok"
        These people might as well be ISIS. Now go rationally argue with the jihadis, see how far it gets you.
        I swear to fucking god it's like the left learned nothing from Wiemar germany
        [–]Cannon1 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        You fight fire with fire. If it comes to violence, then let them throw the first punch. Unless, of course, you embrace the Bush administrations policy of preemption.
        I notice that you didn't address my question:
        Are you comfortable allowing the Trump administration to dictate what is to be considered "acceptable speech"?
        [–]taking60off 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
        “
        Are you comfortable allowing the Trump administration to dictate what is to be considered "acceptable speech"?
        No. I don't believe they have a right to govern in the first place.
        You're operating under the assumption I believe the government should be the ones resisting these things. I don't.
        [–]herewardwakes 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        “
        No. I don't believe they have a right to govern in the first place.
        So, you also admit you don't believe in democracy either. So you're a totalitarian communist.
        [–]gres06 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        People who speak in cliches and absolutes typically doubt have any understanding of the issue and truly in whatever their parents told them growing up. If they stopped and actually thought about what they were saying they would realize the argument doesn't hold up.
        [–][deleted]  (2 children)deleted/removed
        [deleted]
          [–]MescalPascalCalifornia 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Nice try.
          [–]tenparsecs[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
          This. The toxic degenerate threats to our society must be destroyed, root and all. The enemies who spread evil ideas must be destroyed. That is the only way we are ever to have a free prosperous society.
          This is completely different to what the neo-nazis say of course, because I am right.
          [–]taking60off 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
          I don't know if I'm right. But we all know neo-nazis are wrong.
          [–]TheRealTrailerSwift 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          No, OP seems very confused by the idea.
          [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          “
          This is completely different to what the neo-nazis say of course, because I am right.
          The Ministry of Truth is always right. You? ;)
          [–]NeutralEvilCarebear 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          I hate to admit it (because he's clearly a sack of shit), but you're right.
          [–]os_kaiserwilhelmNew York 4 points5 points6 points  (15 children)
          Exactly. I don't think people understand what freedom of speech means beyond a legal doctrine. Curtailing speech with violence doesn't help your cause at all. It makes the perpetrator look petty and weak and vindicates the victim.
          [–]homebrewtj 9 points10 points11 points  (8 children)
          Fuck that. Violent hate speech deserves violent actions.
          [–]Cannon1 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          One could compellingly argue that what you've stated there could be considered "violent speech".
          [–]gres06 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          You left off the "hate"...oopsie
          [–]os_kaiserwilhelmNew York 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          That's some fascist rhetoric right there.
          [–]_JohnTheSavage_ -1 points0 points1 point  (4 children)
          "Violent hate speech" is an oxymoron. There's speech and there's violence. The appropriate response to speech is speech. Violence will beget violence.
          “
          Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. - Noam Chomsky
          You're not in very good company.
          [–][deleted]  (2 children)deleted/removed
          [deleted]
            [–]BerneseTerror 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
            That's right, you show those Whites. This sub is shit.
            [–]gres06 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            Oddly we had to kill millions to get rid of the Nazi's. Shouldn't have letting them talk more been the better approach?
            [–]gres06 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
            Has nothing to do with the first amendment. Jesus Christ. The first amendment only states that the government can't punish people for speaking. It does not say that people can't face consequences from others for their speech.
            [–]os_kaiserwilhelmNew York 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            I never mentioned the first amendment. In fact I specifically stated that freedom of speech exists beyond legal doctrine. Freedom of speech is a greater concept. The First amendment is a practical application of the concept, but does not encompass the whole concept.
            [–]os_kaiserwilhelmNew York 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            I never mentioned the first amendment. In fact I specifically stated that freedom of speech exists beyond legal doctrine. Freedom of speech is a greater concept. The First amendment is a practical application of the concept, but does not encompass the whole concept.
            [–]os_kaiserwilhelmNew York 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            I never mentioned the first amendment. In fact I specifically stated that freedom of speech exists beyond legal doctrine. Freedom of speech is a greater concept. The First amendment is a practical application of the concept, but does not encompass the whole concept.
            [–]SimoneNonvelodico 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
            Legally speaking, he has a right to speak.
            On a level more of personal coherence, if your creed involves killing other people, then you shouldn't complain when said people thinks you ought to be punched instead. He should embrace it instead, and show his Aryan superiority by beating these ubermensch assaulting him with his bare hands. If he can't do that, then his ideology is demonstrated to be shit and perhaps he should just fuck off.
            So I don't think it should be allowed to punch people like Spencer, and I acknowledged that whoever gave in to the (completely understandable) urge to punch him should undergo some legal proceeding. But I frankly won't give a rat's ass about the matter itself and I think it's not a very big risk for freedom of speech at all. I wouldn't have done it (also, my punch isn't very strong anyway) but I won't say the guy who did it is worse or the same than Spencer because he isn't.
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
            “
            Legally speaking, he has a right to speak.
            Legally and morally he has a right to speak. The appropriate response to thoroughly discredited racist nonsense in a diverse culture of mutts? Mockery and ridicule.
            “
            On a level more of personal coherence, if your creed involves killing other people, then you shouldn't complain when said people thinks you ought to be punched instead. He should embrace it instead, and show his Aryan superiority by beating these ubermensch assaulting him with his bare hands. If he can't do that, then his ideology is demonstrated to be shit and perhaps he should just fuck off.
            Doesn't virtually every creed involve "killing other people?" Certainly any creed that would incite violence in response to speech.
            Violence begets violence and they won't bring their fists to the fistfight. They'll bring AR-15s. Of course, might doesn't make right but it decides the winner - once things get violent.
            “
            So I don't think it should be allowed to punch people like Spencer, and I acknowledged that whoever gave in to the (completely understandable) urge to punch him should undergo some legal proceeding.
            Yup.
            “
            But I frankly won't give a rat's ass about the matter itself and I think it's not a very big risk for freedom of speech at all.
            I don't think it will stifle freedom of speech. These racists will arm themselves and kill those who assault them. They're the sort who are looking for an excuse.
            “
            I wouldn't have done it (also, my punch isn't very strong anyway) but I won't say the guy who did it is worse or the same than Spencer because he isn't.
            Spencer is a demagogue and needs to be fought. Ironically, the idiot who assaulted him has accomplished the opposite. He's brought attention and made Spencer and his supporters the victims. His actions have provided justification for more armed racists in the streets.
            [–]SimoneNonvelodico 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
            “
            Doesn't virtually every creed involve "killing other people?" Certainly any creed that would incite violence in response to speech.
            How does every creed involve killing people? Of course every ideology might get people killed in indirect ways depending on circumstances, but not all ideologies have killing someone literally as part of their basic tenets. Hell, with a stretch, one could say even Communism doesn't necessarily have it, as it does advocate "revolution" which means a process of change and then someone interpreted it as change brought through reform (which led to most of today's socialist parties). Though that IS quite a stretch for original Marxism.
            “
            These racists will arm themselves and kill those who assault them. They're the sort who are looking for an excuse.
            In which case, hopefully, they'll still get arrested and sent in jail or to the electric chair for it.
            “
            Spencer is a demagogue and needs to be fought. Ironically, the idiot who assaulted him has accomplished the opposite. He's brought attention and made Spencer and his supporters the victims.
            True, but even though Spencer has immediately gone into whiner-mode I don't know if it's fully working as I read someone saying his supporters are disliking him for it for being a pussy. I'd like to read some actual reactions from them (in fact it's what I was looking for here on Reddit originally, but I don't know where to look).
            Anyway, I think a huge reason why I get iffy when people say stuff like "you gotta be violent with fascists!" is how... flexible the definition of "fascist" may become in some people's minds. What I'm saying is that I don't support institutionalised violence against ideologies (though if said ideologies include open threats of violence against specific people I don't know if those ought to be treated differently from how you'd treat a guy who calls his ex at 3 AM saying he'll kill and rape her), and that I don't support planned violence by organisations either. An individual who snaps and punches an asshole like Spencer in the spur of the moment, I can understand. So a utilitarian argument might go either way, though I tend to agree that it's unlikely that a single punch will do anything useful. But in fact if you went for the utilitarian argument someone might make a case that you'd save more lives by killing a few of Spencer's supporters, in gruesome enough ways to scare them off speaking their mind in public ever again. So utilitarian arguments really aren't very useful in this discussion.
            And anyway a lot of this stuff is played on the field of general consensus. If in the 50s a Nazi entered a random bar full of veterans and started spouting Nazi shit he'd probably find someone who would punch him pronto; and if then he tried whining he'd probably just be asked if he wanted some more. When a prominent majority of the people despises Nazis (for good reason) there's no need to punch them because they know they will and will be ashamed to show their face. That they are resurfacing now is a sign that they feel like in their desperation for 'new' things that'll subvert the 'establishment' people will look for anything, and now they can recast themselves as some sort of censored, inconvenient truth rather than stinking bullshit rightfully consigned to the dustbin of history.
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
            “
            How does every creed involve killing people?
            There are nonviolent creeds. Of course, they're rarely empowered. Look at our government for whom we are accountable. They chalk up a healthy kill count every month.
            “
            Of course every ideology might get people killed in indirect ways depending on circumstances, but not all ideologies have killing someone literally as part of their basic tenets.
            Fair enough. Of course, those ideologies that don't favor killing don't make it to the halls of power.
            “
            Hell, with a stretch, one could say even Communism doesn't necessarily have it, as it does advocate "revolution" which means a process of change and then someone interpreted it as change brought through reform (which led to most of today's socialist parties). Though that IS quite a stretch for original Marxism.
            Marxism wasn't about killing. Of course, totalitarian communism was. You shouldn't blame Marxism, it always happens when the rubber meets the road.
            “
            In which case, hopefully, they'll still get arrested and sent in jail or to the electric chair for it.
            You don't kill for for acting in self defense. Start throwing elbows at people and you deserve what you get - even if it is lethal force.
            “
            True, but even though Spencer has immediately gone into whiner-mode I don't know if it's fully working as I read someone saying his supporters are disliking him for it for being a pussy. I'd like to read some actual reactions from them (in fact it's what I was looking for here on Reddit originally, but I don't know where to look).
            Don't worry, they'll happily use what happened as justification to arm themselves. As you've noted, they're not "pussies." Hell, they're probably among the best armed people in the country.
            And Spencer has the sympathy of people like me. I think his racist statements are abhorrent but that doesn't justify attacking him in the street. What the hell? Is it open season on racists? Who decides whom can be targeted?
            “
            Anyway, I think a huge reason why I get iffy when people say stuff like "you gotta be violent with fascists!" is how... flexible the definition of "fascist" may become in some people's minds.
            There are some clear legal lines that help. Frankly, it's common sense. Don't attack people for speech.
            “
            What I'm saying is that I don't support institutionalised violence against ideologies (though if said ideologies include open threats of violence against specific people I don't know if those ought to be treated differently from how you'd treat a guy who calls his ex at 3 AM saying he'll kill and rape her), and that I don't support planned violence by organisations either. An individual who snaps and punches an asshole like Spencer in the spur of the moment, I can understand.
            Let's not pretend this guy didn't go out of his way to attack Spencer. It was calculated and deliberate. We should make an example of him because his violence is political. Political violence is even more despicable - it's an attack on all of us.
            “
            So a utilitarian argument might go either way, though I tend to agree that it's unlikely that a single punch will do anything useful. But in fact if you went for the utilitarian argument someone might make a case that you'd save more lives by killing a few of Spencer's supporters, in gruesome enough ways to scare them off speaking their mind in public ever again. So utilitarian arguments really aren't very useful in this discussion.
            Yeah, murdering white power activists sounds like a great idea. /s
            If you want a race war, that's how you'll get a race war. When the dust settles, it won't be white people who suffer the most. They have the numbers and the weapons and you're forwarding a disgusting "utilitarian" argument that would hand them the moral high ground.
            Oh vey.
            [–]SimoneNonvelodico 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
            “
            Yeah, murdering white power activists sounds like a great idea. /s If you want a race war, that's how you'll get a race war. When the dust settles, it won't be white people who suffer the most. They have the numbers and the weapons and you're forwarding a disgusting "utilitarian" argument that would hand them the moral high ground.
            Hey, I know that. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous is the position of who literally says that what just happened is some grand political demonstration that "violence stops fascism" (which I've seen). My point is I can understand it if it was a blurting out of anger, on a grand karmic level I think Spencer totally asked for it, on a legal level I think it should be prosecuted (with the extenuating circumstances of the case if appliable) but politically it accounts to either zero or a net positive for Spencer. I was making an absurd argument to point out that even if you want to argue that "sometimes violence does solve problems", the amount of violence required to actually change something on a social level is insanely massive. History features both non-violent movements and violent revolutions, but what never really has much consequence on the grand scheme of things is 'petty brawls', which is pretty much the level at which this qualifies.
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
            “
            Hey, I know that. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous is the position of who literally says that what just happened is some grand political demonstration that "violence stops fascism" (which I've seen).
            I was born well after the end of WWII and have never witnessed fascism in power. From the history I've read, fascists embraced violence and attracted violent supporters. I think resorts to violence will benefit fascists.
            “
            My point is I can understand it if it was a blurting out of anger, on a grand karmic level I think Spencer totally asked for it, on a legal level I think it should be prosecuted (with the extenuating circumstances of the case if appliable) but politically it accounts to either zero or a net positive for Spencer.
            It's garnered him both attention and sympathy. It's painted his opponents as both violent and cowardly. The man who attacked him did so deliberately and made efforts to conceal his identity to avoid accountability for his crime. Moreover, the assault was intended to stifle speech with violence. It's also a political crime. The extenuating circumstances hurt his case and he should be punished with the full force of the law.
            “
            I was making an absurd argument to point out that even if you want to argue that "sometimes violence does solve problems", the amount of violence required to actually change something on a social level is insanely massive. History features both non-violent movements and violent revolutions, but what never really has much consequence on the grand scheme of things is 'petty brawls', which is pretty much the level at which this qualifies.
            This wasn't a brawl. It was a deliberate assault on a person exercising his speech rights to make a political statement to the media. It was an attack on fundamental American principles of speech and political participation. If those aren't respected we should expect violence.
            I'd be much more understanding about a violent brawl that was sparked by offensive speech. Because shit happens. This calculated assault is entirely one sided and it hands white nationalists the moral high ground. That's quite an accomplishment.
            [–]SimoneNonvelodico 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            Don't be too defensive, because I pretty much agree with you on this. By "brawl" I simply meant that it's just punching, which has never deterred anyone except perhaps a few kids in middle school. Arguably there comes a point when talking is no longer an option and violence is the only way left to solve a divide too deep to fix otherwise - and that's when war (civil or otherwise) happens. And sometimes that does solve the problem. If you win, at least. But to state, like someone did, that this specific action solved anything is just silly.
            [–]thegoodboyy 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
            Dude, he's a freaking Nazi. You know, the people responsible for the Holocaust?
            [–]Roundhouse1988 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
            He has a right to speak freely without consequence from the government, not society. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
            Fair enough. Of course, start throwing elbows at people and they might shoot you in "self defense" and file charges to have you criminally prosecuted for assault (if you survive). Incite people to throw elbows and you could find yourself in prison too. Do you think people should break into their homes too? Assault their children?
            Criminals, like the guy in the video, aren't helping the situation.
            [–]gres06 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
            "I was the one that didn't really understand free speech before making a comment about how others don't get it" -johnthecabbage
            [–]Roundhouse1988 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
            In the face of fascism, there can be no tolerance for fascists. http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
            Ok. How do you tell who are the fascists?
            I tend to go with whomever is using violence to impose their views on others.
            Of course, in that context Orwell's Pacifism and the War makes a lot of sense. In the context of the Donald's inauguration? Yeah, not so much.
            [–]Roundhouse1988 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
            Spencer and his alt-right neo-nazis are not hard to identify.
            [–]_JohnTheSavage_ 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
            You must forget that we live in a country where Sikhs were targeted for their turbans by ignorant bigots trying to target Muslims. It's especially ironic if you consider Sikh history.
            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 19583 on app-423 at 2017-01-24 03:05:33.811968+00:00 running e9da7ae 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%