White nationalist richard spencer punched during interview

[petetown]

Is he now "cuck?"

 

[TexanStar]

A very nasty man unexpectedly got hit in the face. Doesn't really go any deeper than that.

Would it have been funnier if bones were broken?

Maybe if he lost an eye?

Hilarious if a car hit him?

Or if he got shot? Murdered?

Where's the line where violence inflicted on someone who speaks views you disagree with moves from funny to not funny?

 

[ActionBuddy]

@TexanStar - Assuming that you have listened to Richard Spencer's videos, are you really surprised that he gets attacked?

I'm not.

A/B

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

Would it have been funnier if bones were broken?

Maybe if he lost an eye?

Hilarious if a car hit him?

Or if he got shot? Murdered?

Where's the line where violence inflicted on someone who speaks views you disagree with moves from funny to not funny?

He's a neo nazi, of course it would be a good thing if he was murdered

 

[TexanStar]

@TexanStar - Assuming that you have listened to Richard Spencer's videos, are you really surprised that he gets attacked?

I'm not.

A/B

I have better things to do with my time than sit around listening to white supremacy propaganda.

It is not surprising that someone who speaks white supremacist views might get attacked.

That it is not surprising that they might get attacked does not justify their getting attacked. If an attractive woman walked naked into a drunken frat party and into a bedroom, I would not be surprised to hear that someone assaulted her, but it doesn't justify someone assaulting her.

He's a neo nazi, of course it would be a good thing if he was murdered

 

[ActionBuddy]

^ - Agreed, of course... I just wondered if you had listened to this racist asshole's "spoken words".

A/B

 

[Klingsor]

I suppose that is a fine POV and I won't contest it. However, I think it's a bit short sighted in considering the two ideologies. What are their goals and what are the consequences of each? In that respect they are quite different.

I think white supremacism is the root of white separatism. If you truly believed other races were your equals, you'd have no need to keep apart from them.

 

[nickinoo]

Would it have been funnier if bones were broken?

Maybe if he lost an eye?

Hilarious if a car hit him?

Or if he got shot? Murdered?

Where's the line where violence inflicted on someone who speaks views you disagree with moves from funny to not funny?

Never really thought about it, and don't care. Chill out, it wasn't me that hit him.

The more evil a person is, the less I value their lives and well being. He's not just an average person with an opinion, he's a vile troll recruiting many others to hate other humans for being born a different colour.

 

[TexanStar]

The more evil a person is, the less I value their lives and well being. He's not just an average person with an opinion, he's a vile troll recruiting many others to hate other humans for being born a different colour.

You're just not helping. You're reacting to this guy with hatred, and that's more fuel for their sense of defensiveness. Reacting with a smug sense of superiority... that you're a more valuable person than they are may feel good, but it keeps these kinds of attitudes in play rather than letting them die out. You're just one more voice out there justifying their beliefs.

I'm mixxed race (white and black). I would be well within my rights to be afraid of these people. And I'm just telling you that you're not helping the situation. To the contrary, you're making it worse.

If you're someone who truly believes in equality and equal treatment under the law, then you have to embrace the fact that this includes people who hold views contrary to yours, even views you might consider vile. Standing back and laughing at someone having violence acted upon them for their political views is an embrace of the root evil behind this stuff.

 

[nickinoo]

You're just not helping. You're reacting to this guy with hatred, and that's more fuel for their sense of defensiveness. Reacting with a smug sense of superiority... that you're a more valuable person than they are may feel good, but it keeps these kinds of attitudes in play rather than letting them die out. You're just one more voice out there justifying their beliefs.

I'm mixxed race (white and black). I would be well within my rights to be afraid of these people. And I'm just telling you that you're not helping the situation. To the contrary, you're making it worse.

If you're someone who truly believes in equality and equal treatment under the law, then you have to embrace the fact that this includes people who hold views contrary to yours, even views you might consider vile. Standing back and laughing at someone having violence acted upon them for their political views is an embrace of the root evil behind this stuff.

I know that he shouldn't have been hit in the face, and I know it's wrong. And to answer your earlier question I wouldn't have been laughing if he'd got stabbed or something. But he should fear airing his racist views to the world and know that they are wrong and upsetting a lot of people, because they are cruel to humanity. If he just keeps going, he deserves some punishment. He is the one actively contributing to a big problem, and most people can see it. Some people unfortunately can't contain their disdain for him. At what point should he be stopped?

Generally I feel like the law is justice enough for bad people, but sometimes it's not. Just as an example, a mother and her partner have just been jailed in the UK for 13 years for the treatment of her daughter, who they called their 'little bastard' and was born addicted to heroin. The mother started feeding her daughter drugs including heroin, ketamine and diazepam to sedate her because she was getting in the way of her sex life. After four years of suffering life with her disgusting parents, she died, probably of a heart attack. They got sentenced to 13 years and 'daddy's' response to the judge was 'Whatever'. 13 years is not enough, and they won't even serve that. They don't deserve a life, they deserve the death penalty and even that is too good for them.

Sometimes, rightly or wrongly people take the law into their own hands because the law is not protecting them the way it should. Like the people who hit back at Richard Spencer, and the people who will make these 'parent's' lives hell in jail

 

[Industrialsize]

I know that he shouldn't have been hit in the face, and I know it's wrong. And to answer your earlier question I wouldn't have been laughing if he'd got stabbed or something. But he should fear airing his racist views to the world and know that they are wrong and upsetting a lot of people, because they are cruel to humanity. If he just keeps going, he deserves some punishment. He is the one actively contributing to a big problem, and most people can see it. Some people unfortunately can't contain their disdain for him. At what point should he be stopped?

Generally I feel like the law is justice enough for bad people, but sometimes it's not. Just as an example, a mother and her partner have just been jailed in the UK for 13 years for the treatment of her daughter, who they called their 'little bastard' and was born addicted to heroin. The mother started feeding her daughter drugs including heroin, ketamine and diazepam to sedate her because she was getting in the way of her sex life. After four years of suffering life with her disgusting parents, she died, probably of a heart attack. They got sentenced to 13 years and 'daddy's' response to the judge was 'Whatever'. 13 years is not enough, and they won't even serve that. They don't deserve a life, they deserve the death penalty and even that is too good for them.

Sometimes, rightly or wrongly people take the law into their own hands because the law is not protecting them the way it should. Like the people who hit back at Richard Spencer, and the people who will make these 'parent's' lives hell in jail

Article I of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states: 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.

We take that seriously here. No matter how heinous you may find it, speech is protected.

 

[nickinoo]

Article I of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states: 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.

We take that seriously here. No matter how heinous you may find it, speech is protected.

I know, I'm sure it is here too. This is something that needs changing.

 

[Industrialsize]

I know, I'm sure it is here too. This is something that needs changing.

I wouldn't change it at all.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

Look at the ideosyncratic definition of "different opinion" in White America:
"For too long now, when we consider questions of race, especially questions concerning the Black race, we have been framing things in completely the wrong way. Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, 'Does human civilization actually needs 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."
Richard Spencer in the article "Is Black Genocide Right?", for "Alternative Right" magazine.

 

[nickinoo]

Look at the ideosyncratic definition of "different opinion" in White America:
"For too long now, when we consider questions of race, especially questions concerning the Black race, we have been framing things in completely the wrong way. Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, 'Does human civilization actually needs 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."
Richard Spencer in the article "Is Black Genocide Right?", for "Alternative Right" magazine.

This is why some people should not be given the right to freedom of speech. What a douche bag. What's unfortunate is that he is obviously charming and persuasive enough to other ignorant fuckers. Scary,

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

While I understand the passion physical violence is never really the answer.

That single punch actually managed to stop a conference of nazis. He had to cancel his plans.
From a New York Times article:

Mr. Spencer said he was worried about being attacked again.
“I don’t think I could go out to an inauguration event without bodyguards or a protest or a conference,” he said. “I am more worried about going out to dinner on an average Tuesday because these kind of people are roaming around.”
On Periscope, Mr. Spencer also expressed concern about the spread of the footage of the attack online.
“I’m afraid this is going to become the meme to end all memes,” he said. “That I’m going to hate watching this.”

 

[TexanStar]

some people should not be given the right to freedom of speech.

You're from the UK, so I'll forgive you on this one, but the whole premise of the rights granted by the bill of rights is that they are inherently yours by measure of your being a human being. It lays out rights that belong to you and makes it clear that the government has no power to infringe upon them. '

Chief among these, framed in the first amendment, are the rights to freedom of speech and the right to peacably assemble (among some others). The whole premise of taking these rights away from people because of the content of their speech flies in the face of our constitution and is about as un-American as you can get (I realize you aren't American, so that's not terribly important to you, but it's a grotesque consideration with respect to our cultural norms).

 

[nickinoo]

You're from the UK, so I'll forgive you on this one, but the whole premise of the rights granted by the bill of rights is that they are inherently yours by measure of your being a human being. It lays out rights that belong to you and makes it clear that the government has no power to infringe upon them. '

Chief among these, framed in the first amendment, are the rights to freedom of speech and the right to peacably assemble (among some others). The whole premise of taking these rights away from people because of the content of their speech flies in the face of our constitution and is about as un-American as you can get (I realize you aren't American, so that's not terribly important to you, but it's a grotesque consideration with respect to our cultural norms).

Yes those laws are fair enough. It's my belief that certain people are subhuman and a waste of oxygen.

 

[bigbull29]

Yes those laws are fair enough. It's my belief that certain people are subhuman and a waste of oxygen.

Like Dwump and all the members of his team?

 

[ActionBuddy]

@bigbull29 - Should Dwump's team be named "The Dwumpsters"?

I'd like to see that term go viral.