# Richard Spencer, alt-right leader and white nationalist, punched in the face at Trump inauguration



## Death Certificate (Jan 21, 2017)

> Richard Spencer, the alt-right leader and white nationalist, was punched in the face twice Friday amid the inauguration festivities in Washington DC.
> 
> One of the photographers who captured the 38-year-old getting clocked in the face told Jezebel that the leader will definitely be sore in the morning. “Someone ran up behind him and clocked him in the face. Somebody in a mask. Spencer kept talking. Then it happened again,” the witness explained.






> “One of them was in the ear,” he continued, describing the attack on the corner of 14th and K Street at 2:30pm. “He’s gonna have a big face tomorrow. Keep an eye on it.”
> 
> Mr Spencer openly leads the so-called alt-right movement that’s been described as a mix between populism, racism, and white nationalism. The group commonly rejects the American ideal that all races, religions, genders, and ethnic minorities should be treated equally under law.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nched-donald-trump-inauguration-a7538746.html

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 6 | Winner 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

I don't know who's more of a cunt Richard Spencer or the pussy that sucker punched him.


----------



## Vermilion Kn (Jan 21, 2017)

Bitch move on that guy's part even though Spencer is a cunt. 

But what really alarms me is the web reaction to this. Toxicity is reaching new levels these days on the internet. YT in particular is pretty much a ever lasting KKK meeting now.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 21, 2017)

religion of PUNCHES

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

But what happened to tolerance?


----------



## egressmadara (Jan 21, 2017)

Bad leftist. Very, very bad violence.'

Larry king's car also got smashed.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jan 21, 2017)

Zef said:


> But what happened to tolerance?


Bigotry is an intolerance that cannot be tolerated
Stupid racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever other form of bigotry he is fuck deserves worse than that punch - deport his ass back to wherever his ancestors came from (as I'm sure he advocates wrongfully doing exactly the same to others based on their race, religion, etc)
I love the GIF btw hilarious

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 7 | Optimistic 1 | Dislike 5


----------



## Death Certificate (Jan 21, 2017)

Zef said:


> But what happened to tolerance?



Mr Spencer, _who has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”, says he dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans"._

Tolerance disappears when you start advocating massacres of non-white people

Reactions: Like 3 | Dislike 1


----------



## dream (Jan 21, 2017)

I fully support punching the every living shit out of people like Spencer and all those who ascribe to his beliefs.

Reactions: Like 11 | Dislike 5


----------



## Death Certificate (Jan 21, 2017)

Darth inVaders said:


> Bigotry is an intolerance that cannot be tolerated
> Stupid racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever other form of bigotry he is fuck deserves worse than that punch - *deport his ass back to wherever his ancestors came from *(as I'm sure he advocates wrongfully doing exactly the same to others based on their race, religion, etc)
> I love the GIF btw hilarious



Yet he already banned from the UK and 26 other European Countries.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## dream (Jan 21, 2017)

Death Certificate said:


> Yet he already banned from the UK and 26 other European Countries.



Send him to Africa.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Dream said:


> I fully support punching the every living shit out of people like Spencer and all those who ascribe to his beliefs.




Amen to this.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jan 21, 2017)

It was stupid. It contributed to nothing except please their enemies and comfort alt right  supporters in their ideology and act violent as well.


----------



## Gunners (Jan 21, 2017)

I don't approve of his message but the hypocrisy is sickening. One day they will complain about _harassment_ (constructive criticism) making them feel vulnerable, the next day they will celebrate someone getting attacked due to having a contemptible view.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 8


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 21, 2017)

The guy is a dick. But this doesnt do anything, but validate his ideology.

And people shouldnt get attacked because of their ideology, that is censorship.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Spencer was attacked because he's a bigoted sick.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Hey guys what's the best way to deal with a white supremacist? Answer wisely!

a) ignore them 
b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner 
c) cry and claim you're literally shaking 
d) punch him in the face and make him a victim of violent intolerance 

The answer is clearly D.  That's how you deal with people you disagree with.  Tolerance only applies to people that you agree with.  Why would you have to tolerate stuff you don't like?  If Spencer gets more supporters from this incident then so be it, better to commit physical assault over ideas than challenge them in debate.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## dream (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Hey guys what's the best way to deal with a white supremacist? Answer wisely!
> 
> a) ignore them
> b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner
> ...



a) Will let them amass support while everyone sits back and watches them
b) Might make some people see the bullshit that Spencer and co sprout for what it and thus turn away from it but there are plenty of racists/idiots that will flock to it no matter how much humiliation Spencer and co get.
c) lol
d) Violence is indeed the correct answer to evil.  If violence isn't working then you haven't used enough.

Reactions: Like 2 | Winner 2


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 21, 2017)

Punching Nazis it a time honored american tradition
How do you like the "pussification" of the left brings to america now? 
How do you like our participation trophies


----------



## Atem (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Hey guys what's the best way to deal with a white supremacist? Answer wisely!
> 
> a) ignore them
> b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner
> ...



You're forgetting option E.

Fuck them in the ass.

The Fleece Johnson strategy.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

I'm surprised there are people here that actually support physically assaulting people for having the wrong ideas.  Not even for anything they've _done_, just for having the wrong belief system.  Usually when the authoritarian hypocrisy of you people are exposed, there's an attempt to cloak it in some fashion, but I guess when the topic is white people thinking they're better than everyone all pretense and facade disappears.

Reactions: Winner 11


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I'm surprised there are people here that actually support physically assaulting people for having the wrong ideas.  Not even for anything they've _done_, just for having the wrong belief system.


I'm not, and the part that's really fucked up is that they are attacking him for simply having different beliefs. No different than a schoolyard bully.

You can see the liberals on this forum slowly changing to become more and more radical.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jan 21, 2017)

this country sure is getting violent but remember when people were calling me crazy for saying this would happen. The violence is only going to get worse because people are angry as fuck. Anyone who thinks this country will be going into chill-mode anytime soon is blind. There will be no unity.


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

Why can't the Left carry this same mentality to people who participate in radical Islam tho?

Ya'll quick to go on social media, and hope that it's a white male who blew something up whenever there's a terrorist attack. Just saying...

The problem with punching people in the face who have a different ideology is that it sets a precedent for violence whenever a person disagrees.

And besides the fact that it shits on your motto (therefore making you hypocrites) it isn't the first time a person from the other side has been assaulted. Convenient to say this guy deserves it when a blind eye was turned to similar acts of violence that happened to less deserving individuals.


makeoutparadise said:


> Punching Nazis it a time honored american tradition
> How do you like the "pussification" of the left brings to america now?
> How do you like our participation trophies


The Left is still pussified though.

As long as SJW's and political correctness remain that will always be true.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jan 21, 2017)

Also, I get that this guy was just talking but lets not fool ourselves here. If this man had power he would have no issue with massacring millions of people. I get that people think ideas are harmless but they really arent. Dangerous ideas are what leads to violence. Just look at the middle east and how shitty ideas have turned that place into hell. Not advocating for violence but the stuff this guy says was eventually going to get him punched in the face. I'd be more concerned if people were actually advocating for violence against him but a random punching him in the face was something anyone could have seen coming.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jan 21, 2017)

Since people talk about nazis,   I won't risk a Godwin point if I made a parallel between the event discussed in this thread and the battle between the communists and the nazis in Berlin. Both side were very aggressive but it's the nazi who won (thanks to the death of Horst Wessex who was killed by communists and became a martyr).


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 21, 2017)

Can't say I have much sympathy for the guy.

Normally I'm usually willing to insist that violence is wrong and that hitting people due to disagreement is fucked up. In fact I still hold that belief for 99% of opinions out there.

Buuuut, on the other hand, we ARE talking about a literal neo-nazi who openly advocates for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing. I feel like when you've reached the point of becoming an actual nazi who supports ethnic cleansing, you become deserving of a punch to the face. I don't care if he tries to become a martyr either, white nationalists genuinely believe they're the most victimized people in the planet, and they'll cling to that belief regardless if some of their supporters get punched or not.

And I don't really think that people cheering this on is somehow indicative of some severe moral decay. Like others have said, punching nazis is practically an American pasttime.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Zef said:


> Why can't the Left carry this same mentality to people who participate in radical Islam tho?
> 
> Ya'll quick to go on social media, and hope that it's a white male who blew something up whenever there's a terrorist attack. Just saying...
> 
> ...


Because radical Islamists that shout death to infidels on the streets have brown skin.  White supremacists that shout 'stop white genocide' on the streets have white skin.  The pigmentation of your skin determines whether fake liberals think you should be allowed to not get punched in the face.

Reactions: Winner 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Atem (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Because radical Islamists that shout death to infidels on the streets have brown skin.  White supremacists that shout 'stop white genocide' on the streets have white skin.  The pigmentation of your skin determines whether fake liberals think you should be allowed to not get punched in the face.



 Kinda ironic once you think about it.


----------



## Disquiet (Jan 21, 2017)

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he had a punch coming, but encouraging violence against people who are assholes is a plan that is likely to blow up in your face. Or punch you in the face, I suppose.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Hey guys what's the best way to deal with a white supremacist? Answer wisely!
> 
> a) ignore them
> b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner
> ...



What do you mean by 'best way'? Morally, or practically? These two different questions have two different answers in my opinion.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Darth inVaders said:


> Bigotry is an intolerance that cannot be tolerated
> Stupid racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever other form of bigotry he is fuck deserves worse than that punch - deport his ass back to wherever his ancestors came from (as I'm sure he advocates wrongfully doing exactly the same to others based on their race, religion, etc)
> I love the GIF btw hilarious



You can't fight the thing you hate by becoming that very same thing you pleb.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I'm surprised there are people here that actually support physically assaulting people for having the wrong ideas.  Not even for anything they've _done_, just for having the wrong belief system.  Usually when the authoritarian hypocrisy of you people are exposed, there's an attempt to cloak it in some fashion, but I guess when the topic is white people thinking they're better than everyone all pretense and facade disappears.


cowardly pussy leftists advocate violence against the fair right but lets be honest if they started a fight they'd get their heads kicked in they're a bunch of privileged snowflakes that have never taken a punch in their lives let alone hit someone from anywhere other than their blindside.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Dream said:


> I fully support punching the every living shit out of people like Spencer and all those who ascribe to his beliefs.


bruh have you never heard of an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind or something tlike that?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

To be clear, nobody has to feel sympathy for this guy.  Supporting an act of violence is different than viewing it as destructive in principle but getting visceral satisfaction from it in consequence.  I'd get visceral satisfaction from a commercial church healer getting slapped in the face, but I would never formally support it as an acceptable action, and I certainly wouldn't view it as productive. 


Take these people for instance.  Their beliefs are just as bad, if not worse, than Spencer's.  Yet despite their hatred they should have their ideas protected by free speech.  Have a problem with it?  Challenge it.  The moment you take an ideological conflict to fists, you lose.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> a) ignore them
> b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner
> c) cry and claim you're literally shaking
> d) punch him in the face and make him a victim of violent intolerance



I'd go for b).  a) just leaves them free to do whatever; c) is just the victim card that Republicans like to use these days; save d) when there is no risk of making him a victim of violent intolerance.  

Through using b), they will then e) expose themselves for the bigoted, selfish pricks they are.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

black hebrew israelites? fucking scum of the earth like bruh how can you chat shit to me when I make more money in a year than you will in a lifetime.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> Can't say I have much sympathy for the guy.
> 
> Normally I'm usually willing to insist that violence is wrong and that hitting people due to disagreement is fucked up. In fact I still hold that belief for 99% of opinions out there.
> 
> ...




@The Handsome Klad

This just totally invalidated your entire belief of "the left being more radical".


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Okay my stance on this is like this, the guy technically has a right to his free speech and all that, and violence would only further his cause amongst other bigots.
However Spencer is a piece of shit and the guy shouldn't have sucker punched him, He should have walked up to Spencer's face, mano e mano, looked him dead in his eye tell him "talk shit now, son" and clock him at 88mph right back to the 1700s. When you punching a bigot you got to see the fear in his eyes and let him know you're a man about it.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @The Handsome Klad
> 
> This just totally invalidated your entire belief of "the left being more radical".


@HolyHands is conservative?


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Words and alternative opinions shouldn't justify violence.

The Left continues to show how hypocritical their side is becoming.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 21, 2017)

Haha, I'm not conservative by any means. I'm just saying that even though I advocate for anti-violence, even that belief has limits. Like I said, for 99% of beliefs, I think the proper thing to do is hear them out and argue it peacefully.

The 1% of that figure includes things like advocating for ethnic cleansing. Once you go there, my desire for non-violence tends to weaken just a bit. That said, I still think that assault should always be seen as illegal from a purely legal based perspective, but I certainly won't complain if the occasionally vigilante decides to throw a punch every once in a while.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@KingForever7 

Said the person who has

1) A caricature as a trump supporter *points at Chie*
2) Hoards of Ku Klux klan members supporting Trump

3) blatantly racist Republican  president


So tell me again who's really lost their way again dearie? 

Make me wonder if Republicans have really changed that much since  the days of civil war. Still bigoted as fuck even without slavery no longer being around.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 21, 2017)

I am okay with this. This ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) gives Trump supporters a bad name. The neo nazi elements of the Trump train should gtfo.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> bruh have you never heard of an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind or something tlike that?




I'm pacifistic as hell nowadays but dude it's really hard to sympathize and rationalize with racists. It's like trying to reason with Chie....and you of all people know how draining that is.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> I am okay with this. This ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) gives Trump supporters a bad name. The neo nazi elements of the Trump train should gtfo.




*pats head*

You're a good boy.


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

Hold up, is this the dude that was saluting Trump with his right hand saying 'heil'?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I'm surprised there are people here that actually support physically assaulting people for having the wrong ideas.  Not even for anything they've _done_, just for having the wrong belief system.  Usually when the authoritarian hypocrisy of you people are exposed, there's an attempt to cloak it in some fashion, but I guess when the topic is white people thinking they're better than everyone all pretense and facade disappears.


Thing is what you are saying isn't wrong, however in practice its doesn't do much really.

There two trains of thoughts to those solution the short and long term effects.
1) If you ignore them the short term they would be like mosquitos, however ignoring them could be as worst as censoring them. They will eventually gain support among the uneducated and their following will be big enough that you can't ignore anymore.

2) Verbal smack down an idiot or bigot has solve ignorance since when? Real life isn't the internet. You'll just frustrate them more and make them even more aggressive. As Trump proved they don't care if they are wrong, they work on emotions.

3) Sometimes violence is the only thing certain individuals or groups will understand. Yes its a double edge sword. For example long term solution to crime? Better/cheaper education, well paying and more jobs, basically give people the means to live a decent life and better it.
However that won't solve the issue with harden criminals who already exist. Those you still need to deal with and can't be negotiated with.

Point is violence has shaped society for centuries and yes we don't want it to be the answer but sometimes you got to do what you got to do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Zef said:


> Hold up, is this the dude that was saluting Trump with his right hand saying 'heil'?




From now on officially calling him Adolf.


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @KingForever7
> 
> Said the person who has
> 
> ...



Yawn.
Don't you get tired of spamming 'bigotry' , 'racist' all the time.

There's only one side of the political spectrum right causing havoc and pandemonium because "Trump is scary lol" 

Republicans are the ones in control of the government because of utterly retarded the Left has become in terms of their morals, beliefs, facts and decision making


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

I don't entirely agree with Richard Spencer either but this stupid move by leftist protesters only bolsters him.

Words do not constitute violence


----------



## Death Certificate (Jan 21, 2017)

KingForever7 said:


> Words and alternative opinions shouldn't justify violence.
> 
> The Left continues to show how hypocritical their side is becoming.



You do realise Spencer's "opinions" call for your death?


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Death Certificate said:


> You do realise Spencer's "opinions" call for your death?


When did he say he wanted blacks dead ?

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

he wants an ethnic cleansing what do you think that means?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

His words still don't constitute violence though. 

Again, no one is willing to punch a Muslim saying death to America, or that Westerners are evil and should be eradicated.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 21, 2017)

@KingForever7



Death Certificate said:


> Mr Spencer, _who has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”, says he dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans"._



That's ethnic cleaning Spencer is talking about.  King, how could you be so ignorant *to not* realize that this includes you?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Thing is what you are saying isn't wrong, however in practice its doesn't do much really.
> 
> There two trains of thoughts to those solution the short and long term effects.
> 1) If you ignore them the short term they would be like mosquitos, however ignoring them could be as worst as censoring them. They will eventually gain support among the uneducated and their following will be big enough that you can't ignore anymore.
> ...


No.  If what you're saying is right then Martin Luther King should've rioted in the streets and started a race war.  I'm sure the bloodbath that would've transpired would've been very productive for the black community.

There's a time and place for violence.  The most obvious is in self defence.   The less obvious is when the cause is just and there's no other option.  Resorting to violence just because someone has toxic beliefs is, in principle, saying those beliefs shouldn't be allowed to exist.  That's just a silly and petulant approach to communication.


The best method of combating idiots is to intellectually humiliate them.  What do you think is more effective on a mass scale?

This:

Or this:

??????

Do you honestly think more people will realize how ridiculous white supremacy is after witnessing someone calmly state their beliefs and then get punched by an intolerant prick?  Or witnessing one of them show up to a debate with a smug attitude and backpedal, get picked apart, and made for a gigantic fool on live television?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> he wants an ethnic cleansing what do you think that means?


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@KingForever7 

Bigotry and racism are accurate labels considering how much the country is dividing because of how much hate is espoused by the GOP. Nothing about love or unity in the inane ramblings of president tiny hands. All that's heard from him is: xenophobia,racism, sexism, and bigotry.

That's not anything that entitles him to respect or reverence as commander-in chief. If you truly think Trump having the title of commander-in chief means we must obey and respect him then you're both a naive child and a puppet.

The respect and servitude of the American people is earned, not something that's given.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Catalyst75 said:


> @KingForever7
> 
> 
> 
> That's ethnic cleaning Spencer is talking about.  King, how could you be so ignorant *to not* realize that this includes you?




Geezus, King...


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 21, 2017)

KingForever7 said:


> I don't entirely agree with Richard Spencer either but this stupid move by leftist protesters only bolsters him.
> 
> Words do not constitute violence



I don't necessarily agree that this act "bolsters" him.

The first reason is because, like I said earlier, Spencer is seen as a Nazi, and there's nothing that American culture celebrates more than smacking Nazis around. Most of us literally grew up on cartoons and games where you fuck up Nazis for fun.

The second reason is because, well, I think it really needs to be said that trying to prevent white nationalists from becoming martyrs is a futile gesture. Ever interacted or talked with a white nationalist before? Those guys self-victimize themselves on levels that would make a SJW blush. Any community full of these jokers is basically one giant pity party where they talk about how oppressed white people are, and their definition of what constitutes an "attack" on white identity is as wide as the ocean itself.

Have sex with dark-skinned or Jewish people? You're attacking white identity.
Marry a dark-skinned or Jewish person? You're attacking white identity.
Listen to rap or RnB music? You're attacking white identity.
Play games, or watch TV shows, or watch movies that have a diverse cast? You're attacking white identity.
Consume any kind of media that promotes, or can be interpreted to promote, an ideal of accepting others? You're attacking white identity.
Are you dark-skinned and simply exist in a "white" country? You're attacking white identity.

And the list goes on...

I have very little desire to keep white nationalists from seeing themselves as martyrs because that's an exercise in futility. It's as dumb as when certain liberals think that we shouldn't attack Islam because "that's what ISIS wants". Fuck that noise, racist idiots are going to want us all dead regardless of what method we use to combat it. The only reason to advocate for non-violence is because I feel that it's an ideal that we should all strive for, and because humiliating them intellectually is in my eyes, much more satisfying than violence. Still, I wouldn't mind the occasional punch to those who unironically adopt the ideal of ethnic cleansing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Do you honestly think more people will realize how ridiculous white supremacy is after witnessing someone calmly state their beliefs and then get punched by an intolerant prick? *More so than witnessing one of them backpedal, get picked apart, and made for a gigantic fool on live television*?



Beautifully put.  

The best way to deal with them is to deconstruct them completely, and leave all the pieces apparent for everyone to see.  The same will go for Trump.  As unfortunate as it is that he's in office at all, the longer he is in office gives more opportunities to completely deconstruct him. 

Losing the election would have just humiliated Trump. 

Now Trump is in a position where he can be metaphorically obliterated and left incapable of picking up the pieces to salvage his reputation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Catalyst75 said:


> Beautifully put.
> 
> The best way to deal with them is to deconstruct them completely, and leave all the pieces apparent for everyone to see.  The same will go for Trump.  As unfortunate as it is that he's in office at all, the longer he is in office gives more opportunities to completely deconstruct him.
> 
> ...


I've said this to a few of my leftist friends and their response is they deserve this hate and people should hate them because they're wrong. 

"So you'll treat them like the minorities and groups that they dislike out of ignorance"

"Yes but they deserve it those minorities don't"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> he wants an ethnic cleansing what do you think that means?



He wants American culture to be sorely based on White Identity (which I fundamentally disagree with)

He wants an ethnic cleansing of immigrants who don't share common values that make western nations a good place to live (I mostly agree with this).

All, you're doing is infering that he wants to eradicate minorities from the west. That's fear mongering (which the Left loves doing)

@HolyHands 

I agree that the views that Richard Spencer shares in terms of White Identity should be rejected.

However, advocating violence towards him (when he is having calm, peaceful and mature conversations with people on the street)....only makes him look better than the people attacking him.



VAK said:


> I've said this to a few of my leftist friends and their response is they deserve this hate and people should hate them because they're wrong.
> 
> "So you'll treat them like the minorities and groups that they dislike out of ignorance"
> 
> "Yes but they deserve it those minorities don't"



Like I've been saying, Most people on the Left are complete hypocrites.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@KingForever7 

Ethnic cleansing in general is terrible. Also I'm pretty sure he means ethnic cleansing of anyone not white.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> No.  If what you're saying is right then Martin Luther King should've rioted in the streets and started a race war.  I'm sure the bloodbath that would've transpired would've been very productive for the black community.
> 
> There's a time and place for violence.  The most obvious is in self defence.   The less obvious is when the cause is just and there's no other option.  Resorting to violence just because someone has toxic beliefs is, in principle, saying those beliefs shouldn't be allowed to exist.  That's just a silly and petulant approach to communication.
> 
> ...


You think there was no violence on both sides for the civil rights movement? Black Panthers? or look at Nelson Mandela in South Africa?
You better check up on history because the freedom we enjoy today, blood has been spilt for it. 

Secondly your videos don't prove anything. You are humiliating someone that is ignorant, what did he accomplish? Did he make the person realize how stupid his beliefs are or did he just frustrate the person and suppress his opinion?  Your mistake is you believe I said violence is the only way and you should always punch them in the face. 

I did not say that, I agree reasoning should be the first approach (you don't humiliate them because thats not better than a punch in the face you are belittling them, again this isn't the internet) you need to find common ground and meet each other half way. What I said was some people can't be reason with no matter how reasonable you come across.  If reasoning with ignorant people was so easy, we would have ending racism a long time ago and never had WWII.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

I wish people would remember how because of racism we had WWII. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see another civil war because of racist pricks like white nationalist fuckers being apart of the new white house administration.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> I wish people would remember how because of racism we had WWII. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see another civil war because of racist pricks like white nationalist fuckers being apart of the new white house administration.


pretty sure ww2 was more to do with economics than racism.

the apartheid was due to racism tho

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

KingForever7 said:


> He wants an ethnic cleansing of immigrants who don't share common values that make western nations a good place to live (I mostly agree with this).


So that's why the Europeans killed the natives?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> pretty sure ww2 was more to do with economics than racism.
> 
> the apartheid was due to racism tho


Economics was what lead to it but Hilter played on the fears as well.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You think there was no violence on both sides for the civil rights movement? Black Panthers? or look at Nelson Mandela in South Africa?
> You better check up on history because the freedom we enjoy today, blood has been spilt for it.


The black panthers didn't even take off until after the civil rights movement.  Come on son, don't talk about brushing up on history while slipping up on a basic fact as this.

And for the record, the black panthers were a reprehensible organization that did some good and a lot more bad for the black community.  The civil rights movement is historically characterized as non-violent civil disobedience in 50s and 60s.  That's why it was so effective, and why it's a specific timeline in history that denotes a specific brand of activism.



> Secondly your videos don't prove anything. You are humiliating someone that is ignorant, what did he accomplish? Did he make the person realize how stupid his beliefs are or did he just frustrate the person and suppress his opinion?


...Dear lord.  Do you know what happens in formal debates?  Audiences are surveyed for their positions before the debate.  The opponents then argue for a certain time.  After the debate, the opponents typically remain in the same camp, but the audience opinion sways toward the winner.

To put it this way, if you were to put 2000 white supremacists in a room, surveyed them before the debate, and surveyed them after the debate, a good chunk of them will change their minds.  If you showed them a video of someone getting punched in the face for thoughtcrime, the reverse would happen.  Now expand this to a general audience witnessing these events unfold, either in person or online.  Many people won't be swayed either way, but many others will.  To win a war of ideas, especially on a large scale, you can't have this cynical false equivalence of punching someone in the face and intellectually eviscerating them.  Maybe argumentation doesn't work on yourself, but it works on a lot of people.  Either directly or indirectly.

One thing is for sure, violence only has the opposite effect.



> Your mistake is you believe I said violence is the only way and you should always punch them in the face.


????????????????????????????????????????????????

Not only is this off, it's not even close to anything I said.  Stating that violence is only appropriate in very rare circumstances isn't implying you're saying violence is the only way and you should always punch them in the face.  That's a pretty weird strawman of a straightforward argument.



> I did not say that, I agree reasoning should be the first approach (you don't humiliate them because thats not better than a punch in the face you are belittling them, again this isn't the internet) you need to find common ground and meet each other half way. What I said was some people can't be reason with no matter how reasonable you come across.  If reasoning with ignorant people was so easy, we would have ending racism a long time ago and never had WWII.


You didn't just say "some people can't be reasoned with", you suggested some people can only get the point through violence.  Basically implying some people just need a knuckle to the face.  Considering how you're downplaying argumentation and defending violence, your approach to this issue is extremely out of touch.

It's not
"violence is generally bad but arguing doesn't do much more let's be real"

It's
"violence is almost always bad and arguing effectively is infinitely more productive in most cases"


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Economics was what lead to it but Hilter played on the fears as well.



Kinda like Adolf Trump calling Mexicans "rapists".


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

The Civil rights movement basically copied Gandhi


----------



## Orochibuto (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> I wish people would remember how because of racism we had WWII. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see another civil war because of racist pricks like white nationalist fuckers being apart of the new white house administration.



SJWs have as much as fault.

At least where I grew up, racism and shit like that was universally understood as bad.

Now thanks to SJWs taking things too far, legitimate racist concerns can more easily get trashed and people are too tired of hearing "racism!" everywhere than when it is actually necessary, they dont care.

The left cried wolf so many times with establishment Republicans than when there actually WAS a wolf, they were not listened to in the degree they should.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Hey guys what's the best way to deal with a white supremacist? Answer wisely!
> 
> a) ignore them
> b) intellectually humiliate them at every turn in a calm and secure manner
> ...



A) Ignore them and they grow
B) These people have proven time and time and time again they are not interested in facts and logic, they hide behind their emotional feels and will just ignore cited facts that contradict them.  Stooping to emotional arguments is logically unsound (Maybe borderlining different fallacies) and must never be done.
C) That's a minority that people like to highlight
D) As much as sometimes people might need a good punch in the face I don't support that either.

As you can see it's hard to debate them when they're not interested in a rational debate but everything else is also so damn dangerous too.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@Orochibuto

I wouldn't necessarily point your torches in the SJW's direction. There's also African-Americans killed in police shootings that triggered people. 

Freaking hell, last year we even let a police officer who killed a black man in cold-blood escape conviction.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@Nemesis

IMO, I would punch them in the face until they listened to why what they're preaching is wrong.

Hell, if there was one in my neighborhood preaching that BS I'd get angry to the point that I'd also run up and punch them in the mouth like that protester did.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Nemesis said:


> A) Ignore them and they grow
> B) These people have proven time and time and time again they are not interested in facts and logic, they hide behind their emotional feels and will just ignore cited facts that contradict them.  Stooping to emotional arguments is logically unsound (Maybe borderlining different fallacies) and must never be done.
> C) That's a minority that people like to highlight
> D) As much as sometimes people might need a good punch in the face I don't support that either.
> ...


what is it is the british left that they suddenly think that it's impossible to destroy the arguments of these plebs through logic and reason, when you do that they get flustered and are put on the back foot but when you attack them aggressively they can play the victim how hard is that for you to comprehend?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Nemesis said:


> B) These people have proven time and time and time again they are not interested in facts and logic, they hide behind their emotional feels and will just ignore cited facts that contradict them.  Stooping to emotional arguments is logically unsound (Maybe borderlining different fallacies) and must never be done.
> 
> As you can see it's hard to debate them when they're not interested in a rational debate but everything else is also so damn dangerous too.


That's not really the point though.  Creationists for instance usually can't be reasoned _with_ and are some of the most insufferable people to try to have a logical debate with, but that doesn't change the fact that the approach needs to remain the same.  At a public level, people with varying degrees of certainty or skepticism for different ideas will generally respond more to valid argument than anything else. 

Violence is always an intellectual concession when you throw the first punch.  Even if they're stupid, it's instant validation.  Argumentation will either work on them or not, but it objectively works best on a large scale.  Trying to convince someone directly isn't really the point, it's as Catalyst pointed out the deconstruction and exposing of idiocy that is the most effective.  You'll never convince Ken Ham that he's a retard, but you can convince large masses of people that would otherwise fall into his camp for varying reasons.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

It should also be noted that while "ignore them and they grow" is valid, so is "punch them and they grow faster".


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> what is it is the british left that they suddenly think that it's impossible to destroy the arguments of these plebs through logic and reason, when you do that they get flustered and are put on the back foot but when you attack them aggressively they can play the victim how hard is that for you to comprehend?



What is it with you that you can't comprehend simple things that we have been using logic and reason against the right as well as the religious right and they always scramble to the same tried and true excuses over and over.

Whether it's facts vs religion, sex education, racial rights, gender rights, rights for sexuality, global climate change, etc etc etc.  You bring up peer reviewed facts they will always fall back on shit like The bible, discredited journals, discredited views on the economy, "We've had enough of experts who are more educated than us so we'll listen to man down the pub." arguments.

The point of a debate it to win the crowd it is to destroy the argument of said person you are debating to make them realise they are wrong and need to change.  You just hope the crowd isn't also the same people that you're debating.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 21, 2017)

Disquiet said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he had a punch coming, but encouraging violence against people who are assholes is a plan that is likely to blow up in your face. Or punch you in the face, I suppose.


so every black that got hung in a tree seen the noose being slipped over their head...doesnt mean they derserved it now does it.

love how its alawys a pussy hit from behind when its a liberal being violent.


keep it up pussies and in 30 years ehen shit hits the fan on a minutr by minute basis and b look blacks swinging from oaks, you will wonder how it got so bad, especially when our generations are seen as being open to different people. but this keeps up with race relations getting worse more people will accept racism and white supremacy.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Nemesis
> 
> IMO, I would punch them in the face until they listened to why what they're preaching is wrong.
> 
> Hell, if there was one in my neighborhood preaching that BS I'd get angry to the point that I'd also run up and punch them in the mouth like that protester did.


yea because you are too much of a coward to do it face to face

. just like a little bitch


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@IchLiebe 

Dude he ran up in front of him
 and punched him. He didn't come up from behind him.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

IchLiebe said:


> yea because you are too much of a coward to do it face to face
> 
> . just like a little bitch



Kiss my ass.

I would say straight to his face I'm going to punch him if he doesn't leave my neighborhood. If he doesn't take the hint to leave in designated time it's his fault. Shit only reason I'd bum rush is cuz it's funny. I'm all for straight up fight too.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> what is it is the british left that they suddenly think that it's impossible to destroy the arguments of these plebs through logic and reason, when you do that they get flustered and are put on the back foot but when you attack them aggressively they can play the victim how hard is that for you to comprehend?


because destroying their arguments won't stop them, matter of fact this is being done currently and in the past and nothing really change. The large majority don't care even when their side loses. That's the point. Its black and white either they are right or they will disagree regardless.

Real solution to this is really easy you destroy the cycle by educating their offspring from grade school all the way to college. Someone born and raise in ignorance is very hard to break his ways.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Just an FYI for people sympathizing for Spencer he said "America belongs to white men."


----------



## Breadman (Jan 21, 2017)

I find it hilarious how people are shaking their heads and going, "tsk, tsk, look at the left, such a violent political side" when the left has been getting just as bad. At this point their two sides of the same coin. 

It's like watching an Ouroboros eat it's own ass, where these 'alt-righters' are turning into what they claim to despise.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Dream said:


> a) Will let them amass support while everyone sits back and watches them
> b) Might make some people see the bullshit that Spencer and co sprout for what it and thus turn away from it but there are plenty of racists/idiots that will flock to it no matter how much humiliation Spencer and co get.
> c) lol
> d) Violence is indeed the correct answer to evil.  If violence isn't working then you haven't used enough.



The people assaulting have evil in another form, so what makes them better?

Fuck all white people. Fuck all non-white people. They are two sides of the same racist coin.

All you show when you react with violence to mere words is that you fear them, and when you show that, you give those words legitimacy. You make it seem there's something to fear, something that you don't want people to know. That ironically is what amasses support. Look at the screeching harpies that have shut down debate after debate on college courses, the consequences of such are clear.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Just an FYI for people sympathizing for Spencer he said "America belongs to white men."



OK and people sympathize with extremist Muslims  and call it being progressive as well so I'm not seeing your point.

What I am seeing is people who rail and cry against violence against certain groups are now supporting violence against someone they don't like.

So once again I get to see the hypocrisy of the "tolerant left".


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto, are you honestly implying you _wouldn't _punch a Nazi, given the chance?

Be honest now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Some of you people are truly stupid. Advocating short-term irrational action for the sake of brief emotional catharsis, which typically sets poor long-term precedents. How dumb can you be?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Seto, are you honestly implying you _wouldn't _punch a Nazi, given the chance?
> 
> Be honest now.



Only if I had to defend myself. Not because of their impotent ramblings.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Just an FYI for people sympathizing for Spencer he said "America belongs to white men."



NOBODY IS SYMPATHIZING WITH HIM.

You can recognize when an action is wrong, even if  you find the wronged person to be a shitty human being.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Informative 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> because destroying their arguments won't stop them, matter of fact this is being done currently and in the past and nothing really change. The large majority don't care even when their side loses. That's the point. Its black and white either they are right or they will disagree regardless.
> 
> Real solution to this is really easy you destroy the cycle by educating their offspring from grade school all the way to college. Someone born and raise in ignorance is very hard to break his ways.


your not debating at these people though you're debating at those that buy into their bullshit. 

If you're going to lecture someone at least occupy the moral high ground don't descend into petty name calling as the left loves to do nowadays


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba 


Sorry I'm confusing you guys with idiots forgetting that he's a white nationalist in video he gets punched.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Nemesis said:


> What is it with you that you can't comprehend simple things that we have been using logic and reason against the right as well as the religious right and they always scramble to the same tried and true excuses over and over.
> 
> Whether it's facts vs religion, sex education, racial rights, gender rights, rights for sexuality, global climate change, etc etc etc.  You bring up peer reviewed facts they will always fall back on shit like The bible, discredited journals, discredited views on the economy, "We've had enough of experts who are more educated than us so we'll listen to man down the pub." arguments.
> 
> The point of a debate it to win the crowd it is to destroy the argument of said person you are debating to make them realise they are wrong and need to change.  You just hope the crowd isn't also the same people that you're debating.


when has hurling abuse and labels at someone gotten them to change their mind? hurling abuse at the far right doesn't work this a fact much like how prohibition doesn't work in combatting the illegal drug trade. 

so now that we've established both methods don't work how about you try the one that doesn't make you look like a bunch of deplorable cunts like the other lot?


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Seto, are you honestly implying you _wouldn't _punch a Nazi, given the chance?
> 
> Be honest now.



Who in this thread wouldn't punch a white nationalist cunt for speaking about hatred?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

The far-right was so close to collapse. How did things turn so drastically is what I used to wonder, and it's all so clear now. For all the mockery of the Tea Party and the alt-right, we on the left did not take notice of the festering radicalization brewing and it's only when it got our attention was it already too late in retrospect. No one ideology can stay in power for long without being corrupted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> when has hurling abuse and labels at someone gotten them to change their mind? hurling abuse at the far right doesn't work this a fact much like how prohibition doesn't work in combatting the illegal drug trade.
> 
> so now that we've established both methods don't work how about you try the one that doesn't make you look like a bunch of deplorable cunts like the other lot?



Well let's see

Ignoring doesn't work.
Honest Debate doesn't work
Insulting or Violence isn't something I endorse.

Well I'm out of honest ideas of getting them to stop being wrong.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Nemesis said:


> Well let's see
> 
> Ignoring doesn't work.
> Honest Debate doesn't work
> ...



education perhaps?

instead of fighting with these idiots that will never get any power provided all of you lefties exercise your right to vote they'll remain on the fringe and by better educating the next generation bar a few hardcore descendants of the true believers most will be nice progressive members of society, well we hope they will be.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Who in this thread wouldn't punch a white nationalist cunt for speaking about hatred?



The same people who would not do the same to an Islamic nutjob. 

Your in no position to justify any sort of violence if you are opposed to the opposite side from using the same tactics.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Chelydra said:


> The same people who would not do the same to an Islamic nutjob.


yeah but you don't have to punch him to really fuck him over just hurl a bacon roll at the cunt.


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No one ideology can stay in power for long without being corrupted.



Honestly, That might be True......but, we'll see how the Trump presidency goes along in the future.

Right Now....It's still the Left still in control of culture, Media and Entertainment who are helping enable violence against people of opinions they disagree with.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> yeah but you don't have to punch him to really fuck him over just hurl a bacon roll at the cunt.


Bacon roll: strips of bacon on buttered bread stuffs?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Bacon roll: strips of bacon on buttered bread stuffs?


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@Chelydra 

Okay, time to wise up buddy. Not all worshippers of Islam are nuts nor terrorists. Knock that shit off. The religion is terrible like most (if not all) religions are; but their followers-some who I know and are my friends are kind.


 White nationalist are bigoted cunts. I'm a firm believer in pacifism but I won't waste my sympathy nor kindness towards people that stand for hatred.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 21, 2017)

Heart attack on a bun.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> your not debating at these people though you're debating at those that buy into their bullshit.
> 
> If you're going to lecture someone at least occupy the moral high ground don't descend into petty name calling as the left loves to do nowadays


Both sides believe they have the moral high ground, both sides won't compromise. You probably going to get 10% to see the light but the rest will remain the same. The next generation is the key. MLK movement really kicked in with the following generations who were better.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Both sides believe the have the moral high ground, both sides won't compromise. You probably going to get 10% to see the light but the rest will remain the same. The next generation is the key. MLK movement really kicked in with the following generations who were better.


and 10% can swing and election...


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Heart attack on a bun.




Compared to american food that's healthy...


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> and 10% can swing and election...


That's not the point because 60% is sure the majority but at the same time you can't alienate 40% of the population


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> That's not the point because 60% is sure the majority but at the same time you can't alienate 40% of the population


And the far right is a fringe so by making them out to be the victim they get sympathy and a more malleable people to preach too


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

So. If you can't understand that it's wrong to punch a person that has not tried to physically accost you, then you are a damn retard. 

This is shit we learn as children.


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Both sides believe they have the moral high ground, both sides won't compromise. You probably going to get 10% to see the light but the rest will remain the same. The next generation is the key. MLK movement really kicked in with the following generations who were better.



The generation after millennials are mostly anti-sjw/feminist. 
They'll most likely end up being libertarian/independants.

The more the Left keep shilling feminism, social-justice, BLM, communism etc.....they'll just push the new generation towards republicans.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> And the far right is a fringe so by making them out to be the victim they get sympathy and a more malleable people to preach too


That is correct and I have no disagreement to that point. 

As I said in my first post the guy shouldn't have done that especially because he is white. My point is and was that telling people that they must restrain themselves even though the try to reason, talk, ignore, walk away, everything possible to have the moral high ground has not been working. It encourage the bigots elitism.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba

Not everyone is capable of being made of stone like you bro.

When you have phrases like "Ethnic cleansing" attached to your goals on a resume like a white nationalist someone is bound to have flashbacks of the more chaotic racist eras. Trumpets alt-right idiots are triggering that.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

KingForever7 said:


> The generation after millennials are mostly anti-sjw/feminist.
> They'll most likely end up being libertarian/independants.
> 
> The more the Left keep shilling feminism, social-justice, BLM, communism etc.....they'll just push the new generation towards republicans.


Does not work like that. The right matches the left equally with elitism, racism, xenophobia, and religious zealots. So no the new generation aren't going to be republicans. They aren't going to liberals, independents, libertarians. They might just destroy the party system since you know wasn't what the funding fathers wanted in the first place.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 21, 2017)

KingForever7 said:


> The generation after millennials are mostly anti-sjw/feminist.
> They'll most likely end up being libertarian/independants.
> 
> The more the Left keep shilling feminism, social-justice, BLM, communism etc.....they'll just push the new generation towards republicans.



You think so?

After Bush was in power for eight years, people wanted nothing more to do with conservatism, and people voted for Obama in droves. Now, eight more years later, people are sick of liberalism and are turning towards either becoming centrist libertarian or republican. For all we know, after Trump, there might be a chance that people get sick of the right and go back to liberalism again. If there's one thing younger generations love to do, it's rebelling against the norm.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Seto Kaiba
> 
> Not everyone is capable of being made of stone like you bro.
> 
> When you have phrases like "Ethnic cleansing" attached to your goals on a resume like a white nationalist someone is bound to have flashbacks of the more chaotic racist eras. Trumpets alt-right idiots are triggering that.



You don't have to be made of stone to understand the basic principle I laid out. 

They are phrases. Words. You do not discredit them by assaulting people.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> You think so?
> 
> After Bush was in power for eight years, people wanted nothing more to do with conservatism, and people voted for Obama in droves. Now, eight more years later, people are sick of liberalism and are turning towards either becoming centrist libertarian or republican. For all we know, after Trump, there might be a chance that people get sick of the right and go back to liberalism again. If there's one thing younger generations love to do, it's rebelling against the norm.


basically like avatar we've got a cycle of yin and yang


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> You think so?
> 
> After Bush was in power for eight years, people wanted nothing more to do with conservatism, and people voted for Obama in droves. Now, eight more years later, people are sick of liberalism and are turning towards either becoming centrist libertarian or republican. For all we know, after Trump, there might be a chance that people get sick of the right and go back to liberalism again. If there's one thing younger generations love to do, it's rebelling against the norm.



True, I guess.......but, even though Trump is President....The Left still has dominant control of Academia, Media, Entertainment which influences people more on ideology and politics....and people are already sick of Celebrites and Media telling ordinary people what they should believe. Honestly, Progressivism and Elitism are both hurting the Left.

Also, people hated Bush because of his terrible decision-making in terms of the Iraq war.....I don't think Trump will be that Stupid.

But, in all, what happens with the New Generation depends on whether the Trump Administration is successful in achieving it's promises (without major negative impacts) and whether the Left will continue it's crusade with Identity Politics.



Huey Freeman said:


> Does not work like that. The right matches the left equally with elitism, racism, xenophobia, and religious zealots. So no the new generation aren't going to be republicans. They aren't going to liberals, independents, libertarians. They might just destroy the party system since you know wasn't what the funding fathers wanted in the first place.



I doubt it....but, we'll see


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You don't have to be made of stone to understand the basic principle I laid out.



Dully noted. However...



> They are phrases. Words. You do not discredit them by assaulting people.




You're forgetting how emotional the American people are. 9/11 happening triggered so many cases of Islamphobia. How do think they will feel at this attempt at setting America back 50 years with white nationalist comfortably being in the hierarchy of our government?

@VAK and @Yami Munesanzun

Are yoy guys also in group that could show restraint at sight of white nationalist?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Dully noted. However...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah easily. 

Cos I'd quote statistics that would piss them off and ruin their narrative.


----------



## rborges01 (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Dully noted. However...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you really saying that violence is alright if you disagree with someone's beliefs.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 21, 2017)

rborges01 said:


> Are you really saying that violence is alright if you disagree with someone's beliefs.



That's _exactly_ what he is saying.


----------



## Drake (Jan 21, 2017)

The problem with acting violently towards these people is that it makes them look like the victim... That being said I don't feel any sympathy for this guy, and if he spouts that nonsense publicly he should expect these kind of things to happen to him. He has the right to say whatever he wants but he's an idiot if he expects not to be threatened or attacked for his views.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

rborges01 said:


> Are you really saying that violence is alright if you disagree with someone's beliefs.




No I'm saying I detest people that are for such actions like "ethic cleansing" and those who don't listen to reason.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> As you can see here, poster lacks any patience, tolerance or calm nature to articulate his point. What he doesn't realize is that he is only proving me right that you can't debate with people over a difference of opinions and expect change. Like for example the longer I drag this out the more he will become insulting. Its as if I am doing this on purpose to prove that he is equally ignorant if pushed, wow!
> 
> I can almost guarantee you @afgpride is thinking to himself how much better he is than myself, how superior his intellect is etc etc, without seeing the poetic irony in that high horse he is riding.
> 
> Now you can say its within his human nature to be insulting to my stubbornness just like it could be someone nature to strike someone for racially belittling them to their face? It would be wrong to do and doesn't help but won't fault him either.



You suck at this.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You suck at this.


As you can see another poster who doesn't know how to articulate his point without throwing one or two insults.

But advocates non-violence. Doesn't see the irony.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 21, 2017)

yellowboxCar said:


> The part of their brains responsible for rationality is significantly underdeveloped compared to the one that governs emotion. This explains their propensity for anger and retaliation, and their blown-out-of-proportion knee-jerk reactions to any perceived slight.



Then I suppose that makes Donald Trump an evolutionary recessive, based on your words, because Trump has shown no logical rationality; he has a disproportionate propensity for anger and retaliation, and an excessive knee-jerk reaction to any perceived slight.  


Either way, you likely drew from a blatantly false, discriminatory source for your "information", so what you are saying is just lies in the first place.



yellowboxCar said:


> There's a little thing called freedom of speech in this country.



Check the other thread where one of the Trump administrations first acts in office was to suspend the Twitter account of the National Park Service because they tweeted a comparison that showed Obama's inaugurations were bigger than Trump's inaugurations.


----------



## rborges01 (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> No I'm saying I detest people that are for such actions like "ethic cleansing" and those who don't listen to reason.


That still doesn't mean you should act like a savage and attack people. Come on how you going to say that you're in the right when you're acting like a criminal. Self-control is that not hard unless you're really aggressive.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> As you can see another poster who doesn't know how to articulate his point without throwing one or two insults.
> 
> But advocates non-violence. Doesn't see the irony.



Because insults =/= physically assaulting people. Simple concept.

Jesus, all you're showing is how warped your own perception is.

Assaulting people is like, illegal in contrast? Slipped your mind, I assume?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Chie (Jan 21, 2017)

So apparently the left hasn't figured out of martyrdom works.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

rborges01 said:


> Are you really saying that violence is alright if you disagree with someone's beliefs.



Violence can be right in some cases providing you have a just cause IE to prevent more suffering or in defence of someone, but not cos they think differently, if that were true seto would be attacking everyone as he walked down the street.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because insults =/= physically assaulting people. Simple concept.
> 
> Jesus, all you're showing is how warped your own perception is.
> 
> Assaulting people is like, illegal in contrast? Slipped your mind, I assume?


Maybe assault slipped my mind as the equal rights and freedoms of everyone in the country may have slipped Spencers.


----------



## Punished Kiba (Jan 21, 2017)

yellowboxCar said:


> Black people are prone to violent outbursts. Their violent reactions are a learned evolutionary response to danger. The part of their brains responsible for rationality is significantly underdeveloped compared to the one that governs emotion. This explains their propensity for anger and retaliation, and their blown-out-of-proportion knee-jerk reactions to any perceived slight.
> 
> There's a little thing called freedom of speech in this country. They exercise that same right every time they call police pigs, or drag Donald Trump's name through the mud. Outright assault is a hugely disproportionate response to whatever controversial views someone may be preaching.
> 
> They always blame the alt right for souring relations and creating rifts between people, but they should perform a little self-reflection. These people are so married to their beliefs they're willing to inflict bodily injury on other person just to preserve them.



You do know that this topic has nothing to do with Black People. 

The attacker was a white cuck.


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> You think so?
> 
> After Bush was in power for eight years, people wanted nothing more to do with conservatism, and people voted for Obama in droves. Now, eight more years later, people are sick of liberalism and are turning towards either becoming centrist libertarian or republican. For all we know, after Trump, there might be a chance that people get sick of the right and go back to liberalism again. If there's one thing younger generations love to do, it's rebelling against the norm.


It's pretty much a pendulum at this point.

But the root of the problem is politicians leaning too far to one side. 

When Obama first ran he was left, but still a little to the center. Then his second term rolled around, and he took shit to the extreme. Instead of focusing on issues afflicting majority of Americans he's weighing in on who can use what bathroom.

No one gives a fuck about these far right, or far left issues. People want policies that will help benefit everyone.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@rborges01 

I loathe violence. I truly do. From the bottom of my heart I wish we could all understand that we're all flawed human beings thay want a world of peace and harmony. Extremist views however, completely contrast the world that renowned civil rights leaders like MLK dedicated their lives for. And now those same figures are disregarded and (as Trump has done) are mocked and disregarded. If the beliefs like white nationalists are going to harm those dear to me then I'll happily hit said person unless they come to their senses. 



Huey Freeman said:


> As you can see another poster who doesn't know how to articulate his point without throwing one or two insults.
> 
> But advocates non-violence. Doesn't see the irony.



Huey's right; you're contradicting yourself.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

I even agree with the non violence bit, but when they themselves can't take a difference of opinion without getting slightly insulting then call for other people to keep a cool head it becomes one big parody at that point.

At the end of the day Spencers painted a target on himself with his platform, being in the open like that was him just trying to get a reaction or agitate some people. 

Yes this paints him as a victim but this is far from making him a martyr.


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

yellowboxCar said:


> Black people are prone to violent outbursts. Their violent reactions are a learned evolutionary response to danger. The part of their brains responsible for rationality is significantly underdeveloped compared to the one that governs emotion. This explains their propensity for anger and retaliation, and their blown-out-of-proportion knee-jerk reactions to any perceived slight.




You sound like the white dude Leo played in Django.


----------



## Pliskin (Jan 21, 2017)

Stupid move ,if genuine lefty idiots, but after the  at the inauguration, a false flag is equally possible. Brave new world 2017.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Kiss my ass.
> 
> I would say straight to his face I'm going to punch him if he doesn't leave my neighborhood. If he doesn't take the hint to leave in designated time it's his fault. Shit only reason I'd bum rush is cuz it's funny. I'm all for straight up fight too.


given that logic i can just go whoop the shit out of blm or muslim because what they says enrages me. i didnt see the video but sure it said in op that it was a sucker punch.

if white nationalists ascribed to the same logic as some liberals on this site, motherfuckers would be scared..

i will honestly say i have to limit my exposure to media outletd because they piss me off on as racial basis.

everyday i hate mexicans more and more and it has nothing to do with trump but CNN. oh and gi figure they get tax breaks as well. 20$ out of 900$ isnt a fair share of taxes medicaid state taxes. figured that out on the job. now im not married no kids and get 24-27% taken out, other nonmecicans with kids and wife, black guy marriied and claims 6 fucking kids payd 15% mexican 3 kids and wife pays barely 4%..

the whole system is set against white men


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Who would win in an IRL fite huey or AFG?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

@afgpride
Allow me to help you


Huey Freeman said:


> Okay my stance on this is like this, the guy technically has a right to his free speech and all that, and violence would only further his cause amongst other bigots.
> However Spencer is a piece of shit and the guy shouldn't have sucker punched him, He should have walked up to Spencer's face, mano e mano, looked him dead in his eye tell him "talk shit now, son" and clock him at 88mph right back to the 1700s. When you punching a bigot you got to see the fear in his eyes and let him know you're a man about it.



 No goal post moving here, I disagreed with the action but I ain't walking around here like everyone is perfect and is at fault. Keep going tho


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> Who would win in an IRL fite huey or AFG?


Need more details.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I know I made it hard for you to eject with grace by insulting you, but you gotta learn how to communicate in a rational way.  I'm starting to wonder if you have other issues I need to know about.  I don't debate or insult people that have actual problems, so this isn't meant as an insult, I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen what he looks like so idk, he could be 500 lbs for all I know.  What I do know is that he thinks insults are the same as punches, so either way I'll just insult him at 3 mean words per second and he'll lay unconscious in no time.


how tall are you 5'9? and like 70kg?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> how tall are you 5'9? and like 70kg?


I'm 4'11 85 lbs.  I suffer from Dwarfism and my pronouns are Tyrion, Hand of the King, My Lion and Lannister.  I'm the son of a deceased merchant and am currently banished from the land I call home.  I enjoy fine wine and making sarcastic quips about Eunuchs.  Fight me in real life see what happens.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I'm 4'11 85 lbs.  I suffer from Dwarfism and my pronouns are Tyrion, Hand of the King, My Lion and Lannister.  I'm the son of a deceased merchant and am currently banished from the land I call home.  I enjoy fine wine and making sarcastic quips about Eunuchs.  Fight me in real life see what happens.


you've probably got a bron waiting in the shadows to hide behind nice try


----------



## J★J♥ (Jan 21, 2017)

Calling someone white nationalist or nazi used to me dislike the person almost immediately hatred for Nazi party runs deep in my family considering that my great grandfathers died fighting them, but lately people (mostly insane leftists) started throwing those words so much that I simply don't care when they use it, but punching, inflicting physical pain on someone because of your political disagreements is just a no no. You guys better stop that before people get sick of it and start looking for excuses just to shoot you in the face.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I know I made it hard for you to eject with grace by insulting you, but you gotta learn how to communicate in a rational way.  I'm starting to wonder if you have other issues I need to know about.  I don't debate or insult people that have actual problems, so this isn't meant as an insult, I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen what he looks like so idk, he could be 500 lbs for all I know.  What I do know is that he thinks insults are the same as punches, so either way I'll just insult him at 3 mean words per second and he'll lay unconscious in no time.


I understand you have some form a superiority complex issue or what not, I mean really this post is equally insulting.  I get it this is the internet where through anonymous username you can appear to be this "intellect superior" and "tough guy".

What I have establish here is if I would kick your ass you are probably going to send me a 100 page essay on a list of topics on why kicking your ass wasn't the right move and how I only made you morally stronger and how I violated your rights as a citizen etc etc.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Don't take that shit from him Afg track him down and throw down irl.

and get someone to film it for our benefit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> Don't take that shit from him Afg track him down and throw down irl.
> 
> and get someone to film it for our benefit.


Is he going to show up with his Mom and a Lawyer? Or by throw down you mean he is going to sit me down and have a stern talking to?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I understand you have some form a superiority complex issue or what not, I mean really this post is equally insulting.  I get it this is the internet where through anonymous username you can appear to be this "intellect superior" and "tough guy".
> 
> What I have establish here is if I would kick your ass you are probably going to send me a 100 page essay on a list of topics on why kicking your ass wasn't the right move and how I only made you morally stronger and how I violated your rights as a citizen etc etc.


A 600 lb neo-nazi called Bubba could kick your ass, make you cry uncle, and then rape your girlfriend.  This an argument someone uses when they've gotten their feelings hurt and need overcompensate.  It makes no point, it doesn't make you respectable or good even if you could beat anyone up, it doesn't change the fact that your argument was trash and your intelligence is lacking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> A 600 lb neo-nazi called Bubba could kick your ass, make you cry uncle, and then rape your girlfriend.  This an argument someone uses when they've gotten their feelings hurt and need overcompensate.  It makes no point, it doesn't make you respectable or good even if you could beat anyone up, it doesn't change the fact that your argument was trash and your intelligence is lacking.


if he's 600lbs he could have a heart attack before he throws the first punch not a good choice imo.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> A 600 lb neo-nazi called Bubba could kick your ass, make you cry uncle, and then rape your girlfriend.  This an argument someone uses when they've gotten their feelings hurt and need overcompensate.  It makes no point, it doesn't make you respectable or good even if you could beat anyone up, it doesn't change the fact that your argument was trash and your intelligence is lacking.


A random stranger on the internet challenged your logic and made you chimp out. Doesn't change the fact that you probably hit with an open fist.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)



Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 21, 2017)

Shut up and put up your fisticuffs, nerds.

No rabbit punches.

No crotch shots.

FIGHT! FIGHT!


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> A random stranger on the internet challenged your logic and made you chimp out. Doesn't change the fact that you probably hit with an open fist.


I didn't chimp out, I insulted you while demonstrating why you were wrong repeatedly.  You deserved the insults for wasting my time with incoherent, irrational and generally inane responses.  

I'm an MMA fan that has taken Taekwondo, boxing and Jiu Jitsu, whether or not you can "beat me up" (again, you can be a sumo wrestler for all I know) I probably know a lot more about fighting than you do.  The fact that you even have to bring up fighting irl is a universal sign of insecurity nobody with a fighting background ever uses.  So try again.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I didn't chimp out, I insulted you while demonstrating why you were wrong repeatedly.  You deserved the insults for wasting my time with incoherent, irrational and generally inane responses.
> 
> I'm an MMA fan that has taken Taekwondo, boxing and Jiu Jitsu, whether or not you can "beat me up" (again, you can be a sumo wrestler for all I know) I probably know a lot more about fighting than you do.  The fact that you even have to bring up fighting irl is a universal sign of insecurity nobody with a fighting background ever uses.  So try again.


I actually brought up fighting he never said anyting until after I started thinking out loud.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> I actually brought up fighting he never said anyting until after I started thinking out loud.


He jumped on it the moment you did, same difference.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> He jumped on it the moment you did, same difference.


yeah but like you've got us all excited for it with the pre fight build up and trash talking we all want to see the main event


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> I didn't chimp out, I insulted you while demonstrating why you were wrong repeatedly.  You deserved the insults for wasting my time with incoherent, irrational and generally inane responses.
> 
> I'm an MMA fan that has taken Taekwondo, boxing and Jiu Jitsu, whether or not you can "beat me up" (again, you can be a sumo wrestler for all I know) I probably know a lot more about fighting than you do.  The fact that you even have to bring up fighting irl is a universal sign of insecurity nobody with a fighting background ever uses.  So try again.


I'm sorry I inconvenience you and wasted time you would otherwise be using trying to find meaning to your self important life on a website dedicated to an orange jump suit blonde ninja.

Your MMA knowledge, much like your punchlines, is probably as fearsome as Ronda's jabs. I like my odds.  Going to beat you the way Mayweather and the NFL beat domestic abuse cases.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Going to beat you the way Mayweather.


by dancing around like a fairy and hugging him?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I'm sorry I inconvenience you and wasted time you would otherwise be using trying to find meaning to your self important life on a website dedicated to an orange jump suit blonde ninja.
> 
> Your MMA knowledge, much like your punchlines, is probably as fearsome as Ronda's jabs. I like my odds.  Going to beat you the way Mayweather and the NFL beat domestic abuse cases.


Real footage of the mad king in a fight after getting intellectually exposed:


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)




----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

I like how this kid talks about other people being soft when he thinks insults are the same as punches.  He's a sensitive little boy with delicate feelings.  Don't hurt them or he'll fight you irl and do to your face what you did to his heart.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

@VAK be watching this like





afgpride said:


> Real footage of the mad king in a fight after getting intellectually exposed:


Actually its more like this


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Are we done here? 

Let's recap: 

@Huey Freeman got curbstomped, looked like an idiot in the process, and got his feelings hurt.  

gg you did your best


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Are we done here?
> 
> Let's recap:
> 
> ...


this was just the pre fight warm up you mean to tell me you're going to disappoint all these people and not throw down?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

@afgpride

I guess, if telling you won some online battle makes you feel better as a person go ahead. I concede if that what you want. Huey is all about the people you see!

Don't want you to lose any sleep fam.


----------



## Zef (Jan 21, 2017)

I lost track of what y'all was arguing about tbh.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Zef said:


> I lost track of what y'all was arguing about tbh.


I wanted to put Pineapples on the pizza but he rather have green peppers!


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

this clip sums up how I feel about you two. right now.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> this clip sums up how I feel about you two. right now.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

the people want to see fisticuffs don't ignore the will of the people


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Dammit Afg you're going to figt at least make sure you got the camera for when shit goes down. We want it recorded by a neutral party and hysterical commentary.


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

Lol at @afgpride being 4,11. 

Kiddo I'm 5,8 I coupd trounce you just by stepping on ya like you're wee-man JackAss.


----------



## Karyu Endan (Jan 21, 2017)

VAK said:


> this was just the pre fight warm up you mean to tell me you're going to disappoint all these people and not throw down?



Just letting you know, I didn't come here for the fight. Nor do I condone assaulting people just because they're talking shit, being on the alleged topic of the thread.

I _did_, however, find the posts about the fight hilarious.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Lol at @afgpride being 4,11.
> 
> Kiddo I'm 5,8 I coupd trounce you just by stepping on ya like you're wee-man JackAss.


I'm not actually 4'11 my son.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 21, 2017)

What the hell happened to this thread?


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@HolyHands

We gone all UFC up in this bitch.  

@afgpride 

How tall r u then boy?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> @HolyHands
> 
> We gone all UFC up in this bitch.
> 
> ...


dunno but you're fucking tiny my Mrs wearing heels is like 3 inches taller than you


----------



## Bender (Jan 21, 2017)

@VAK

I am late grower... 

I shouldn't have smoked ao much when I was 15.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Bender said:


> Huey's right; you're contradicting yourself.



What ignorance is this? There is no equivalence to mere insults and assaulting a person.  It's only a contradiction if I, like how some of you have been doing, tried to excuse violent action for one and condemn it in another.

The difference is furthermore illustrated that one while rude, is not a crime and falls under parameters of free speech, and one is illegal as it infringes on another's right to safety.

How hard is it to grasp this basic shit?



Huey Freeman said:


> Maybe assault slipped my mind as the equal rights and freedoms of everyone in the country may have slipped Spencers.



Just because he does not agree with that concept does not give you the right to infringe on his rights. Your attempt to deflect is pitiful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Just because he does not agree with that concept does not give you the right to infringe on his rights. Your attempt to deflect is pitiful.


Maybe you need to read because I've already agreed with what you said at the beginning. Doesn't mean I feel sorry for someone spreading hate getting hit in the face.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Maybe you need to read because I've already agreed with what you said at the beginning. Doesn't mean I feel sorry for someone spreading hate getting hit in the face.



No one is asking you feel sorry for him, and if you think that was the point people were making, then you weren't keeping up with the discussion at all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 21, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No one is asking you feel sorry for him, and if you think that was the point people were making, then you weren't keeping up with the discussion at all.


I understand the point and again I made the exact point in my very first post in the thread. 

What you guys don't want to accept is why someone would feel the need to punch a douche in the face. The whole pacifism and what not.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I understand the point and again I made the exact point in my very first post in the thread.
> 
> What you guys don't want to accept is why someone would feel the need to punch a douche in the face. The whole pacifism and what not.



No, I understand why. That doesn't mean I endorse the act however.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

i just read this thread 
smh


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No one is asking you feel sorry for him, and if you think that was the point people were making, then you weren't keeping up with the discussion at all.



Seto, look at it from me and Huey's POV. African-Americans were enslaved, and discriminated for over 300 years. Someone like Richard Spencer and the White nationalists who espouse hate and completely wiping away all ethnicity until only white men remains is really triggering. We just had a black president who had encouraged unity and now we're backpedaling. That type of sudden transitioning is pretty upsetting and can cause quite the reaction.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

except ur contributing to the cause by invoking violence or actively supporting ppl who do

what u think this punch did to mr. spencer

grats u just made him a martyr and he didn't even have to die


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Wat, look at it from me and Bender's POV. African-Americans were enslaved, and discriminated for over 300 years. Someone like Richard Spencer and the White nationalists who espouse hate and completely wiping away all ethnicity until only white men remains is really triggering. We just had a black president who had encouraged unity and now we're backpedaling. That type of sudden transitioning is pretty upsetting and can cause quite the reaction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> except ur contributing to the cause by invoking violence or actively supporting ppl who do
> 
> what u think this punch did to mr. spencer
> 
> grats u just made him a martyr and he didn't even have to die



Dude look at the youtube page where he got punched. Nearly everyone is congratulating the dude that did it


This is the top comment in that video



> LMAAAAOOOO GOD BLESS THAT MAN!




And here's my comment where I tell everyone not to sympathize with Spencer:



> To people sympathizing with Richard Spencer just a heads up, but this dude advocates ethnic cleansing. Are seriously going to stick for that despicable of a human being?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

ah yes 
youtube comments
surely a good gauge of what the morally correct course is


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

def not widely considered a cesspool of the lowest common denominator and contrarian tryhards who argue on a 4th grade level 

nope


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

YouTube lauded the act boys!

it's all good


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> ah yes
> youtube comments
> surely a good gauge of what the morally correct course is



I never said it's a "good" gauge though it's pretty much how everyone feels that has seen it on the video sharing site.

You can also look at Twitter and see how people feel about it. Morally it was wrong, but not a single person gives two shits about a race hating shit-head.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Where is this non-existent pocket of people that consider him a martyr because he got slugged in the face @wat?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Where is this non-existent pocket of people that consider him a martyr because he got slugged in the face @wat?



his fucking supporters
do u idiots really want to make the nazis and other neo-cons ACTUALLY angry?

Reactions: Like 2 | Dislike 2


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> I never said it's a "good" gauge though it's pretty much how everyone feels that has seen it on the video sharing site.
> 
> You can also look at Twitter and see how people feel about it. Morally it was wrong, but not a single person gives two shits about a race hating shit-head.



yeah i don't give a shit about him either but it was stupid to do that


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> his fucking supporters
> do u idiots really want to make the nazis and other neo-cons ACTUALLY angry?



The same supporters that showed up to his small ass rally? 

Moreover, that was one person who attacked Spencer. One person's actions does not define the entirety of the left that dislike the white nationalists occupying Trump's brand-new world.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

I wouldn't care if Bender got back handed by a gay pimp from New Mexico.  But I wouldn't condone that behavior.  Having sympathy isn't the same as having principles.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> The same supporters that showed up to his small ass rally?
> 
> Moreover, that was one person who attacked Spencer. One person's actions does not define the entirety of the left that dislike the white nationalists occupying Trump's brand-new world.



his supporters nationwide

one persons actions don't alone 
but one persons actions being praised by many?

come on dawg


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> yeah i don't give a shit about him either but it was stupid to do that



As I told Seto, we had a welcome change of pace when we elected a black president and it showed signs of America going in a new direction. Now with all the racists coming out of the woodwork are you really surprised at how upset people are going to act with them being around? 

It's like having the step-father you thought was getting over being an asshole but goes back to being a jerk because mom went on a business trip or etc. 

Not everyone in the same proximity of a racist can contain their shit.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

well when u respond to words with fists you have automatically put yourself below them and become the savage they paint you to be

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> his supporters nationwide
> 
> one persons actions don't alone
> but one persons actions being praised by many?
> ...



If Adolf's supporters fly off the handle because of a supporter acting alone I'm pretty sure they're going to be more in the wrong. Everyone had different reactions as seen in that video comment section and on social media.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> well when u respond to words with fists you have automatically put yourself below them and become the savage they paint you to be



The ethnicity of that person was white IIRC. That shows a lot of holes in the ideology they espouse about white people being greater than all other ethnic groups.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> If Adolf's supporters fly off the handle because of a supporter acting alone I'm pretty sure they're going to be more in the wrong. Everyone had different reactions as seen in that video comment section and on social media.



yes no shit welcome to how escalation works 

do u WANT a full blown race war to happen already because this is a good way to catalyze it


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> yes no shit welcome to how escalation works
> 
> do u WANT a full blown race war to happen already because this is a good way to catalyze it



If the white nationalists try that shit they'll be crushed.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

He wants the attention for his controversial hateful opinions well he got it. Plain and simple.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Seto, look at it from me and Huey's POV. African-Americans were enslaved, and discriminated for over 300 years. Someone like Richard Spencer and the White nationalists who espouse hate and completely wiping away all ethnicity until only white men remains is really triggering. We just had a black president who had encouraged unity and now we're backpedaling. That type of sudden transitioning is pretty upsetting and can cause quite the reaction.



That's...dumb.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Exactly.

21st century when you talk that type of crap online or offline it's considered attention whoring.

Also @wat race war my ass

90% of people at Women march were white. It wasn't just black. 

Also people on here who likewise want to punch the Nazi aren't just black.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @The Handsome Klad
> 
> This just totally invalidated your entire belief of "the left being more radical".


nah, you're crazy.
and @Huey Freeman is crazy too.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto speaking with harshness is pretty contradictory.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

I could imagine that exchange if one of you guys were there.

Spencer: " Yeah we are not a hateful!"
*gets punch in the face*
Afg: "Hey, that's not how we do things here! Violence is not the way!"
*Dusts off Spencer*
Spencer: " Thanks ^ (use bro)...yeah like I was saying we are simple a peaceful..."


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

How would spencer feel about a black person being friendly with him? 

Hell how many black friends does he have?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Doesn't matter if he has black friends it was one of his own who clocked him. So he doesn't have any racial ammo to throw. And the left usually let you know it's them then I doubt it was one of them too.

What many really don't get is that all of sudden all these closet racists are coming out and are no longer afraid. So more slurs will happen, more hate crimes will happen. And they could get away with it too because of their rights. 

So minorities once again have to be the bigger man and  suck it up. Not fair right?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I could imagine that exchange if one of you guys were there.
> 
> Spencer: " Yeah we are not a hateful!"
> *gets punch in the face*
> ...



Funny, it's almost like your idiotic opinion about this whole thing didn't get completely annihilated earlier, leaving you tucking your tail between your legs and crying about your hurt feelings.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

All this hatred makes me cry. I didn't ask to be black dammit. Limit this crap this to policies not race!


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Funny, it's almost like your idiotic opinion about this whole thing didn't get completely annihilated earlier, leaving you tucking your tail between your legs and crying about your hurt feelings.


You seem like the type who carry an online grudge, tell me do you go on Skype and vent about me?
Hard not to laugh at you because I'm over what's transpired hours ago and you are still stewing in it.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You seem like the type who carry an online grudge, tell me do you go on Skype and vent about me?
> Hard not to laugh at you because I'm over what's transpired hours ago and you are still stewing in it.


You name dropped me out of spite, based on a silly argument that I decimated already.  You can't even damage control properly.


----------



## Tiger (Jan 22, 2017)

This is getting more attention than it deserves, by far.

He's a waste of oxygen.
Guy who punched him is dumb.
Getting angry or overly excited about it is a distinct waste of energy.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> You name dropped me out of spite, based on a silly argument that I decimated already.  You can't even damage control properly.


Yeah and? Don't tell me you are sensitive to name dropping now are you? Don't want you contradict the narrative


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yeah and? Don't tell me you are sensitive to name dropping now are you? Don't want you contradict the narrative


You dumb fuck, you mentioned my name first out of the blue because I was on your mind.  Then, after I replied pointing out that I destroyed your argument already, you accused me of holding an online grudge and having you on my mind.  Save yourself the embarrassment and stop replying.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Dude look at the youtube page where he got punched





wat said:


> ah yes
> youtube comments
> surely a good gauge of what the morally correct course is



This was almost too easy.  If it were anyone else I would have been suspicious of some incredible bait.

Luckily it's Bender.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Law

Fully agree.

White nationalist shouldn't be aggravators whether online or offline. They're the biggest trolls of society


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Mider T 

Awww you're so nice. You such a good friend Mider.

Reactions: Dislike 2


----------



## Amol (Jan 22, 2017)

This was an interesting thread.
I have no sympathy for this shithead who got punched. Infact I have no problem in saying that I enjoyed the fact that he got punched. I don't regret that satisfaction but I do regret that this is just going to give this neo nazi more ammunition.
I get that from logical point of view violence is never the answer for any conflict but in this twilight zone we live nowadays, does logic really works ?
Trump got caught with hard proof saying that he takes advantage of women in changing room. Logically his political career should have been utterly destroyed but here we are at the President Trump's inauguration ceremony.
People say words should be tolerated. But doesn't words most of the time cause thousands of  deaths ?
This spencer guy believes in ethnic cleansing which in other words means he wants genocide of black people. How long something like this can remain just words ?
Are we waiting for bodies to drop for taking action against hate group?
Should we also show same level of tolerance for a guy who supports sharia law(basically ISIS mentality)?
I believe in freedom of speech don't misunderstood me but even freedom of speech shouldn't be extreme.
Anyone who publicly declares that he wants genocide should get some consequences. I am not saying they should get punched(no matter how satisfying it is) but there has to be some consequences preferably legal.
Tolerance just like violence isn't answer to everything .

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Amol

I understand why you neg repped me.

I'm sorry man. Though I just hate racism. I hate it. It feels like the struggles of MLK were for naught when I see crap like this.

Why would anyone with children want them to be apart of a generation so hectic?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Amol said:


> Should we also show same level of tolerance for a guy who supports sharia law(basically ISIS mentality)?
> I believe in freedom of speech don't misunderstood me but even freedom of speech shouldn't be extreme.
> Anyone who publicly declares that he wants genocide should get some consequences. I am not saying they should get punched(no matter how satisfying it is) but there has to be some consequences preferably legal.
> Tolerance just like violence isn't answer to everything .


He never publicly advocated genocide or even publicly called for violence.  He's called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing', whatever the fuck that means.  Probably eugenics and deportation, not genocide.  Reprehensible nonetheless, but if reprehensible rendered free speech defunct we'd be under a police state.  Unless he's inciting violence or participating in it, he should have a right to say whatever he believes.  And yes, the same goes for someone who supports Sharia.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> You dumb fuck, you mentioned my name first out of the blue because I was on your mind.  Then, after I replied pointing out that I destroyed your argument already, you accused me of holding an online grudge and having you on my mind.  Save yourself the embarrassment and stop replying.


Why you so upset tho, I mean I just name drop you. I keep seeing insults from you, where is this non violent chatter? Seems a whole lot of aggressiveness


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Why you so upset tho, I mean I just name drop you. I keep seeing insults from you, where is this non violent chatter? Seems a whole lot of aggressiveness


You keep getting insults because you deserve them.  Don't be on some fuck shit constantly and then cry foul when you get spanked over it.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@afgpride 

No one deserves to be insulted. We should all have love in our heart for one another. Those who don't are Nazi like fucks.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> You keep getting insults because you deserve them.  Don't be on some fuck shit constantly and then cry foul when you get spanked over it.


You really don't get it do you? You call me petty and a kid but look at your behavior? It's easy to display how much of a hypocrite you can be. 
You can't stop replying to me because you have to get the last word in, because deep down it means you win. So I do you a solid as I said early you must "win" so here you go mate the W. Don't beat yourself up.

Boy bye


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Seto speaking with harshness is pretty contradictory.



"contradictory" 

Stop using that word. You clearly don't know what it means.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You really don't get it do you? You call me petty and a kid but look at your behavior? It's easy to display how much of a hypocrite you can be.
> You can't stop replying to me because you have to get the last word in, because deep down it means you win. So I do you a solid as I said early you must "win" so here you go mate the W. Don't beat yourself up.
> 
> Boy bye


I don't need to get the last word in.  I've let other people have the last word a million times.  I respond when there is something to say, and it happens that you say a lot of dumb shit that deserves to be ridiculed.  Especially when it's directed at me.  

Don't like it? Here are your options:

a) don't say dumb shit
b) don't double down your dumb shit when it gets called out
c) don't direct a post at me

Not that hard fam


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> "contradictory"
> 
> Stop using that word. You clearly don't know what it means.


Bender has a clinical disorder.  It's why I'm easy on him.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 22, 2017)

Dream said:


> I fully support punching the every living shit out of people like Spencer and all those who ascribe to his beliefs.


this permissiveness goes both ways

while hate crime legislation exists in the sphere of the law, there is still always a distinction between verbal acts and physical acts, and for good reasons. it does no-one any good to try and mes with that by saying "violence is an acceptable response to speech, as long as it happens to be speech that falls into a specific category"

there are nearly 63 million people in america who endorse some dilute version of richard spencer's beliefs with their votes. that's more than enough people for a fringe of them to see the condoning of violence as a response to speech as permission to start violently attacking people who speak out against whatever form of hate they subscribe to. and then you wind up with a downward-spiralling situation where the norms of civilised democracy, in which violence is not an acceptable recourse in political dialogue, are totally violated

once those norms go away, violence isn't going to be conveniently directed only at scum like spencer, it's going to be directed at anyone from john lewis to your local community organiser 

i wouldn't make a moral argument against punching nazis in the face, because i wouldn't believe in it, but there's a pretty solid pragmatic argument for not doing it


----------



## EJ (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> He never publicly advocated genocide or even publicly called for violence.  He's called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing', whatever the fuck that means.  Probably eugenics and deportation, not genocide.  Reprehensible nonetheless, but if reprehensible rendered free speech defunct we'd be under a police state.  Unless he's inciting violence or participating in it, he should have a right to say whatever he believes.  And yes, the same goes for someone who supports Sharia.


 I can talk about wanting to be able to peacefully go into ok whatever store I want, grab what I want, then leave without the fear of consequences. Fact is that won't happen. 


I'm sure even he understands this.

These people are manipulative and malicious. "I-I'm not calling for VIOLENCE....PEACEFUL ETHNIC CLEANSING. PEACEFUL. KEYWORD!"

That's unrealistic, and he understands a 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' will never happen, especially in a country such as the United States. He's inciting racial divide.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Flow said:


> I can talk about wanting to be able to peacefully go into ok whatever store I want, grab what I want, then leave without the fear of consequences. Fact is that won't happen.
> 
> 
> I'm sure even he understands this.
> ...



He is, but this is irrelevant to the specific issue of assault.


----------



## EJ (Jan 22, 2017)

Yeah, him being punched can ultimately lead to him being supported.

The Left needs to take a hard look to those that had come before them. You don't need to incite violence, but challenge these individuals and have them look stupid.

If white supremacist start to incite violence, defend yourself adequately obviously.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

You keep using the phrase "the left needs to look" for a random white guy assaulting a random white bigot. Maybe whenever there is a white on black crime we should start those discussions "the right should really " .


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 22, 2017)

I'll give my two penny worth, by answering my own question about the best way to deal with white supremacists, on the one hand on a practical level and on the other hand on a moral level (because it was not answered).

I think one of the arguments being propagated by the side in favour of Spencer's right to preach white nationalism in safety; that violence against him will be counterproductive because it will only win sympathy for him and his cause, doesn't tally with historical experience. We had a more serious white nationalist movement in Britain in the 70s and 80s, with a much more racist and xenophobic society than the United States currently is, but as the likes of the British National Front were confronted violently by militant leftist organisations like the Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Fascist Action, Red Action etc. it did not particularly engender public sympathy for them. In fact it was almost definitely an effective strategy in reducing the presence and popularity of white nationalist organisations like the National Front which dwindled in the streets and in the areas they used to recruit from, such as outside football stadiums. I believe it can be explained when you look at the motives of the kinds of people who would join such organisations. They don't feel motivated by genuine grievances, so much as by a desire to bully people; and like the school bully they back away when they fear physical retaliation. 

It would be simplistic and incorrect to assume this was the only factor involved in their disappearance from British public life, but it's clear that it wasn't *counterproductive* in the way it is being suggested by some in this thread. To make sure we're talking about apples to apples, today's analogue to the old National Front would be the likes of Richard Spencer, but certainly not your average Trump supporter. Attacking Trump supporters would be counterproductive to defeating them ideologically because they have genuine grievances and a mass base of support unlike the white nationalists on both counts.

That is the practical dimension. On a moral level, I do think it is wrong to use violence to respond to peaceful speech. Free speech must include white nationalism, up to the point that it remains non-violent.

For example, having said that, peaceful ethnic cleansing is an oxymoron. It means ethnic cleansing under threat of violence and/or imprisonment to ensure compliance, which isn't 'peaceful' in any meaningful sense. You might as well say that slavery was peaceful outside of the occasional revolts under those terms.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You keep using the phrase "the left needs to look" for a random white guy assaulting a random white bigot. Maybe whenever there is a white on black crime we should start those discussions "the right should really " .



You should do less reacting to people's points and more understanding them, because you missed @Flow 's point entirely.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You should do less reacting to people's points and more understanding them, because you missed @Flow 's point entirely.


I did not miss any point lately everything done to the right its the left being immature.
Anything done to the left it's racists being racists.

Almost as bad the damn media. The left isn't going out attacking Trump supporters all willie nillie.

In case you guys missed it the left had a lil old women's march recently to protest.

I mean it's not like certain individuals in here dislike when people assume and jump the gun on matters without all the evidence and facts.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 22, 2017)

erictheking said:


> It would be simplistic and incorrect to assume this was the only factor involved in their disappearance from British public life, but it's clear that it wasn't *counterproductive* in the way it is being suggested by some in this thread. To make sure we're talking about apples to apples, today's analogue to the old National Front would be the likes of Richard Spencer, but certainly not your average Trump supporter. Attacking Trump supporters would be counterproductive to defeating them ideologically because they have genuine grievances and a mass base of support unlike the white nationalists on both counts.



Unfortunately this is the reason why I tend to dislike most antifa groups. If they focused their efforts ONLY on self-identified neo-nazis and white supremacists, then I would be more sympathetic to their cause. But sadly, it is _extremely_ easy to get on an antifa's shitlist, and I mean that with complete sincerity. Try arguing with one or disagree with their methods, and you'll get the label of "bourgeois" or "nazi apologist" slapped on you, and just like that, you're marked for death. It's pretty much a variation of Godwin's Law: you longer you argue with an antifa, the chances of you being lumped in with the nazis they have to violently suppress approaches one. Antifa groups tend to hate liberals even more than they hate conservatives.



> For example, having said that, peaceful ethnic cleansing is an oxymoron. It means ethnic cleansing under threat of violence and/or imprisonment to ensure compliance, which isn't 'peaceful' in any meaningful sense. You might as well say that slavery was peaceful outside of the occasional revolts under those terms.



This is the main stickler for me. Can speech really be called peaceful when said speech includes ethnic cleansing? I mean, anyone with a working brain cell should know that ethnic cleansing can never be peaceful. You aren't going to get millions of people to leave without some sort of coercion or threat of imprisonment/violence if minorities don't play along. For safety's sake, I'll just say it falls under protected free speech, but it's definitely a borderline case that deserves some thought.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

@HolyHands 

if you're white then you don't have a right to criticise them I've done so and they've either walked away or remained silent when I've called them on their hypocrisy since they can't use their favourite label against an ethnic minority.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 22, 2017)

Fuck Richard Spencer and every single mouth-breather that shares his beliefs. 

But there's nothing substantial to gain from physically assaulting him.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> @HolyHands
> 
> if you're white then you don't have a right to criticise them I've done so and they've either walked away or remained silent when I've called them on their hypocrisy since they can't use their favourite label against an ethnic minority.



I'm black/hispanic actually. Though I don't usually reveal that detail to those I debate online with.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> I'm black/hispanic actually. Though I don't usually reveal that detail to those I debate online with.


I was just saying that what you described about their attitude is usually towards white people that criticise them whereby they just scream racist or some other idiotic label

also why? I have no shame in admitting I'm of Indian descent I'm proud of my heritage.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

HolyHands said:


> This is the main stickler for me. Can speech really be called peaceful when said speech includes ethnic cleansing? I mean, anyone with a working brain cell should know that ethnic cleansing can never be peaceful. You aren't going to get millions of people to leave without some sort of coercion or threat of imprisonment/violence if minorities don't play along. For safety's sake, I'll just say it falls under protected free speech, but it's definitely a borderline case that deserves some thought.


No it's hate speech and who ever called peaceful ethnic cleansing freedom of speech/opinion in the thread is a fucking  moron.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> I was just saying that what you described about their attitude is usually towards white people that criticise them whereby they just scream racist or some other idiotic label
> 
> also why? I have no shame in admitting I'm of Indian descent I'm proud of my heritage.



It's not a shame thing. I just don't see it as overly relevant most of the time.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> No it's hate speech and who ever called peaceful ethnic cleansing freedom of speech/opinion in the thread is a fucking  moron.



It is, however much you hate it. You seem to have a hard time separating your impulses from knowledge.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It is, however much you hate it. You seem to have a hard time separating your impulses from knowledge.


Seto honestly you can take your pseudo intellect ass elsewhere, because in the same way you say we must respect his opinion in this very section you yourself can respect other people opinion and must interject with some superiority insult.

Maybe you should learn what being a hypocrite is hmm?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Seto honestly you can take your pseudo intellect ass elsewhere, because in the same way you say we must respect his opinion in this very section you yourself can respect other people opinion and must interject with some superiority insult.
> 
> Maybe you should learn what being a hypocrite is hmm?



You're slow. I didn't say you had to respect his opinion, but it is an opinion.

This is what I mean though, you are impulsive. You have a hard time separating your emotional impulses from knowledge.

Opinions do not come equal, and you obviously are unaware, but I've always criticized those that try to hide behind the "it's just an opinion" mantra. As the information or perspective the opinion is based upon can at many times be disproven.

Again, do a little less reacting and a little more understanding of the points people are laying out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You keep using the phrase "the left needs to look" for a random white guy assaulting a random white bigot. Maybe whenever there is a white on black crime we should start those discussions "the right should really " .




Is Seto or anyone else against Spencer find the irony in this? An all white group looking for a white dude that punched Spencer.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Stunna said:


> Fuck Richard Spencer and every single mouth-breather that shares his beliefs.
> 
> But there's nothing substantial to gain from physically assaulting him.



Like my dad said: "If you're going to preach hatred expect to be hated".

And that includes being punched.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Is Seto or anyone else against Spencer find the irony in this? An all white group looking for a white dude that punched Spencer.



No? Huey's response to Flow's point was idiotic. He didn't grasp it at all.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Like my dad said: "If you're going to preach hatred expect to be hated".
> 
> And that includes being punched.



The other person shouldn't be surprised to get arrested for assault either.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You're slow. I didn't say you had to respect his opinion, but it is an opinion.
> 
> This is what I mean though, you are impulsive. You have a hard time separating your emotional impulses from knowledge.
> 
> ...


Seto the only one being emotional here is you, I'm refraining my actual comments to try keep it somewhat civil but you can't seem to post a single comment without an insult.  I bet you say I deserve them?
Now to your post here, you are guilty of this. You got a point and a opinion that you have and you will stick to it. Admirable but then you continue on like your point is the only opinion that matters. it doesn't, always both sides to everything. Just because they disagree or call you don't make them idiots nor reacting emotionally.

It is hate speech by definition he is calling for prejudicial action against minorities. Unless we got to wait until he start get more braver and be more literal with his "ethnic cleansing" talks.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

The Handsome Klad said:


> nah, you're crazy.
> and @Huey Freeman is crazy too.




Know what's crazier? A white person disagreeing with white nationalist group.   The same group that stands for an all white world has someone of same ethnic disagree. 

This isn't going to ignite race war of white and blacks because there are a massive number of whites that are also outraged at them.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Respecting the right to an opinion isn't the same as respecting an opinion.  Non violence isn't the same as non ridicule. 

Why are such basic concepts lost on some of you people?  This is kindergarten shit.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Winner 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Seth the only one being emotional here is you, I'm refraining my actual comments to try keep it somewhat civil but you can't seem to post a single comment without an insult.  I bet you say I deserve them?
> Now to your post here, you are guilty of this. You got a point and a opinion that you have and you will stick to it. Admirable but then you continue on like your point is the only opinion that matters. it doesn't, always both sides to everything. Just because they disagree or call you don't make them idiots nor reacting emotionally.
> 
> It is hate speech by definition he is calling for prejudicial action against minorities. Unless we got to wait until he start get more braver and be more literal with his "ethnic cleansing" talks.



No, you're the one being emotional going at people repeatedly displaying that you didn't grasp the first thing about what they stated.

@afgpride, @Flow, and in the previous response myself. You have impulsive reactions to people's words, but you don't really comprehend them. 

With your foolishness, condescension is deserved. I hope you're not going to try to foolishly equate that with physical assault again?

But you are reacting emotionally. Three times, I've seen you just react, but not comprehend people's points.

He endorses it yes, but that again, is a legal right of his however much you hate it. You just want to support impulsive action because it's what you're inclined to. You'd not have to wait until he commits genocide, that's stupid, just prove criminal action.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Respecting the right to an opinion isn't the same as respecting an opinion.  Non violence isn't the same as non ridicule.
> 
> Why are such basic concepts lost on some of you people?  This is kindergarten shit.


Just give up fam this is like trying to herd cats.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The other person shouldn't be surprised to get arrested for assault either.



I'm pretty sure they're aware of that.  If they are going to risk arrest just to strike someone that espouses hate just goes to show how much race hate is detested.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> Just give up fam this is like trying to herd cats.



So you also think me and Huey are in the wrong for saying that Spencer had it coming?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> So you also think me and Huey are in the wrong for saying that Spencer had it coming?



saying dumb shit does not give someone justification to punch your face in we're not cavemen bruv


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> I'm pretty sure they're aware of that.  If they are going to risk arrest just to strike someone that espouses hate just goes to show how much race hate is detested.



Speaks poorly of control over their impulses too.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, you're the one being emotional going at people repeatedly displaying that you didn't grasp the first thing about what they stated.
> 
> @afgpride, @Flow, and in the previous response myself. You have impulsive reactions to people's words, but you don't really comprehend them.
> 
> ...


You see what I tell you. Exactly how I called it these so called "intellectuals" in this section fail to realize how emotional those type of responses come across. Tell me when you on the job and arguing a point and the other person disagrees do you get up and say " shut you idiot my point is right?".  You don't understand how those responses undermine your entire point do you? No that example isn't an emotional response seto that's how you come across here.

Now this is the 109th time I explained to you I already explained the exact point in my opening post. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong.

All I see are excuses you use to justify your childish tactics and pointing fingers on why your right and I am wrong.

This isn't the first time you've been called out for this nonsense either we both know that so don't act like this isn't true.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> saying dumb shit does not give someone justification to punch your face in we're not cavemen bruv



I'm well aware of that guy. 

Though expecting you will get away with it. Especially, when doing it in presence of PROTESTERS.

That's like begging someone to hit you.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> I'm well aware of that guy.
> 
> Though expecting you will get away with it. Especially, when doing it in presence of PROTESTERS.
> 
> That's like begging someone to hit you.


no it's not it's just someone being a retard. 

bender I like you but like you do say some dumb shit ergo by your logic I've got the right to punch you in the face. 

c'mon man take a minute and think about it.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Ironically the guys who are ready on a whim to demean others around here are the first one to say we are impulsive for supporting someone punching a bigot in the face and they just don't see the contradiction in that


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Speaks poorly of control over their impulses too.




Seto, if Spencer didn't want to get hit he shouldn't have been flaunting his radical ideals around protestors. 

There's a reason there are crowd control officers bro.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You see what I tell you. Exactly how I called it these so called "intellectuals" in this section fail to realize how emotional those type of responses come across. Tell me when you on the job and arguing a point and the other person disagrees do you get up and say " shut you idiot my point is right?".  You don't understand how those responses undermine your entire point do you? No that example isn't an emotional response seto that's how you come across here.
> 
> Now this is the 109th time I explained to you I already explained the exact point in my opening post. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong.
> 
> ...



"so-called Intellectuals"....funny, I never use that term nor do any of the people you describe. That seems to be an assumption you conjured up in your own mind.

I am not going to punch a person in the face for that. I'm not going to endorse such an action. You seem more upset that people are refusing to do so. You seem upset that you cannot competently equate my behavior here with physical assault.

What I see you doing is what religious people do for a different example when confronted with something like, say evolution. They try to "drag it down" to their level of understanding, that is, trying to paint it as a religion in an attempt to prove some inconsistency on advocates of the theory. You are trying the same in regard to physical assault and being condescending, and it is quite pathetic.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> saying dumb shit does not give someone justification to punch your face in we're not cavemen bruv


Agreed we in the modern era so why supremacy talks still exist? A cave man is just punching another caveman in the face.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Agreed we in the modern era so why supremacy talks still exist? A cave man is just punching another caveman in the face.


white supremacists are dumb tho. 

if they were superior then why do some minorities out perform them it doesn't make sense 


unless there's not a shred of truth in what they're saying.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> no it's not it's just someone being a retard.
> 
> bender I like you but like you do say some dumb shit ergo by your logic I've got the right to punch you in the face.
> 
> c'mon man take a minute and think about it.



I AM acknowledging it as wrong. And yeah it was retarded, but seriously he's in a lions den talking about it around protesters.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Ironically the guys who are ready on a whim to demean others around here are the first one to say we are impulsive for supporting someone punching a bigot in the face and they just don't see the contradiction in that



There is none. *Assaulting a person is a criminal act, insulting them is not.*



Bender said:


> Seto, if Spencer didn't want to get hit he shouldn't have been flaunting his radical ideals around protestors.
> 
> There's a reason there are crowd control officers bro.



You are fucking dense, dude. 

Do you even realize how easily this can be turned on other ideas and opinions?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

@Huey Freeman , I'm going to try to say this as nicely as possible.  Please don't try to play a victim game to dodge it, focus only on the next sentence.

Physical assault isn't the same as verbal insults.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba @afgpride @VAK 

We're going in circles here fellas.

Look: somewhere in our hearts and minds me and Huey subconsciously are aware of the wrongness of hitting someone who you disagree but can't fully rebuke them. Seeing as how people like me who is black and is apart of that "ethnic cleansing" Spencer speaks of I can't bring myself to be angry at the person who hit him.

I'm sorry I really am. There has been so many cases of race hate for decades and it's only going stir more. That said, something like this shouldn't happen again unless attacked by the other party.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Seto Kaiba @afgpride @VAK
> 
> We're going in circles here fellas.
> 
> ...


You don't have to be angry at the person that punched him and you don't have to feel an iota of sympathy for Spencer.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

When did people forget Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Seto Kaiba @afgpride @VAK
> 
> We're going in circles here fellas.
> 
> ...



You don't have to hate or be angry at the person to find their actions wrong. 

You don't have to feel sympathy for Spencer to acknowledge assault is a violation of his rights.

You don't have to like his opinions to accept that they are opinions and he has a right to them.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> When did people forget Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.


No you can heal from broke bones but once you are treated and called a insignificant and inferior base on your skin color your whole life won't be so easy to heal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> No you can heal from broke bones but once you are treated and called a insignificant and inferior base on your skin color your whole life won't be so easy to heal.



What stupidity. A physical attack can kill you, or maim you for life, disfigure you, etc. It can have short or even long-term health consequences depending on the power and where you are hit. Being called insignificant and inferior for whatever reason will not.

This is exactly what I mean, your condemning of the assault is a farce.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@VAK

Here's a quotes from Spencer:



> “Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” -Richard Spencer, National Policy Institute column, January 2014





> “Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence." -Richard Spencer, 2013



Nearly everything said is like declarations of war against other ethnic groups.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> @Huey Freeman , I'm going to try to say this as nicely as possible.  Please don't try to play a victim game to dodge it, focus only on the next sentence.
> 
> Physical assault isn't the same as verbal insults.


You do know it is the same right? You can be charge for  assaulting an officer right even if the threat is verbal? Tell an officer you are going to mess him up because of his skin color and see what they do to you in court especially if they have a recording. You don't even have to do shit.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You keep using the phrase "the left needs to look" for a random white guy assaulting a random white bigot. Maybe whenever there is a white on black crime we should start those discussions "the right should really " .




The more you put it that way the more hilarious it sounds.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> No you can heal from broke bones but once you are treated and called a insignificant and inferior base on your skin color your whole life won't be so easy to heal.


you needed help before you get called mean words if that mentally scars you.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> you needed help before you get called mean words if that mentally scars you.


So you are saying black people are mentally weak if they get offended by racism and called ni-gg-er? Because a broken arm is far worst ?

Is that your official stance on mean words?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> So you are saying black people are mentally weak if they get offended by racism and called ni-gg-er? Because a broken arm is far worst ?
> 
> Is that your official stance on mean words?


By someone telling you your inferior does that suddenly make it true are you that gullible that you'll believe them and let it have an impact on your life?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> You do know it is the same right? You can be charge for  assaulting an officer right even if the threat is verbal? Tell an officer you are going to mess him up because of his skin color and see what they do to you in court especially if they have a recording. You don't even have to do shit.


We're not talking about credible threats.  We're talking about insults.  

Did you feel physically threatened when you were insulted in this thread?  Is that why you're equating it to punching someone in the face?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> By someone telling you your inferior does that suddenly make it true are you that gullible that you'll believe them and let it have an impact on your life?


Then that's how easy to end racism? What my boss called me a ^ (learn some history), don't worry guys I'm better than that no worries. 
What you don't server garbage at this restaurant, oh golly I know I'm better than this restaurant so I take my business else where.
Don't worry son if your teach and fellow classmates call you no good monkey that will never amount to anything. You be better than that and I'll just keep sending you to same class room that will not at all affect your development and confidence as a person.

It's so simple we had the answer all along, just ignore the racism and tell ourselves we are better !


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> We're not talking about credible threats.  We're talking about insults.
> 
> Did you feel physically threatened when you were insulted in this thread?  Is that why you're equating it to punching someone in the face?


Just couldn't  help your self had to toss in that little jab, I guess you feel insecure about yourself but I digress.  you said verbal assault that's what verbal assault is by law.

Now if you went on said specifically only name calling then that's different.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Just couldn't  help your self had to toss in that little jab, I guess you feel insecure about yourself but I digress.  you said verbal assault that's what verbal assault is by law.
> 
> Now if you went on said specifically only name calling then that's different.


...I didn't say verbal assault, I said


afgpride said:


> Physical assault isn't the same as verbal insults.


insults.  Verbal insults.  

Insults don't count as assault unless they produce a reasonable threat to physical safety.  Do you feel threatened when you're insulted?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> ...I didn't say verbal assault, I said
> ​insults.  Verbal insults.
> 
> Insults don't count as assault unless they produce a reasonable threat to physical safety.  Do you feel threatened when you're insulted?


I read that as assault for some reason any way that's my fault.

I don't care what you guys say to be honest,  but seem like you guys care what others think of your insults towards them. Which is kinda telling.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I read that as assault for some reason any way that's my fault.
> 
> I don't care what you guys say to be honest,  but seem like you guys care what others think of your insults towards them. Which is kinda telling.



You're projecting.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Seto Kaiba and @VAK

Here's what separates me and Huey: I partially condemn the assault while Huey doesn't at all.

And honestly, everyone who is in favor of pacifism no doubt feels similarly about the assault partially condemns it.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I read that as assault for some reason any way that's my fault.
> 
> I don't care what you guys say to be honest,  but seem like you guys care what others think of your insults towards them. Which is kinda telling.


Here's the issue I have though.  You first take exception to receiving insults, and attempt to paint a false equivalence between that and punching someone in the face.  Obviously, this is contested.  Then, when you're proven wrong, you play it off as us caring too much of what people think about our insults.

This is an odd method of communication.  You often make a statement, or bring forth an accusation, and take issue with it being challenged.  Considering in most cases it's in the context of an argument of some sort, or directed at someone, why is this?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Then that's how easy to end racism? What my boss called me a ^ (learn some history), don't worry guys I'm better than that no worries.
> What you don't server garbage at this restaurant, oh golly I know I'm better than this restaurant so I take my business else where.
> Don't worry son if your teach and fellow classmates call you no good monkey that will never amount to anything. You be better than that and I'll just keep sending you to same class room that will not at all affect your development and confidence as a person.
> 
> It's so simple we had the answer all along, just ignore the racism and tell ourselves we are better !





> What my boss called me a ^ (learn some history), don't worry guys I'm better than that no worries.



I never said ignore I just said don't let it affect you. also In my experience your own personal success is the biggest fuck you to these people. Confronting it with violence is dumb and doesn't help. 


Come on man don't be dumb you know how pc the work culture is these days you'd report him and ride the gravy train



> What you don't server garbage at this restaurant, oh golly I know I'm better than this restaurant so I take my business else where.



it's called capitalism, also you know how shit like that can destroy a restaurant since that'd go viral so again you win 




> Don't worry son if your teach and fellow classmates call you no good monkey that will never amount to anything. You be better than that and I'll just keep sending you to same class room that will not at all affect your development and confidence as a person.


Or you could say 

son never listen to these dickheads arguing with them won't change their opinion but you can piss them off by being more successful than them since then that makes them inferior to you so by insulting you they're insulting themselves well at least my dad told me that and I turned out alright. 

In my experience in the few drunken exchanges I've had with racists down the pub proving that you're superior to them works since it goes against their entire beliefs probably doesn't change much but it's still pretty satisfying.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@VAK

What your ethnicity again bro?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @VAK
> 
> What your ethnicity again bro?


in american 

A-rab

in English

My ancestry is Indian.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

afgpride said:


> Here's the issue I have though.  You first take exception to receiving insults, and attempt to paint a false equivalence between that and punching someone in the face.  Obviously, this is contested.  Then, when you're proven wrong, you play it off as us caring too much of what people think about our insults.
> 
> This is an odd method of communication.  You often make a statement, or bring forth an accusation, and take issue with it being challenged.  Considering in most cases it's in the context of an argument of some sort, or a direction at someone, why is this?


You mistundersrood my remark. I didn't take offense I am point out to you that when you toss those random insults and think people deserve them then your entire point is thrown through the window. The reason I made that remark is because you want civilize discussion with people like Spencer to smack down their ideology. However you won't get anywhere if every other retort is "your stupid and this is why"
Secondly I don't understand what exactly is wrong here,  your remark regarding assault I agree so what exactly are disagreeing with me for ? That I think you can't reason with everyone and sometimes you gotta throw hands? Is that you disgreeing with? I don't care if I am right or wrong ( this is a difference of opinion so this idea of one has to be either is mundane) 
I have no issue being challenge, again at most I just act trolling to play off the absurdity but other than that no other aggressive behavior. I mean if you think someone with immediately back down from their stance and agree with you because you are right is taking offense then I don't know what you tell you about life.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> I am point out to you that when you toss those random insults and think people deserve them then your entire point is thrown through the window.



No it's not. Once again, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of people's point here. You can insult someone like Spencer all you want, that's your right, but it's not to physically assault him because you dislike what he's saying. That is infringing on his rights, that's a criminal act because it infringes on his rights or any other you choose to inflict violence upon. Verbal insults are not infringing on anyone's rights, it is not illegal, and it's not anywhere near an equivalent to physical assault.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> I never said ignore I just said don't let it affect you. also In my experience your own personal success is the biggest fuck you to these people. Confronting it with violence is dumb and doesn't help.
> 
> 
> Come on man don't be dumb you know how pc the work culture is these days you'd report him and ride the gravy train
> ...



The point is not about words it's that my son, family nor myself should be subjected to such treatment while my white counterparts aren't. Things won't change if we just let this slide constantly. 

Words carry weight I've heard and seen a racist exchange. And the slurs that come out you feel the hatred in them. I can't begin to explain how unfair it has become that minorities have to take the high road each and every time the experience that shit. 

Someone can beat you up, your body will heal but never level anyone take away your dignity and humanity.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it's not. Once again, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of people's point here. You can insult someone like Spencer all you want, that's your right, but it's not to physically assault because you dislike what he's saying. That is infringing on his rights, that's a criminal act because it infringes on his rights or any other you choose to inflict violence upon.


Seto just shut up man, like it's obvious you are not here for a constructive discussion and just you're right and this is why you're wrong. 
No where did I say you should assault these guys I said this is reason why he is assaulted. I've explain this to you over a dozen times. But you see your pride just can't come down from that high horse.

So I end this discusssion with you agree to disagree, there done.


----------



## EJ (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> Seto, if Spencer didn't want to get hit he shouldn't have been flaunting his radical ideals around protestors.
> 
> There's a reason there are crowd control officers bro.


 "If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't had wore that outfit" , "Dumb ^ (use bro) had it coming. Why did he whistle at that white woman? Should had known his place", "Fucking queers! Why'd they have to flaunt that shit in everyone's face!?" Like I really don't like to defebd a guy like this. But you're failing to lose logic here.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> The point is not about words it's that my son, family nor myself should be subjected to such treatment while my white counterparts aren't. Things won't change if we just let this slide constantly.
> 
> Words carry weight I've heard and seen a racist exchange. And the slurs that come out you feel the hatred in them. I can't begin to explain how unfair it has become that minorities have to take the high road each and every time the experience that shit.
> 
> Someone can beat you up, your body will heal but never level anyone take away your dignity and humanity.


Of course they hurt, dude the stories I hear form my dad about his childhood and young adulthood piss me off big time but just like back then the mechanism for change isn't violence I don't have the solution on how to fix it but I do know what irritates these scumbags more being successful.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> Of course they hurt, dude the stories I hear form my dad about his childhood and young adulthood piss me off big time but just like back then the mechanism for change isn't violence I don't have the solution on how to fix it but I do know what irritates these scumbags more being successful.


Yes but things are harder for minorities not everyone will be successful in terms of wealth. So it's harder than you make it out to be.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Seto just shut up man, like it's obvious you are not here for a constructive discussion and just you're right and this is why you're wrong.
> No where did I say you should assault these guys I said this is reason why he is assaulted. I've explain this to you over a dozen times. But you see your pride just can't come down from that high horse.
> 
> So I end this discusssion with you agree to disagree, there done.



No, because you were foolishly trying to establish some equivalency to assault and insult.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yes but things are harder for minorities not everyone will be successful in terms of wealth. So it's harder than you make it out to be.


poverty is an easy excuse.

My mums family all came from uganda with nothing more than the clothes on their back as did many other Indians from Uganda

In a time when racism and discrimination was rampant in the uk

and now a lot of then are millionaires and I believe one's a billionaire



So when people so oh I'm poor that's why it's hard for me to see that as an excuse I imagine seto will be along to bitch about my views on this.


----------



## Magic (Jan 22, 2017)

“Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” -Richard Spencer, National Policy Institute column, January 2014

He considers African Americans as part of the Occident. Cool a racist pseudo intellectual. Why is he using fancy language, when his average supporter didn't graduate high school.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

RemChu said:


> “Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” -Richard Spencer, National Policy Institute column, January 2014
> 
> He considers African Americans as part of the Occident. Cool a racist pseudo intellectual. Why is he using fancy language, when his average supporter didn't graduate high school.


so then they don't cotton on that he's talking shit, they think big words he must be smart.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

VAK said:


> poverty is an easy excuse.
> 
> My mums family all came from uganda with nothing more than the clothes on their back as did many other Indians from Uganda
> 
> ...


Being poor isn't an excuse because plenty are hard working people who trying to better themselves. Truth is everyone can't be rich that's a fact. So just because I became a millionaire means the average joe will be able to.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Huey Freeman said:


> Being poor isn't an excuse because plenty are hard working people who trying to better themselves. Truth is everyone can't be rich that's a fact. So just because I became a millionaire means the average joe will be able to.


Of course they can't but everyone has the potential too be rich. 

Countless average joes have become obscenely rich, I've lost count how many millionaires and billionaires are rags to riches stories.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

Apparently @afgprice and seto just can't have a difference of opinion. I guess I should just agree with their opinions all the time . 

Or be subjected being intellectually embarass.. can't say that seriously


----------



## Rukia (Jan 22, 2017)

Did he deserve to be punched in the face?


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

wat said:


> w/e


World ending?


----------



## stream (Jan 22, 2017)

It did bring a smile to my face... But seriously, you shouldn't punch people in the face just because you don't agree with them. Feel free to ostracize them in legal ways, but don't break the law, mkay?


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@Flow 

There's a difference between that piss-poor example and someone who espouses hatred. If you're going to spew hate expected to be hated and in this case punched.

Look here's the bottom line: for the sake of the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. , that person who punched Spencer should be condemned. However, since I'm a semi-petty person I can't say I fully condemn him because I don't feel sorry for a race hater, and advocate of "ethnic cleansing" like Spencer.

As Martin Luther King jr. said: 

"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals."


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

stream said:


> It did bring a smile to my face... But seriously, you shouldn't punch people in the face just because you don't agree with them. Feel free to ostracize them in legal ways, but don't break the law, mkay?



I agree. 

As said before: if you're going to preach about hatred expect to be hated. It's that simple. 

I don't like the idea of violence because it's Adolf Trump's hate drenched ideology that has turned this country into cesspool and utter shit heap.


----------



## Magic (Jan 22, 2017)

"Point is violence has shaped society for centuries and yes we don't want it to be the answer but sometimes you got to do what you got to do."

Yes, we pretend to be civil, but really there is always a discourse and this world is absurd. Be it through words, ideas, or physical force someone will be dominating the weak.


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

RemChu said:


> Yes, we pretend to be civil, but really there is always a discourse and this world is absurd. Be it through words, ideas, or physical force someone will be dominating the weak.



It's pretty hard to be civilized with people who want to cleanse all other ethnic groups. 

That's like saying you should hold hands with the Nazi that lives right around the corner.


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> It's pretty hard to be civilized with people who want to cleanse all other ethnic groups.
> 
> That's like saying you should hold hands with the Nazi that lives right around the corner.


I'm not friends with mine but everytime I seem him on the roads I make sure to bully him into trying to outrun me which he can't cos he has a diesel car and then I emasculate him by overtaking him easily and slowing to a snails pace and accelerate hard whenver he tried to overtake....


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@VAK

If anything I would just let them know that I'm going to be hostile as humanly possible if I saw them in the area as me. Or ya know the whole spit on the ground or the usual



A more openly hostile version of the treatment I give the guy at work who gave a very shit argument of why taxing the wealthy would lead to people at corporations like THD (myself) would be out of work. I mean I don't really like talking to him but we're mildly civilized.


----------



## EJ (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @Flow
> 
> There's a difference between that piss-poor example and someone who espouses hatred. If you're going to spew hate expected to be hated and in this case punched.
> 
> ...


 You're emotionally charged and cannot separate your feelings from reason. Nothing what he was stating advocated getting punched like that. I don't feel bad for him, and he is a racist assclown. The mental block you keep hitting is that he shouldn't had been hit regardless and no "he didn't have it coming". As others in this thread have consistently brought up, that idea that "people have it coming" is a flawed one that can easily be pulled on anyone, especially yourself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## John Wick (Jan 22, 2017)

Bender said:


> @VAK
> 
> If anything I would just let them know that I'm going to be hostile as humanly possible if I saw them in the area as me. Or ya know the whole spit on the ground or the usual
> 
> ...


check the firmware on your sarcasm detector it could be faulty.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 22, 2017)

'


RemChu said:


> "Point is violence has shaped society for centuries and yes we don't want it to be the answer but sometimes you got to do what you got to do."
> 
> Yes, we pretend to be civil, but really there is always a discourse and this world is absurd. Be it through words, ideas, or physical force someone will be dominating the weak.


Yes human nature


----------



## Bender (Jan 22, 2017)

@VAK

Was busy so didn't have to properly check. Also able indicate if smiley accompanied by sarcasm riddled posts.

No hostility. Gotcha. 


@Flow


...

AMERICA DOESN'T LIKE RACISM!

End of discussion. 

300 years of slavery until Lincoln put a stop to or

Last several decades we ended discrimination because of MLK.

It's a blight on society.

If you have extremist views, are prejudiced you keep that to yourself. 

If you're speaking those views out in public this happens.

If you're employed by a prestigious company and speak these views in public or well-renowned social media sites you'll lose your job (like doctor fired for calling Michelle Obama "an ape in heels". 

There are no two ways about it. 

I'm all about free speech though there are times and places to say these things.

Frikkin hell last month I saw episode of cops of this one dude beingf arrestses antagonizing dude by calling him a ^ (use bro).


----------



## Zenith (Jan 22, 2017)

the guy should've used brass knuckles to cause permanent damage

but from what it looks like it was an emotional charge and not premeditated 

unfortunately

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## EJ (Jan 23, 2017)

Bender said:


> @VAK
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here we go again with you hitting that mental block man.

Again, what he was stating didn't call to be hit in the face. You don't like what he said? Ok, challenge him. You battle him and challenge his mindset, and downplay his beliefs. Make him look like the idiot that he is in front of everyone.

We should not live in a society that advocates violence on account of "He/She said some bad words I didn't like!" That sets an extremely bad presedence which again, you @Bender have a hard time understanding.


----------



## Amol (Jan 23, 2017)

Flow said:


> "If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't had wore that outfit" , "Dumb ningen had it coming. Why did he whistle at that white woman? Should had known his place", "Fucking queers! Why'd they have to flaunt that shit in everyone's face!?" Like I really don't like to defebd a guy like this. But you're failing to lose logic here.


This is a false equivalency.
All the examples you gave shows no fault of 'woman/ningen/queer'. They weren't bothering anyone.
Spencer however was bothering people. He was shouting his hate speech at people. He was targeting them. He wasn't some innocent bystander who got hit. He might as well go in black community and start talking about ethnic cleansing.
Unlike your examples he was asking to get punched. I am not saying he should have got punched but don't put him in same bracket as a woman who got raped .
It is insult to that woman.
I don't know why people in this thread are pretending as if Spencer has no fault in here whatsoever.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Jan 23, 2017)

Amol said:


> This is a false equivalency.
> All the examples you gave shows no fault of 'woman/ningen/queer'. They weren't bothering anyone.
> Spencer however was bothering people. He was shouting his hate speech at people. He was targeting them. He wasn't some innocent bystander who got hit. He might as well go in black community and start talking about ethnic cleansing.
> Unlike your examples he was asking to get punched. I am not saying he should have got punched but don't put him in same bracket as a woman who got raped .
> ...



Man, some of you are so sensitive. 

You know the point I'm making. Do not try and act obtuse. My point was people can utilize any kind of poor reasoning to justify violence. You can't see this because Richard Spencer is a white supremacist talking about ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Amol (Jan 23, 2017)

Flow said:


> Man, some of you are so sensitive.
> 
> You know the point I'm making. Do not try and act obtuse. My point was people can utilize any kind of poor reasoning to justify violence. You can't see this because Richard Spencer is a white supremacist talking about ethnic cleansing.


Sensitive?
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was only refuting your claim about how he wasn't asking for it and how he was in same boat as raped woman.	The false equivalency you used to refute Bender's post.
He was asking for it. I am not debating rightness or wrongness of him getting hit. I have no emotional investment in this matter. I am no american. 
If you are going to purposefully talk shit to crowd which may or may not include their families cleansing you are going to get hit at some point.
That is an extremely predictable reaction which he should have expected. Maybe that is exactly why he went there to become a 'victim' and garner sympathy, who knows.
Not everyone takes a high road like this thread is suggesting nor everybody is Mahatma Gandhi.
I again would like to say that I am not saying he should have got hit because of his moronic views but to say it was not his fault in even tiny way is reaching .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bender (Jan 25, 2017)

Just throwing this out there:

Even shouting out profanity in public  is liable to get you removed from sports centers because of the disruptiveness it causes. There's that and because of the presence of children.

@Zenith

Pepe the frog creator made this response to spencer getting punched on tumblr:



> once is never enough


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 25, 2017)

A dead Nazi is best 
A punched Nazi second best

Reactions: Like 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## J★J♥ (Jan 25, 2017)

How is saying that one race inferior to other worse than a priest of random religion saying that everyone else is sinner and going to burn in hell forever ? 
Or how is claiming race superiority worse than lets say jews saying that they are chosen people of god?


----------



## J★J♥ (Jan 25, 2017)

I'm saying that if you think that there is a group of bigoted people you don't just run up to them and start kicking the shit out of them. You vote against them. Thats how you make your input.

Bizarre shit behavior like that is why you got voted out  of white house, Senate, House, Supreme Court and most governorships and state houses.

Keep that shit up and rest of the people will demand Army and Police to take you down like rabid dogs.


----------



## Bender (Jan 25, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> A dead Nazi is best
> A punched Nazi second best


Aye aye.


----------



## Skaddix (Jan 25, 2017)

The Only Good Nazi Is  A Dead Nazi.


----------



## Chie (Jan 31, 2017)

Turns out the Left's hero is shit-eating cuck....no really.




And Leftists wonder why they're called cucks.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Useful 1


----------



## J★J♥ (Jan 31, 2017)

Marth6789 said:


> Read the Hitler quote and shut up. You Pacific liberals are hilarious.


What ? Did you have a stroke when you posted that ?


----------



## SLB (Jan 31, 2017)

afgpride said:


> To be clear, nobody has to feel sympathy for this guy.  Supporting an act of violence is different than viewing it as destructive in principle but getting visceral satisfaction from it in consequence.  I'd get visceral satisfaction from a commercial church healer getting slapped in the face, but I would never formally support it as an acceptable action, and I certainly wouldn't view it as productive.
> 
> 
> Take these people for instance.  Their beliefs are just as bad, if not worse, than Spencer's.  Yet despite their hatred they should have their ideas protected by free speech.  Have a problem with it?  Challenge it.  The moment you take an ideological conflict to fists, you lose.



Are these the black Jews? Bro. I just found out about them yesterday. I saw a video of them literally shit talking a girl from ethiopia. Like from beta Israel. An actual black jew. 

They're such clowns.


----------



## Death Certificate (Feb 4, 2017)

[Update]


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 4, 2017)

lol at the autism that happened on Reddit


----------



## Mider T (Feb 4, 2017)

Skaddix said:


> The Only Good Nazi Is  A Dead Nazi.


I miss Mael.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 4, 2017)

The amount of people on the left glorifying violence against opinions is embarrassing.  From social media to acceptance speeches by celebrities, "It's never a bad thing to punch a Nazi" is being branded as the official excuse for this behavior.  Make no mistake, the moment you pathetic worms try to actually justify acts of barbarism over mere offense taking, you're immediately worse than the white nationalists you oppose.  They may spout ideas of bigotry and even potential violence, but you're the ones that endorse and participate in actually carrying them out in practice. 

And for those mentally weak idiots trying to frame this as bending over backwards to defend an asshole, no, it's in cases like these where important principles are actually put to the test.  You're failing that test, and that makes you uncivilized hypocrites.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1 | Winner 1 | Friendly 1 | Useful 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 4, 2017)

afgpride said:


> The amount of people on the left glorifying violence against opinions is embarrassing.  From social media to acceptance speeches by celebrities, "It's never a bad thing to punch a Nazi" is being branded as the official excuse for this behavior.  Make no mistake, the moment you pathetic worms try to actually justify acts of barbarism over mere offense taking, you're immediately worse than the white nationalists you oppose.  They may spout ideas of bigotry and even potential violence, but you're the ones that endorse and participate in actually carrying them out in practice.
> 
> And for those mentally weak idiots trying to frame this as bending over backwards to defend an asshole, no, it's in cases like these where important principles are actually put to the test.  You're failing that test, and that makes you uncivilized hypocrites.



but yo dawg TALK SHIT GET HIT doe


----------



## John Wick (Feb 4, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> but yo dawg TALK SHIT GET HIT doe


Chat shit get banged sounds better tbh


----------



## Skaddix (Feb 4, 2017)

LOL Here is the difference the Nazis aren't abstract. We know exactly what the Nazi Endgame is because we have seen it done before thus. I can fully expect genocide as an end game because they tried it before.

So no I don't think punching a Nazi makes one as bad as Nazi or White Supremacist.


----------



## Chie (Feb 4, 2017)

Just a tip to you Leftists.

When people see that you're doing stuff like this



They're not going to side with you.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## Bender (Feb 4, 2017)

Death Certificate said:


> [Update]




Lol. Who wouldn't want to punch a Nazi. Also lol @ not understanding why everyone hates his guts.


----------



## Breadman (Feb 4, 2017)

Bender said:


> Lol. Who wouldn't want to punch a Nazi. Also lol @ not understanding why everyone hates his guts.



Everybody understands why people hate their guts. Your hatred and outrage to their beliefs are not a justification for violence, end of story.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Parallax (Feb 4, 2017)

Afg is right but I'm not gonna get mad if a Nazi gets punched in the face

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 5, 2017)

We literally have a subsection of a Video game industry dedicated to imagining ways to kill Nazis
Our forefathers went to war fought and killed Nazis  and we called them the greatest generation for it
it should be our duty to the millions that died to squash and nip any Nazi's or white nationalist political movement in the bud

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Skaddix (Feb 5, 2017)

So the Nazis Wanna Final Solution the Jews, Romani, Etc and I am suppose to feel bad when a Neo Nazi gets punched. Should have killed him.


----------



## Breadman (Feb 5, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> We literally have a subsection of a Video game industry dedicated to imagining ways to kill Nazis
> Our forefathers went to war fought and killed Nazis  and we called them the greatest generation for it
> it should be our duty to the millions that died to squash and nip any Nazi's or white nationalist political movement in the bud



And what does that mean, to 'nip in the bud'? Censor? Detain? Intimidate with Violence and threats? Actual genocide?


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Political correctness has truly gone too far.  Now its intolerant to punch _Nazis?  _Are you kidding me?  When someone espouses "peaceful ethnic cleansing" there's only one thing Americans should do:

Reactions: Like 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 5, 2017)

Yoshua said:


> And what does that mean, to 'nip in the bud'? Censor? Detain? Intimidate with Violence and threats? Actual genocide?


censor! and not letting them have a strong political voice.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> Political correctness has truly gone too far.  Now its intolerant to punch _Nazis?  _Are you kidding me?  When someone espouses "peaceful ethnic cleansing" there's only one thing Americans should do:



you fight ethnic cleansing with systematic extermination of a group of people with similar beliefs, how exactly does that make you any better?

If we apply your logic to this scenario we should exterminate all people that feel this way.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 5, 2017)

itt: im a social darwinist but i never knew xd


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> Political correctness has truly gone too far.  Now its intolerant to punch _Nazis?  _Are you kidding me?  When someone espouses "peaceful ethnic cleansing" there's only one thing Americans should do:


"Now it's intolerant to punch people we disagree with? Are you kidding me?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

You guys are stupid.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Bender said:


> Lol. Who wouldn't want to punch a Nazi. Also lol @ not understanding why everyone hates his guts.





Skaddix said:


> So the Nazis Wanna Final Solution the Jews, Romani, Etc and I am suppose to feel bad when a Neo Nazi gets punched. Should have killed him.





Lord Stark said:


> Political correctness has truly gone too far.  Now its intolerant to punch _Nazis?  _Are you kidding me?  When someone espouses "peaceful ethnic cleansing" there's only one thing Americans should do:





makeoutparadise said:


> censor! and not letting them have a strong political voice.





Marth6789 said:


> Lmao it's crazy. The people Nazi's would be cool with keeping around are the ones saying violence is wrong. Well in the real world those idelistic moral don't matter



Just dumb. Simple exercise of the mind here, when people start punching you and folks you do not agree with, don't start complaining. You've already set the precedent for what is acceptable action for merely espousing belief. ESPOUSING, not acting upon, espousing. Learn the difference.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Marth6789 said:


> In other words nothing of substance was said. Stop making false comparisons. I mean the guy who wrote the book on facism (Hitler) said hinself that if they had used violence to shut his movement down they would not have taken power. People like you are the reason Hitler was able to take power. You're the type of moderate Dr.King was talking about. Your values have no practical solutions to the problems at hand.



Because a psycho is a nice frame of reference to begin with, right? Your rationale is moronic, Hitler came to power because of a refusal to act once he initiated violence. A stark contrast to this situation.

Please. Psychotic racists like you would hardly be a better exchange if you came to power. You don't know a thing about MLK, so stop trying to pretend you do, especially when he condemned folks like yourself.


----------



## EJ (Feb 5, 2017)

Marth6789 said:


> In other words nothing of substance was said. Stop making false comparisons. I mean the guy who wrote the book on facism (Hitler) said hinself that if they had used violence to shut his movement down they would not have taken power. People like you are the reason Hitler was able to take power. You're the type of moderate Dr.King was talking about. Your values have no practical solutions to the problems at hand.



You should open up a history book sometime Marth6789, as well as pay attention to media news outlets like Fox News.

They pay deliberate attention to the violent nature of the Left, and use it to support their own basis. They don't seek out to understand the ultimate reasons why many people are pissed off, they use shit like rioting to defend their claims and positioning and make the entirety of the Left to look like violent irrational crybabies.

Ironic you even talk about what kind of 'moderate Dr. King was talking about'. He used peaceful protest and showed how fucked up and violent many racist were in the country.

You want to battle these idiots? Debate them logically, tear them to shreds. Let them speak out, then turn their arguments upside down. Throwing fist or bricks only shows really that you have no actual statement to make towards their arguments. By all means, DEFEND yourself if someone acts violent towards you. But don't go around actively seeking out Trump supporters or white supremacist to pointlessly fight in the streets. It ultimately makes the basis look sympathetic and in terms, right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Also, another thing some of you idiots may not get, people have been applying a broad, disturbingly broad, criteria of what constitutes as "Nazi" whilst at the same time advocating assaulting them. I know you guys are at least capable of some deductive reasoning, so try and figure out where THAT leads to.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bender (Feb 5, 2017)

@Marth6789 

lol and your girlfriend Trump does?  How hilariously naive.


----------



## John Wick (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You guys are stupid.


pointless post


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Just dumb. Simple exercise of the mind here, when people start punching you and folks you do not agree with, don't start complaining. You've already set the precedent for what is acceptable action for merely espousing belief. ESPOUSING, not acting upon, espousing. Learn the difference.





VAK said:


> you fight ethnic cleansing with systematic extermination of a group of people with similar beliefs, how exactly does that make you any better?
> 
> If we apply your logic to this scenario we should exterminate all people that feel this way.






afgpride said:


> "Now it's intolerant to punch people we disagree with? Are you kidding me?"



I'm clearly terrible at internet sarcasm 

To clarify, I don't actually believe in massacring anyone, I'm a rather fervent opponent of capital punishment.  I thought posting a gif of a psychopathic Nazi hunter from a bloody Tarantino show would make that obvious.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> I'm clearly terrible at internet sarcasm
> 
> To clarify, I don't actually believe in massacring anyone, I'm a rather fervent opponent of capital punishment.  I thought posting a gif of a psychopathic Nazi hunter from a bloody Tarantino show would make that obvious.



Well, with folks like Bender and Chie it's hard to know if someone is being serious or sarcastic around here. My bad.


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, with folks like Bender and Chie it's hard to know if someone is being serious or sarcastic around here. My bad.



All good homie, my fault for not reading all the responses first and assessing how fiery the situation was. 

That being said I do find myself torn between there being legal ramifications for hate speech or not like in Europe.  On one hand restricting freedom of speech is a _very_ slippery slope.  On the other hand certain speech can certainly be linked with a spike in violent crimes, and indeed increased risk of genocide.  I typically err on the side of the limited restrictions because I don't know if I trust the state to regulate hate speech properly.  But perhaps instead of a prison sentence like in Europe a fine or something. 

Also I do find it curious people are continually using MLK as their choice for nonviolence when the guy courted violence all the time to advance his agenda.


----------



## Breadman (Feb 5, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> censor! and not letting them have a strong political voice.



You.... you can't be serious.

Censorship is the LAST thing we should be doing to them. Censoring is blatant proof that we're afraid of what they have to say. In reality, there shouldn't be any fear whatsoever.

People that think a nazi movement could happen in the USA right now if we let them talk... I just... that makes no sense.

Hitler didn't start out his movement by saying, "Ya, so ve kill ze jews, ya? Dat vill make everything betta!" He started out small and worked his way up, first gathering a following of people who just wanted to see Germany as a great nation.

White nationalists are a small group of idiots who have been cemented as nazis for their views. They haven't started with small, logical, non-fascistic thinking, and everybody knows of their insanity as a result.

Now, not letting them have a strong, political voice can be easily done by just simply debating them. Just schedule several debates with prominent members of their group, and the public can then see how stupid their movement is. Badabing, badaboom, no white supremacy in the room.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 5, 2017)

Censorship doesn't mean you're afraid of what they have to say.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> The definition of court: risk incurring (misfortune) because of the way one behaves.  All your quotes reinforce that definition 100%.
> 
> It is literally impossible to argue Martin Luther King did not court violence.
> 
> ...



The risk of violence came with demanding rights itself. You are trying to apply things extremely broadly. You are trying to argue as if he was an advocate of violence when he explicitly was not.

AGAIN, the demand for equal rights in itself incurred violence at that time, your question is ridiculous. Your problem is you are looking at this from the perspective of someone raised in the modern day, you are not at all considering the attitudes of the time. Blacks that spoke out period were met with violence, yet if they did not speak out the CRA would not have been passed in the first place. As the majority society at the time was content with the status quo.

This is completely off. The individual in your scenario has the desire and intent to bring harm to the victim, harm to the victim is the desire. Harm to himself and his protesters was not the desire and intent of MLK, he simply knew this was a very possible outcome in a contentious time and atmosphere. As a matter of fact, it was often warned from leaders such as himself that the South in particular would not react kindly to their demonstrations, but not to act out in violence. What you're arguing is completely stupid, and you're more or less advocating that they have done nothing at all. 




This one? MLK was initially opposed to it, he only came around after being consulted on it over time.


----------



## Skaddix (Feb 5, 2017)

There is a difference between different set of views and the end game for one set of views being Genocide. Again not abstract since they tried it already.


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The risk of violence came with demanding rights itself. You are trying to apply things extremely broadly. You are trying to argue as if he was an advocate of violence when he explicitly was not.



You made an etymological fallacy and assumed I was using a different definition of the word court.  Stop trying to strawman my argument.  I'm not saying he advocated violence, I am saying he courted violence and used it as a tool.  Which he did. If you would stop using ad ignorantiam statements of incredulity this conversation would bear more fruit than what at this rate is going to turn into a screaming match I have no interest in engaging in. 



> AGAIN, the demand for equal rights in itself incurred violence at that time, your question is ridiculous. Your problem is you are looking at this from the perspective of someone raised in the modern day, you are not at all considering the attitudes of the time. Blacks that spoke out period were met with violence, yet if they did not speak out the CRA would not have been passed in the first place. As the majority society at the time was content with the status quo.
> 
> This is completely off. The individual in your scenario has the desire and intent to bring harm to the victim, harm to the victim is the desire. Harm to himself and his protesters was not the desire and intent of MLK, he simply knew this was a very possible outcome in a contentious time and atmosphere. As a matter of fact, it was often warned from leaders such as himself that the South in particular would not react kindly to their demonstrations, but not to act out in violence. What you're arguing is completely stupid, and you're more or less advocating that they have done nothing at all.
> 
> ...



The fact that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and failing to address the moral question I posed speaks volumes.  I did not say they were wrong for protesting the way they did.  What I am doing is questioning the morality of knowingly putting your people in harms way.  Ultimately I think it is moral because adult protestors are fully aware of the risks and can consent to them, _but it is debatable_.  On the other-hand children cannot.  Thus I find the practice of knowingly putting children in harms way to be an immoral practice.   

MLK was a great leader.  But MLK was a human being capable of being immoral and making bad decisions like anyone else.  The fact that he was initially opposed to the immoral act we are discussing(knowingly putting children in harms way) but ultimately sanctioned it, only augments my argument.

So allow me to pose this question to you again.  Is knowingly putting children in harms way immoral?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> You made an etymological fallacy and assumed I was using a different definition of the word court.  Stop trying to strawman my argument.  I'm not saying he advocated violence, I am saying he courted violence and used it as a tool.  Which he did. If you would stop using ad ignorantiam statements of incredulity this conversation would bear more fruit than what at this rate is going to turn into a screaming match I have no interest in engaging in.



Any action can court violence, as long as the action itself wasn't violent I don't see the point in bringing it up. Society was not willing to acquiesce to the demands the civil rights movements of the time were marching for, and those desiring to maintain the status quo were fearful and paranoid enough that they resorted to violent measures to maintain it. 

He used it as a tool in a way any nonviolent demonstrator or movement would, to display to onlookers a contrast to those that are opposed, and in this case specifically reveal to those unaware the oppressive face of segregation-era United States that did not at all live up to what people even then were espousing on freedom. This is more an incidental manner than anything, the violence was brought by the segregationists inability to be civil.



> The fact that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and failing to address the moral question I posed speaks volumes.  I did not say they were wrong for protesting the way they did.  What I am doing is questioning the morality of knowingly putting your people in harms way.  Ultimately I think it is moral because adult protestors are fully aware of the risks and can consent to them, _but it is debatable_.  On the other-hand children cannot.  Thus I find the practice of knowingly putting children in harms way to be an immoral practice.



It's not an ad hom, I didn't call you anything. I called your arguments stupid and ridiculous, and went on to explain why. 

Your argument came off as more or less inferring such. Even MLK once again, had qualms about that, he had to be brought around to support it. As I sourced twice, it was an associate of his that was the organizer of such demonstrations and while it can be argued that maybe the children didn't fully realize the consequences at first, it's a complete stretch to argue they did not after the first set. As again, in the sources I provided, even being made aware of the violence in real time, students continued to volunteer. 

I do not find anything immoral in encouraging students to demonstrate nonviolently,  the immorality is at the feet of the segregationists that lacked the self-control to react with nothing but violence. At best, I'd say the organizers were in a morally ambiguous position. The matter of civil rights was something that pertained to the interests of all the black children and adults at the time. Furthermore, in that climate, life itself as a black individual posed the risk of violence given the oppressive nature of southern governments at the time. I wouldn't argue either that it was immoral for parents to have children in this age and try to raise them. 



> MLK was a great leader.  But MLK was a human being capable of being immoral and making bad decisions like anyone else.  The fact that he was initially opposed to the immoral act we are discussing(knowingly putting children in harms way) but ultimately sanctioned it, only augments my argument.



I'm aware, he has even admitted to such flaws, like his infidelity. 



> So allow me to pose this question to you again.  Is knowingly putting children in harms way immoral?



That constitutes a great degree of scenarios that would require their own answer. If you want to ignore the specific cases at hand, be my guest, but I find that dishonest to do. A parent that lets their child play football would be putting them in harm's way strictly speaking. The risk for injury is high. Yet leaving them in the middle of a busy street would also knowingly put them in harm's way. Clearly, I would hope to most, neither are equally moral or immoral actions. I'll give the answer I provided earlier in this response, in this context, it was morally ambiguous.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 5, 2017)

Yoshua said:


> People that think a nazi movement could happen in the USA right now if we let them talk... I just... that makes no sense.


A Nazi movement HAS HAPPENED in the US and they seem to have been quite successful both here and europe
I mean what part of this isnt disturbing to you



> Now, not letting them have a strong, political voice can be easily done by just simply debating them. Just schedule several debates with prominent members of their group, and the public can then see how stupid their movement is.


I would agree with you had donald trump and his neo nazi supporters
Not won the last american election.
The entire country had that debate with white nationalist and they won.

People on the far right now no longer care about facts or truth if the information you throw at them doesn't come from one of their tabloid conspericy sites they ignore them or say that its the evil media trying to bring them down.
Alt-right and Neo-nazism is a cancer and a poison taking hold of our democracy and must be destroyed and stopped from spreading


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Any action can court violence, as long as the action itself wasn't violent I don't see the point in bringing it up. Society was not willing to acquiesce to the demands the civil rights movements of the time were marching for, and those desiring to maintain the status quo were fearful and paranoid enough that they resorted to violent measures to maintain it.



Nice deflection.  Martin Luther King intentionally courted violence.  Its hard to argue that the violent reactions to his movement did not augment the moral superiority argument he was advocating for.



> He used it as a tool in a way any nonviolent demonstrator or movement would, to display to onlookers a contrast to those that are opposed, and in this case specifically reveal to those unaware the oppressive face of segregation-era United States that did not at all live up to what people even then were espousing on freedom. This is more an incidental manner than anything, the violence was brought by the segregationists inability to be civil.



It is not incidental.  



> It's not an ad hom, I didn't call you anything. I called your arguments stupid and ridiculous, and went on to explain why.
> Your argument came off as more or less inferring such. Even MLK once again, had qualms about that, he had to be brought around to support it. As I sourced twice, it was an associate of his that was the organizer of such demonstrations and while it can be argued that maybe the children didn't fully realize the consequences at first, it's a complete stretch to argue they did not after the first set. As again, in the sources I provided, even being made aware of the violence in real time, students continued to volunteer.



>Admits MLK had moral qualms about it.
>Goes on the call my argument stupid.
>Calls it morally ambiguous.  

Your argument doesn't really seem to be cohesive.  And you keep bring up the fact that MLK had qualms about it but also seem to be missing the fact that he still sanctioned it.  His qualms if anything only back up the fact that it is a morally questionable act. 



> I do not find anything immoral in encouraging students to demonstrate nonviolently,  the immorality is at the feet of the segregationists that lacked the self-control to react with nothing but violence. At best, I'd say the organizers were in a morally ambiguous position. The matter of civil rights was something that pertained to the interests of all the black children and adults at the time. Furthermore, in that climate, life itself as a black individual posed the risk of violence given the oppressive nature of southern governments at the time. I wouldn't argue either that it was immoral for parents to have children in this age and try to raise them.



But you admit it was morally questionable, you admit King thought it was immoral, and yet for some reason you cannot fathom why I think it is an immoral act.  And you go further to think its 'ridiculous and stupid' for me to make that argument.  This is some serious confirmation bias.




> That constitutes a great degree of scenarios that would require their own answer. If you want to ignore the specific cases at hand, be my guest, but I find that dishonest to do. A parent that lets their child play football would be putting them in harm's way strictly speaking. The risk for injury is high. Yet leaving them in the middle of a busy street would also knowingly put them in harm's way. Clearly, I would hope to most, neither are equally moral or immoral actions. I'll give the answer I provided earlier in this response, in this context, it was morally ambiguous.



I'm not asking you to consider those great degree of scenarios.  We are discussing a specific scenario.  I'll break it down further into these questions.

1) Did MLK know that sending children as young as 12 into nonviolent protests would lead to violence? (a)yes (b) no 2) Is knowingly sending children into an environment in which violence is axiomatic by their mere presence immoral? (a) yes (b) no 3) Do children have the same capacity for comprehending the ramifications of their actions as adults (a)yes (b) no

I personally believe the answer to those first two questions is (a) thus MLK sanctioned an immoral act by sending those children into that scenario and I believe the answer to the third is (b).  All of these combined make an immoral act.  Its pretty disingenuous for you to imply that there are no alternatives to non-violent protests or even to definitively argue that non-violent protest is the most moral form of civil dissent.  

I'd certainly argue it is a successful form of dissent.  But it isn't the only one as you are so heavily implying.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> Nice deflection.  Martin Luther King intentionally courted violence.  Its hard to argue that the violent reactions to his movement did not augment the moral superiority argument he was advocating for.



That isn't deflection. MLK knew of the oppressive nature and the means the South were willing to employ against blacks that did not keep their heads down for any reason. Any such action would court violence, so again, it's ridiculous to even bring up. Acting against an oppressive power would court violence, yet while I was mistaken that you were arguing he advocated violence, you're definitely trying to argue that such an act or exposing one to risk of violence through such resistance was not moral.

Of course they did. Seeing that MLK advocated and demonstrated nonviolently, the onus to react in turn was on segregationists. They did not, and this lack of self-control hastened their undoing.



> It is not incidental.



It's entirely incidental. Oppressive powers will react with violence, he was aware of that much, but he was equally aware that acting in violence to meet their demands would only set them back. The desire first and foremost was to appeal to the collective conscience and sympathies of Americans. The violence inflicted against them only magnified this.



> >Admits MLK had moral qualms about it.
> >Goes on the call my argument stupid.
> >Calls it morally ambiguous.



It's not an easy decision to make, of course it would raise uncertainty. The argument is stupid because it completely ignores context, you want black-and-white answers.



> Your argument doesn't really seem to be cohesive.  And you keep bring up the fact that MLK had qualms about it but also seem to be missing the fact that he still sanctioned it.  His qualms if anything only back up the fact that it is a morally questionable act.



The risk of harm would often bring one to a halt in their decision-making. For what the march was for, and the context under which it was formed, I again at best, consider it morally ambiguous.



> But you admit it was morally questionable, you admit King thought it was immoral, and yet for some reason you cannot fathom why I think it is an immoral act.  And you go further to think its 'ridiculous and stupid' for me to make that argument.  This is some serious confirmation bias.



Only at best. King had his reservations, but he was consulted on it and came around to it.

I think it's more that we have different perspectives on this issue.



> I'm not asking you to consider those great degree of scenarios.  We are discussing a specific scenario.  I'll break it down further into these questions.



I'm mentioning them because they are entirely relevant to your question, but again, you want to whittle it down to simplistic terms.



> 1) Did MLK know that sending children as young as 12 into nonviolent protests would lead to violence? (a)yes (b) no 2) Is knowingly sending children into an environment in which violence is axiomatic by their mere presence immoral? (a) yes (b) no 3) Do children have the same capacity for comprehending the ramifications of their actions as adults (a)yes (b) no



likely yes.

The south itself was such an environment. That is not simple as yes or no. Or you could again, call introducing a child to a degree of situations and scenarios, such as their very birth, immoral.

Generally speaking, no.



> I personally believe the answer to those first two questions is (a) thus MLK sanctioned an immoral act by sending those children into that scenario and I believe the answer to the third is (b).  All of these combined make an immoral act.  Its pretty disingenuous for you to imply that there are no alternatives to non-violent protests or even to definitively argue that non-violent protest is the most moral form of civil dissent.



I disagree. The only immoral act were those who inflicted the violence. The intention, explicitly, is protest. The violence is not necessary, but can be used if the opposition lacks that self-control, to rile sympathies and illustrate just how oppressive the situation was. Which was the case here.

It generally is the most moral form of civil dissent in our society, because acting with violence most definitely begets violence, and quickly becomes aimless and destructive to the causes fought for.



> I'd certainly argue it is a successful form of dissent.  But it isn't the only one as you are so heavily implying.



I don't think I did? There are only the most extreme scenarios in which violence is necessary. None of which exist in western civilization.


----------



## Breadman (Feb 5, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> A Nazi movement HAS HAPPENED in the US and they seem to have been quite successful both here and europe
> I mean what part of this isnt disturbing to you
> 
> 
> ...



A movement made of a very small fraction of the US. There were only a few hundred people in that conference room, not even a fraction of a percent of the population of America. The US is comprised of over 300 million people, a couple hundred wackjobs might be a bit disturbing, but it's not anything alarming. You're making it out to be as if there is a massive militia of white supremacists lurking in the shadows, waiting for Trump to give a signal for them to start raiding black communities and starting a purge. 

As for Europe, I'm not sure as to what you're referring to. What nazi movements are you speaking of, and what actions and crimes have they committed?

Also, pretty big generalization, labeling Trumps supporters as Neo Nazis. If America was a white supremacist country, then why was it that Obama won the POPULAR VOTE in a country where WHITE PEOPLE are the MAJORITY of voters not once, but TWICE?

I won't deny saying that the Alt-right and White nationalists are idiotic and borderline retarded in many cases. Trust me, I get that. Their views are disturbing, warped, and freak me the hell out. 

That being said...

Censorship is the last thing we want to do. Because once we decide that it's alright to censor one point of view because we label it as toxic, it can go down a dangerous hole. I mean, for crying out loud, look at what happened in Berkely University. Things got so out of hand that somebody's in a coma, all because people were trying to "stop the fascist neo-nazi Milo from spreading his toxic views".


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 5, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Is the courting of violence explicit? Are they actively egging on violent retaliation? If so, I'd say they are wrong to an extent,  because even if they were, the ball is in the court of the would-be aggressor anyway.



"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. *It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.*"

Its pretty blatant that they wanted to spark violence.  And indeed violence against children in the case of the Children's Crusade.




> If the Women's March turned violent, or if it was met with violence would it then become immoral? Looking at demonstrations recently, the fact that it was peaceful was newsworthy in itself.



Would it be immoral to stay at a violent upheaval with a child in hand?  Of course it would be.  It would be your moral duty to leave as soon as you got a whiff of it turning violent. 



> Then it's more a question of the risks were worth the intended goals. This goal being civil rights.



So you think its cool to use children as a means to an end so long as that end is civil rights? Wow. That's some cold blooded utilitarianism right there.



> The furthest you can go with it is calling it 'morally ambiguous'. Ultimately it is what these demonstrators wanted to do, knowing the risks, and they felt rightly that the undertaking the risks was just for the goal they were aiming for. Which was equality under the law. You can try to raise that question for kids, it falls flat completely with adults on your own basis. MLK rallied volunteers, but that is exactly what they were.



There were children as young as six at that march.  A six year old hardly has the ability to even know right from wrong.  You really think one can comprehend that walking down the road will end in them being blasted with water hoses and beaten.  Children aged 2-7 in particular lack even "the ability to focus on more than one aspect of an object or event" (Evaluating the Decision-Making Capacity...).  You really think it is morally acceptable to use them as canon fodder, literally risking their lives when they can barely comprehend that they are at stake.  That's pretty fucked up.  Also where is your source that King was "on the fence about it".  Because in retrospect he blatantly stated it was “one of the wisest moves we made.”  I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can consider this a moral act.  _At best_ this is reckless endangerment. You can rationalize the use of children, but you can't moralize it. 



> Did you mean to ask the other way around?



Order is kind of irrelevant here.  Do you think protestors who defend themselves are less moral than those that do?  




> A violent outbreak would see greater oppression of blacks, and perhaps worse, an attempt of eradication. The majority society would not sympathize at all with such a movement. You say context informs your positions, but I don't see this here. Time and time again, all I see you do here is try to erase nuance from these matters. I only gave you the charity of 'morally ambiguous, because there would be factors to consider, but your rhetoric betrays your objections. You keep going to black-and-white standpoints.



I wasn't really making a point there.  I'm genuinely asking at what point do you consider violence a moral response?  



> Protest was the way they brought attention to injustice, as society was content in general with that status quo that had existed during the time.



Not talking about protest here.  I'm talking about protesters who have every intention of being nonviolent, unless unlawfully attacked, at which point they will defend themselves.  Do you find that to be immoral?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. *It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.*"



The demonstrations were explicitly the dramatization if you continued reading the letter.



> Its pretty blatant that they wanted to spark violence.  And indeed violence against children in the case of the Children's Crusade.



Acknowledging =/= desiring. One would wish they didn't, but see it as a very possible outcome.



> Would it be immoral to stay at a violent upheaval with a child in hand?  Of course it would be.  It would be your moral duty to leave as soon as you got a whiff of it turning violent.



So I would ask, since you apply 'immoral' so broadly, a number of situations expose a child to constant risk. Is it immoral to have children if you are say, poor? Or as I mentioned earlier, to be black and have children in the segregationist South at all? These are factors of which the child would be perpetually exposed to risk, very high risk, of violence throughout their lives. This is why I'm not convinced you consider context in your argument.



> So you think its cool to use children as a means to an end so long as that end is civil rights? Wow. That's some cold blooded utilitarianism right there.



It was their own rights too, and their own stake of equality under the law. I'm not as nice a person as MLK would be, I can admit that.



> There were children as young as six at that march.  A six year old hardly has the ability to even know right from wrong.  You really think one can comprehend that walking down the road will end in them being blasted with water hoses and beaten.  Children aged 2-7 in particular lack even "the ability to focus on more than one aspect of an object or event" (Evaluating the Decision-Making Capacity...).  You really think it is morally acceptable to use them as canon fodder, literally risking their lives when they can barely comprehend that they are at stake.  That's pretty fucked up.  Also where is your source that King was "on the fence about it".  Because in retrospect he blatantly stated it was “one of the wisest moves we made.”  I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can consider this a moral act.  _At best_ this is reckless endangerment. You can rationalize the use of children, but you can't moralize it.



I know there were kids but the great majority were high school and college students. It's not like I'm unflinching in the idea of kids marching, but I know very well what the situation was to form my judgment.

Not as canon fodder as you so crassly put it, but as a face to illustrate just how far the issue of civil rights goes, yes. They are not expendable and to refer to them as "cannon fodder" completely misses the mark. 

I posted the source twice. He had to be consulted by it. The march was not his brainchild. He stated so after seeing that, if you read my sources once again, the role it played into turning public support for the civil rights movement and eventual passage of the Civil Rights Act. 



> Order is kind of irrelevant here.  Do you think protestors who defend themselves are less moral than those that do?



I wouldn't call it moral or immoral, but I would call those that cave to violence in contrast to what the movement tried to establish as being counterproductive. Marchers were constantly stressed to what they would face against the oppressive powers of the south, and that acting out would only enable such forces to enact even greater violence. A wise decision would be to protect oneself nonviolently. Your mistake is thinking the only way to defend from attack is to act with aggression in turn.



> I wasn't really making a point there.  I'm genuinely asking at what point do you consider violence a moral response?



I'd have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. I'm not always going to consider violence to be the correct approach, even when met with violence. The numerous factors specific to each situation is what forms my judgment on that. You are still trying to make things of incredible complexity a black-and-white matter. If you want to know a previously existing example of when I think violence was justified, I would say when the Confederacy attacked the Union in the American Civil War. 



> Not talking about protest here.  I'm talking about protesters who have every intention of being nonviolent, unless unlawfully attacked, at which point they will defend themselves.  Do you find that to be immoral?



Once again, I don't find it a matter of moral or immoral, but a matter of productive vs. counterproductive.


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 6, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The demonstrations were explicitly the dramatization if you continued reading the letter.



Yes that's my point.




> Acknowledging =/= desiring. One would wish they didn't, but see it as a very possible outcome.



Try probable.  And hardly, a bunch of children peacefully walking down the street hardly makes news.  But a bunch of children being brutalized exposes the heinousness of a nation.  That's a really weak justification.  To quote Noam Chomsky "benign intentions are virtually always professed, even by the worst monsters."




> So I would ask, since you apply 'immoral' so broadly, a number of situations expose a child to constant risk. Is it immoral to have children if you are say, poor? Or as I mentioned earlier, to be black and have children in the segregationist South at all? These are factors of which the child would be perpetually exposed to risk, very high risk, of violence throughout their lives. This is why I'm not convinced you consider context in your argument.



You think exposing a child to a violent protest where mass arrests are going down is a 'broad definition of immorality'? That's a pretty narrow definition of immorality by virtually every ethical school of thought.  I'm honestly having difficulty comprehending the mental gymnastics you had to perform to equate the risks of having a child in poverty with knowingly endangering a child by sending them to almost certain assault.  That is by any measure a false equivalency. 



> It was their own rights too, and their own stake of equality under the law. I'm not as nice a person as MLK would be, I can admit that.



Oh I see, so if its a war for their rights and equality under the law you'd advocate the use of child soldiers?



> I know there were kids but the great majority were high school and college students. It's not like I'm unflinching in the idea of kids marching, but I know very well what the situation was to form my judgment.



You are deflecting again, college students don't really have anything to do with the Children's March discussion. 

Here's an account from a man who was 12 at the time. “I’ll never forget that. *I didn’t even understand it,* but I knew it was powerful, powerful, very powerful.”  This is in response to King saying “What you do this day will have an impact on children yet unborn.” 

By his own admission he barely even understood what he was marching for.  Even HS students I'd hesitate to use.  College students are obviously fine to use.


To be clear, those aren't high schoolers.



> Not as canon fodder as you so crassly put it, but as a face to illustrate just how far the issue of civil rights goes, yes. They are not expendable and to refer to them as "cannon fodder" completely misses the mark.



They are literally fodder for the dogs and metaphorically fodder for the water cannons.  If you find my comparisons crass its due to your own moral repulsion by the image.  I am merely paraphrasing Malcolm X calling out the movement for putting "their children on the firing line".  Which they both literally and metaphorically were.



> I posted the source twice. He had to be consulted by it. The march was not his brainchild. He stated so after seeing that, if you read my sources once again, the role it played into turning public support for the civil rights movement and eventual passage of the Civil Rights Act.



Your first source is wikipedia.  Which if you want to have a serious discussion on this topic you will refrain from using.  The second source only says "While many parents and Civil Rights leaders were cautious about involving young people in the protests, it turned out that the brave actions of these children helped make lasting change in Birmingham at a key turning point in the movement."  Never does it mention King specifically.  Its not at all a stretch that he'd have reservations, but you have yet to provide proof King himself had to be "consulted by it".



> I wouldn't call it moral or immoral, but I would call those that cave to violence in contrast to what the movement tried to establish as being counterproductive. Marchers were constantly stressed to what they would face against the oppressive powers of the south, and that acting out would only enable such forces to enact even greater violence. A wise decision would be to protect oneself nonviolently. Your mistake is thinking the only way to defend from attack is to act with aggression in turn.



You really like putting words in my mouth.  I never once said the only way to defend from attack was to act with aggression.  



> I'd have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. I'm not always going to consider violence to be the correct approach, even when met with violence. The numerous factors specific to each situation is what forms my judgment on that. You are still trying to make things of incredible complexity a black-and-white matter. If you want to know a previously existing example of when I think violence was justified, I would say when the Confederacy attacked the Union in the American Civil War.



There's nothing incredibly complex about you providing the above example.  I wasn't asking for some arbitrary line.  I was obviously asking for a specific example.  Although I have to really ask why the Attack on Fort Sumter, a bloodless siege where no one died, would be the "extreme" example in which violence is required.




> Once again, I don't find it a matter of moral or immoral, but a matter of productive vs. counterproductive.



We've been spending the entire time discussing the morality of nonviolent protest, in particular Martin Luther King's version of that.  MLK flat out argued all violence is immoral and now you're saying 'well it isn't a question of morality'.  I'm genuinely perplexed at this point are you disagreeing with King on this?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 6, 2017)

makeoutparadise said:


> We literally have a subsection of a Video game industry dedicated to imagining ways to kill Nazis
> Our forefathers went to war fought and killed Nazis  and we called them the greatest generation for it
> it should be our duty to the millions that died to squash and nip any Nazi's or white nationalist political movement in the bud


You also fought the Japanese.  Care to punch Pearl Harbour apologists while you're at it?  How about Commies?  The United States has a rich history of being anti-Communist, why don't you go punching them too?  How about the war on radical Islam; why don't you go around mosques and punch people that state they want Sharia Law in America?  Don't stop there, go after the black Israelites that say all non-black races are inferior and should all be raped and subjected to slavery.  Beat up the rednecks that think Christopher Columbus did nothing wrong.  Give every MGTOW a bloody nose.  Go and punch them all in the face.  That's how you deal with them right?

Let's be real here, this is what you really want; a utopia in which people aren't allowed to think or communicate thoughts you disagree with, because they compromise your petty tribalism and entitled authoritarianism.  And you want to use violence to achieve it.  Rather than fight ideas with ideas and violence with violence, you prefer to resort to tyranny.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2017)

Lord Stark said:


> Yes that's my point.
> 
> Try probable.  And hardly, a bunch of children peacefully walking down the street hardly makes news.  But a bunch of children being brutalized exposes the heinousness of a nation.  That's a really weak justification.  To quote Noam Chomsky "benign intentions are virtually always professed, even by the worst monsters."



You were arguing as if the violence was absolutely necessary, in his goals. It was not. 

Actually, that does make news, because people would wonder why children are being so organized. The brutality in response to it does expose a nation's oppressive nature, and serves to only magnify what the organized protest was for, and bring to the forefront what those violent individuals feared would come from such organization. Chomsky...



> You think exposing a child to a violent protest where mass arrests are going down is a 'broad definition of immorality'? That's a pretty narrow definition of immorality by virtually every ethical school of thought.  I'm honestly having difficulty comprehending the mental gymnastics you had to perform to equate the risks of having a child in poverty with knowingly endangering a child by sending them to almost certain assault.  That is by any measure a false equivalency.



Try to be honest. I laid out my examples of why your application is broad here. 

A child born into poverty, especially in the south, is exposing them to a number of risks not just in the short-term but in the long-term, so it is a valid question to bring up. 



> Oh I see, so if its a war for their rights and equality under the law you'd advocate the use of child soldiers?



A war would mean the situation has become to the point that equality under the law is considered virtually impossible. Or that use of force would even be a productive measure, it was not here. You took quite a leap though.



> You are deflecting again, college students don't really have anything to do with the Children's March discussion.



Uh, yeah they do, they were part of that march.



> Here's an account from a man who was 12 at the time. “I’ll never forget that. *I didn’t even understand it,* but I knew it was powerful, powerful, very powerful.”  This is in response to King saying “What you do this day will have an impact on children yet unborn.”



That comes off as more in regards to the long-term legacy of the march and its effect on the future than the immediate reasons of the march itself. Which is something even few adults would comprehend at the time.



> By his own admission he barely even understood what he was marching for.  Even HS students I'd hesitate to use.  College students are obviously fine to use.



I think high school students are definitely at a point where they can protest in organized demonstrations. Exposure to harm will always be a concern of such matters. It was particularly so here given the oppressive nature of the south, but any kind of speaking up again, met that kind of reaction. 



> To be clear, those aren't high schoolers.



I'm aware.



> They are literally fodder for the dogs and metaphorically fodder for the water cannons.  If you find my comparisons crass its due to your own moral repulsion by the image.  I am merely paraphrasing Malcolm X calling out the movement for putting "their children on the firing line".  Which they both literally and metaphorically were.



They are not fodder. Fodder implies they are worthless and expendable and they clearly were not. They were, definitely in retrospect, a vital part of the civil rights movement. It was people's understanding that the nation's oppressive arm didn't even spare children that opened people's eyes to what was going on.

Malcolm X at the time was a counterproductive voice to his own causes. He advocated more than just self-defense, but outright violence, of which would black children would inevitably be subject to if his words had more clout. 



> Your first source is wikipedia.  Which if you want to have a serious discussion on this topic you will refrain from using.  The second source only says "While many parents and Civil Rights leaders were cautious about involving young people in the protests, it turned out that the brave actions of these children helped make lasting change in Birmingham at a key turning point in the movement."  Never does it mention King specifically.  Its not at all a stretch that he'd have reservations, but you have yet to provide proof King himself had to be "consulted by it".



Don't lecture me on that, if the page sources its details then there's no issue. This isn't 2004. You can go into the citations if you have a problem with the page. 

It was in those very sources itself, if you went through them. The reason these barely mention King is he gave his support, but it was an associate of his that ultimately organized it. 



> You really like putting words in my mouth.  I never once said the only way to defend from attack was to act with aggression.



I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm only pointing out your limited perspective.



> There's nothing incredibly complex about you providing the above example.  I wasn't asking for some arbitrary line.  I was obviously asking for a specific example.  Although I have to really ask why the Attack on Fort Sumter, a bloodless siege where no one died, would be the "extreme" example in which violence is required.



Well, that's your problem. It's not a simple matter and you seem to want it to be. Fort Sumter was an attack on a sovereign state by a hostile power, as a means to initiate war. War for the purpose of dismantling the attacked state.



> We've been spending the entire time discussing the morality of nonviolent protest, in particular Martin Luther King's version of that.  MLK flat out argued all violence is immoral and now you're saying 'well it isn't a question of morality'.  I'm genuinely perplexed at this point are you disagreeing with King on this?



He was very specific about the violence he referred to, your confusion is caused by your attempt to simplify the matter. The lashing out and the aimless violence from people's anger and despair, particularly blind violence was immoral in his eyes and counterproductive in the grander scheme of things. So yes, on that I do agree with him. You came off as just trying to do a 'gotcha' because I condemned the violence in respect to this thread's original topic.


----------



## Lord Stark (Feb 6, 2017)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You were arguing as if the violence was absolutely necessary, in his goals. It was not.
> 
> Actually, that does make news, because people would wonder why children are being so organized. The brutality in response to it does expose a nation's oppressive nature, and serves to only magnify what the organized protest was for, and bring to the forefront what those violent individuals feared would come from such organization. Chomsky...



Be honest now.  They fully knew it would provoke a violent response.  Yes, Chomsky.




> Try to be honest. I laid out my examples of why your application is broad here.
> 
> A child born into poverty, especially in the south, is exposing them to a number of risks not just in the short-term but in the long-term, so it is a valid question to bring up.



Its a false equivalency.  You are literally comparing sending a child to marching to the _morality of life itself.  _  I'm not even going to bother addressing something so far from the scope of the topic.  But needless to say, I am far more aware of the risks of bringing a child into poverty in the South than you will ever be.



> A war would mean the situation has become to the point that equality under the law is considered virtually impossible. Or that use of force would even be a productive measure, it was not here. You took quite a leap though.



You clearly need to brush up on your history.  A large percentage of Black people _did _consider equality under the law to be virtually impossible.  "These conditions are the things that cause individuals to* feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention*." Its not a leap.


> Uh, yeah they do, they were part of that march.



You are either being intentionally obtuse or utterly missed the mark of what I am debating you here which is the moral merits of utilizing children in a protest you know beforehand will turn violent.  College students are not children so I don't even know why you are bringing them up.




> That comes off as more in regards to the long-term legacy of the march and its effect on the future than the immediate reasons of the march itself. Which is something even few adults would comprehend at the time.



I disagree.  



> I think high school students are definitely at a point where they can protest in organized demonstrations. Exposure to harm will always be a concern of such matters. It was particularly so here given the oppressive nature of the south, but any kind of speaking up again, met that kind of reaction.



Yes.  That's why black parents to this day tell their children to always comply with police and never disobey them.





> They are not fodder. Fodder implies they are worthless and expendable and they clearly were not. They were, definitely in retrospect, a vital part of the civil rights movement. It was people's understanding that the nation's oppressive arm didn't even spare children that opened people's eyes to what was going on.



Merriam Webster defines canon fodder as: an expendable or* exploitable *person, group, or thing.  Utilizing an individual who cannot make their own decisions is textbook exploitation.  You think it opened people's eyes?  You actually think people didn't know that the oppressive system didn't spare children?  They knew what was going on way before that.  People knew full well the nation's oppressive arm did not spare children.



> Malcolm X at the time was a counterproductive voice to his own causes. He advocated more than just self-defense, but outright violence, of which would black children would inevitably be subject to if his words had more clout.



This is a _grievous_ falsification.  How much have you actually studied Malcolm X?

"*It doesn't mean that I advocate violence*, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

"*I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence.* I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do."

"*I don't favor violence. *If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are black people."




> Don't lecture me on that, if the page sources its details then there's no issue. This isn't 2004. You can go into the citations if you have a problem with the page.



I don't engage in debates that aren't on the same merits as a basic academic paper.  I don't know if you've attended university, but wikipedia is not an acceptable source there and it certainly is not one here.  



> It was in those very sources itself, if you went through them. The reason these barely mention King is he gave his support, but it was an associate of his that ultimately organized it.



Then quote it to me.  Its not my job to ruffle through your wikipedia article for proof you are supposed to be providing.  This isn't high school.  I've provided you quotes, you can not be lazy and do the same.  If you don't want to then I'll take that as a sign you aren't serious about this debate and discontinue.




> I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm only pointing out your limited perspective.






> Your mistake is thinking the only way to defend from attack is to act with aggression in turn.



I've never said this is the only alternative.  You are putting words in my mouth.  



> Well, that's your problem. It's not a simple matter and you seem to want it to be. Fort Sumter was an attack on a sovereign state by a hostile power, as a means to initiate war. War for the purpose of dismantling the attacked state.



That hardly strikes me as an extreme example when you are making the case for non-violent protests in the face of church bombings that kill little girls.  Certainly a casus belli for any sovereign nation should that be inflicted upon them by another country.  




> He was very specific about the violence he referred to, your confusion is caused by your attempt to simplify the matter. The lashing out and the aimless violence from people's anger and despair, particularly blind violence was immoral in his eyes and counterproductive in the grander scheme of things. So yes, on that I do agree with him. You came off as just trying to do a 'gotcha' because I condemned the violence in respect to this thread's original topic.



I'm not trying to do a 'gotcha' moment in reference to this thread's original topic.  That didn't even enter my mind.  I'm pointing out how ludicrous it is for you to say the use of violence isn't a moral issue.


----------

