Support NeoGAF

[Messofanego]

Are there people who honestly believe civil progress happened through quiet and logical discussions with bigots? Revolution has always been violent. Several circumstances had to happen so that it could be put into law. It wasn't a unanimous decision. White Southerners weren't happy with slavery or segregation going away. Homophobes weren't happy with gay marriage becoming legal. You're not trying to convert the bigots until you get civil liberties recognised.

 

[How About No]

Oh. What terrible violence. What a shame, what a shame.

 

[Carcetti]

Disgusting. Not what the preacher said because he has a right to free speech but to the girl who illegally assaulted him with a freaking aluminum bat in the head. Could have killed the guy. Did he deserve that? Fuck no. And to the people cheering, fuck them. None of those people are real Christians.

It boggles the mind that advocating rape is not disgusting to you. Jesus fucking Christ.

But I guess you're a 'real Christian'.

 

[KHarvey16]

Okay, at this point I'm convinced you have no idea what the argument here is even about.

Go back. Take your time. And find me a quote in this thread where I said Richard Spencer being punched in any way decreased racism.

I'll wait.

Or, to save you some time, you won't, because that was never my claim and you're trying to pull a gotcha you can't actually capitalize on. My argument was that silencing Spencer and his ilk will be that it prevents his racism from being inflicted on people in public venues. People will not feel dehumanized and anyone on the fence will see first hand that this is not acceptable. It doesn't mean they won't become a racism, but it does make them less likely to speak out about their racism.

It's not about solving racism or whatever because that's not possible, it's about dislodging racism from it's platform. There's nothing that can be done about racists being racists, but you can take away their assumption that they can speak these things without consequence. That's the goal.

And public shaming is an effective discouragement tool because we are communal creatures, so we value what other people think of us. I have to go to sleep now and I think this is obvious to the point of being a truism, but if you want I'll be happy to find some research paper establishing this and bring the reciepts whenever it is I wake up, if you want me to fully stack the deck against you here.

The argument is about violence being an effective means to address hate. You argue right here that it is effective. That is the initial claim. You offer none of the data you requested of me to support your initial position.

Is Richard Spencer silenced? If he was silenced, what would that actually offer as far as progress? If it didn't lessen the number of racists or the amount of racism, what's the point? You make the argument it does those things(otherwise who cares if we "dislodge racism from its platform"?), you just shy away from saying that.

I've given you multiple examples of progress that didn't require people being punched. I don't think you've actually disagreed with those. If you claim they could progress faster with punching, you'll need to show that.

 

[weekev]

At what point does the right to free speech become the right to incite hatred?

It's weird that this guy thinks he is doing gods work but all he is doing is stirring up feelings of absolute hatred towards the words he is saying. Pretty sure the bible teaches tolerance and love for your enemies, what the hell did he think he was achieving by telling a bunch of kids they deserved to be raped.

 

[The Kree]

Are there people who honestly believe civil progress happened through quiet and logical discussions with bigots? Revolution has always been violent. Several circumstances had to happen so that it could be put into law. It wasn't a unanimous decision. White Southerners weren't happy with slavery or segregation going away. Homophobes weren't happy with gay marriage becoming legal. You're not trying to convert the bigots until you get civil liberties recognised.

There isn't a single person who makes that argument sincerely. They do it to be annoying, to piss people off, to attract attention to themselves. This is not an honest discussion if you've ever taken a history class in your life. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

[darkinstinct]

Yes saying women should be raped is just "saying something others don't like"

Is it illegal? Then he should be prosecuted. Is it not? Then he can say it however often he wants. That's the way democracy works, you don't just go around and take the law into your own hands whenever somebody says or does something that offends you. In my book she is worse than him. Just because you commit a crime because of the right reason doesn't make it any less criminal and just because you spread hate doesn't make you a criminal. Just a racist homophobic asshole, which is something that anybody can choose to be. Democracy means even accepting people that oppose democracy, tolerance means being tolerant towards people that are intolerant.

He is stupid. You can't beat sense into him, it's just who he is. And if you attack him for being openly stupid, well, then you are just as stupid as him.

 

[Siegcram]

Democracy means even accepting people that oppose democracy, tolerance means being tolerant towards people that are intolerant.

No, it doesn't and no, it doesn't.

 

[Sane_Man]

The sound of it hitting him was immensely satisfying to me. If anyone deserves the Lucille treatment, it's people like this guy.

 

[Impotaku]

 

[Lightning_Roller]

It boggles the mind that advocating rape is not disgusting to you. Jesus fucking Christ.

But I guess you're a 'real Christian'.

Seriously! Advocating rape is completely fucked but noooo, it's the woman who is enraged that a preacher is chanting fucked up shit so she hits him with a baseball that sends you over the edge. Talk about your priorities being in order. If the guy wasn't chanting such disgusting trash, he would not have gotten beaned in the head. You looking at the effect and not the cause. A baseball bat was excessive and could have put the preacher in a concussion or worse....but that doesn't mean that the woman was wrong to be enraged by someone who is advocating fucking rape.

 

[darkinstinct]

World history disagrees with you. You can't openly advocate for violence and then be surprised when violence finds you. He wasn't preaching peace and love.

Of course he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction. There are stupid people on both sides, if they meet, well ... don't know what world history has to do with that. What would've happened if Rosa Parks had kicked the bus driver? What would've happened if the DDR people had forced their way across the wall? Revolutions can be peaceful. Resistance can be peaceful.

 

[Veelk]

I'm going to address the individual questions in a momnet but before that:

No, no, no, no. "The argument is about violence being an effective means to address hate" is not the same as "If you claim they could progress faster with punching, you'll need to show that."

You really just need to get your ducks in a row about whats actually being argued here.

Is Richard Spencer silenced? If he was silenced, what would that actually offer as far as progress? If it didn't lessen the number of racists or the amount of racism, what's the point?

He's no longer spewing his hatred publically, then yes, he is silenced and therefore racism is silenced. This is something you yourself haven't disputed, you've just not given it much value, which is a different argument. Silencing racism is progress. The point is that people will not have racist hate speech publically inflicted upon them with silent racists discouraged to act on racism.

You make the argument it does those things(otherwise who cares if we "dislodge racism from its platform"?), you just shy away from saying that.

I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean. I think you somehow just don't see silencing racism as progress which...dude, you're not going to make racism, the abstract concept, go away. Not now, not 50 years from now, probably not ever. Even before slavery became the centralized pillar of American society, racism existed, even if it wasn't as outright malicious as it is now. But there is a difference from Richard Spencer openly talking about how white people are inherently better, and Richard Spencer privately thinking about how white people are inherently better. You know what difference that is? Everyone else doesn't have to deal with his poisonous bullshit in the latter case.

That is what true progress looks like, not this childish utopia bullshit that is never going to exist where racism just doesn't happen.

I've given you multiple examples of progress that didn't require people being punched. I don't think you've actually disagreed with those. If you claim they could progress faster with punching, you'll need to show that.

That is not my claim and at this point, you either possess reading comprehension or you don't, so go back, actually read and comprehend what I am saying, then get back to me.

With that, I sleep.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

Of course he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction. There are stupid people on both sides, if they meet, well ... don't know what world history has to do with that. What would've happened if Rosa Parks had kicked the bus driver? What would've happened if the DDR people had forced their way across the wall? Revolutions can be peaceful. Resistance can be peaceful.

But that's never the case for most revolutions, is it?

 

[mf.luder]

I'm not going to condone this violence, but I understand.

Disagree. At some point that’s all that’s left to do.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is it illegal? Then he should be prosecuted. Is it not? Then he can say it however often he wants. That's the way democracy works, you don't just go around and take the law into your own hands whenever somebody says or does something that offends you. In my book she is worse than him. Just because you commit a crime because of the right reason doesn't make it any less criminal and just because you spread hate doesn't make you a criminal. Just a racist homophobic asshole, which is something that anybody can choose to be. Democracy means even accepting people that oppose democracy, tolerance means being tolerant towards people that are intolerant.

He is stupid. You can't beat sense into him, it's just who he is. And if you attack him for being openly stupid, well, then you are just as stupid as him.

Baaically every other country in the western world would have a way to shut this down... but folks like you love to brag about freedom and democracy like you're the bar everyone should aspire to reach.

 

[The Kree]

Is it illegal? Then he should be prosecuted. Is it not? Then he can say it however often he wants. That's the way democracy works, you don't just go around and take the law into your own hands whenever somebody says or does something that offends you. In my book she is worse than him. Just because you commit a crime because of the right reason doesn't make it any less criminal and just because you spread hate doesn't make you a criminal. Just a racist homophobic asshole, which is something that anybody can choose to be. Democracy means even accepting people that oppose democracy, tolerance means being tolerant towards people that are intolerant.

He is stupid. You can't beat sense into him, it's just who he is. And if you attack him for being openly stupid, well, then you are just as stupid as him.

If Democracy meant what you think it means, democracy would have never been established in America. Democracy in this country was built partially by killing people who held opposing arguments.

That the law is flawed enough to allow violent rhetoric to go unprosecuted only means that vigilantism will have to do until the flaw is corrected. Order does not take precedent over justice.

Start over. Your argument is garbage.

 

[darkinstinct]

No, it doesn't and no, it doesn't.

tol¦er|ance
[ˈtɒl(&#601r(&#601ns]

NOUN
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with

Baaically every other country in the western world would have a way to shut this down... but folks like you love to brag about freedom and democracy like you're the bar everyone should aspire to reach.

I don't know where you get that idea, I said he should be prosecuted, not be subjected to lynch justice.

 

[typist]

Not gonna shed any tears over this but if the girl is being charged with assault it's not the best way to handle the situation. This is why you need some hate speech laws. Someone should have called the police and then they should have been able to remove him from the premises for harassment/verbal abuse or something.

It's kinda weird that a guy can verbally abuse rape-victims and suffer no punishment, yet a girl who hits him on the head will suffer punishment. It's difficult to measure pain or damage caused yet very real damage is clearly being done by both parties. The pain of being told you deserved to be raped, the pain of schoolchildren realising the world is full of unsympathetic scum -- that is arguably worse and much more long-lasting than the temporary physical pain of a knock to the head

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

tol¦er|ance
[ˈtɒl(&#601r(&#601ns]

NOUN
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with

"You deserved to be raped" really sounds more like wishing harm on someone. I'm not sure anyone has to be tolerant of wishing harm on someone.

 

[Palette Swap]

Beyond justifying apathy in the face of evil, I don't see how you can defend very lax views of the first amendment as healthy for democracy when they are what gave you the Citizens United v FEC ruling, which is a very concrete and effective cancer to democracy.

 

[moggio]

Good. This is essentially self-defence so I approve.

 

[Siegcram]

tol¦er|ance
[ˈtɒl(&#601r(&#601ns]

NOUN
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with

I own a dictionary, thanks.

If you want to strenghten your argument further than quoting unrelated definitions, read The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper and get back to me.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm going to address the individual questions in a momnet but before that:

No, no, no, no. "The argument is about violence being an effective means to address hate" is not the same as "If you claim they could progress faster with punching, you'll need to show that."

You really just need to get your ducks in a row about whats actually being argued here.


He's no longer spewing his hatred publically, then yes. This is something you yourself haven't disputed, you've just not given it much value, which is a different argument.



Silencing racism is progress.



The point is that people will not have racist hate speech publically inflicted upon them with silent racists discouraged to act on racism.



I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean. I think you somehow just don't see silencing racism as progress which...dude, you're not going to make racism, the abstract concept, go away. Not now, not 50 years from now, probably not ever. But there is a difference from Richard Spencer openly talking about how white people are inherently better, and Richard Spencer privately thinking about how white people are inherently better. You know what difference that is? Everyone else doesn't have to deal with his poisonous bullshit in the latter case.

That is what true progress looks like, not this childish utopia where racism just doesn't happen.



That is not my claim and at this point, you either possess reading comprehension or you don't, so go back, actually read and comprehend what I am saying, then get back to me.

You're all over the place here. You seem intent on obfuscation and I can only assume this is because you recognize the flaws in your position. Emotionally you want it to be true but you know you can't justify it.

You're also being especially rude.

If Richard Spencer is appearing in public less, we can safely conclude he is appearing in public less. Did the publicity over his getting punched inspire more racists? Do his less frequent appearances lead to fewer racists? Less racism? You say getting him off his platform is the only goal and it's inconceivable that can't be the most irrefutable argument is pretty silly. Being in public is certainly part of his persona, but he hasn't stopped going into public and he certainly hasn't stopped doing whatever he does online.

If allowing and normalizing violence against someone like Richard Spencer achieves nothing more than making it so he goes outside a little less often I am absolutely not in favor of that trade-off. The cost is too great.

 

[excelsiorlef]

tol¦er|ance
[ˈtɒl(&#601r(&#601ns]

NOUN
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with



I don't know where you get that idea, I said he should be prosecuted, not be subjected to lynch justice.

Prosecuted for what? US law allows hate speech.

Which is why vigilantism happens.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

I don't usually side with people instigating violence, but this is a guy who is holding up a sign saying "You deserve to raped" to high school kids.

I think it's time we retire the adage "violence is never the answer" we've been drilled into us as kids because, clearly, sometimes it is. Even unprovoked violence. And I cannot think of many situations where it is more fitting than with a grown man talking to, and I have to stress who his target audience was, kids about how they ought to be raped.



Fantastic way of putting it.

That's where you and I disagree. He was holding up a sign saying "You deserve to raped" to high school kids. Like my momma used to say "them's fighting words".

 

[darkinstinct]

"You deserved to be raped" really sounds more like wishing harm on someone. I'm not sure anyone has to be tolerant of wishing harm on someone.

Of course not. I'm not either. But by definition that means I'm intolerant. I can live with that. But that's really not the point here. You don't go around and take action against anybody that says something inherently stupid or disgusting or hateful or violent (all of which apply to the preacher). That's what laws are for. If you don't have laws against hate speech (which every other developed country has), change the laws. If that doesn't work, because they have no majority, vote for somebody else next time. If they don't get a majority, well, apparantly the majority in your country is ok with saying things like that. That's democracy. If people start to go around beating up whoever is of a different opinion or says something (it doesn't have to be something violent, people would get beat up for saying stuff like "not all Muslims are bad" because somebody sure won't like that) you are not living in a democratic society anymore. I don't think anybody wants that.

 

[fantomena]

Just 2 examples of what is wrong with you folks on the far left. Always willing to go the extreme. No compromise, no rule of law, or rather selective application of the rule of law. The far left and far right are mirror images of each other. Shameful really. So sad!

Hi, Im far left, I think violence is wrong, beating him with a bat was wrong. He is a piece of shit, but beating him with a bat is also wrong imo.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Of course not. I'm not either. But by definition that means I'm intolerant. I can live with that. But that's really not the point here. You don't go around and take action against anybody that says something inherently stupid or disgusting or hateful or violent (all of which apply to the preacher). That's what laws are for. If you don't have laws against hate speech (which every other developed country has), change the laws. If that doesn't work, because they have no majority, vote for somebody else next time. If they don't get a majority, well, apparantly the majority in your country is ok with saying things like that. That's democracy. If people start to go around beating up whoever is of a different opinion or says something (it doesn't have to be something violent, people would get beat up for saying stuff like "not all Muslims are bad" because somebody sure won't like that) you are not living in a democratic society anymore. I don't think anybody wants that.

You can't change the law. It's so brutally enshrined in the US Constitution.

Again hence why some get pulled into vigilantism

 

[Lucumo]

She committed assault with a deadly weapon. If she's lucky they won't throw attempted murder charges at her. She deserves to be arrested.

Pretty much this. People seem not to care about the law when they see fit.

 

[MsKrisp]

Saxton was booked into the Pima County Jail on an assault charge. Bond was set at $641 and he is expected to appear in court tonight.

That's from kicking a female on the chest which left shoe marks. Oy.

He wasn't even seriously hurt and now she's facing a felony charge coupled with drug possession. And you can say violence is never the answer and feel morally superior, but talking to the guy reasonably didn't make him leave. He's assaulted a woman himself before, and is telling teens they deserve to get raped. He's lucky she didn't have a wooden bat. Maybe some of you can't imagine the rage that can boil within people when they hear such abhorrent shit thrown at them when they're just trying to go to school. What this guy and many "christians" do every day at universities, schools, infecting cities with their megaphones, hate speech, and shock tactics, is disgusting and should not be allowed.

The saddest part of this is that she was charged with felony assault and possession, so this could ruin her whole life.

Lmao. Sorry, he advocated rape and previously beat a woman.

It's the Walking Dead effect! I hope the attacker gets no prison time. She should make a gofundme for her legal defense. Thankfully she is white, so there's less of a chance for prison.

This may be the only thing that saves her.

 

[Veelk]

You're all over the place here. You seem intent on obfuscation and I can only assume this is because you recognize the flaws in your position. Emotionally you want it to be true but you know you can't justify it.

You're also being especially rude.

You're preceding paragraph is chalk full of pretension and condescension. You lost you're right to claim rudeness here. You're entirely wrong on top of it. I'm not even obfuscating. I'm being very, very specific about the logical followthrough of how Punched spencer led to him not voicing his racism in public, which means there is less racism in the world. Not in terms of lacking cosmic existence, because Spencer is as racist as he was before, but he and others are now discouraged because they know vocalizing that racism has consequences. And that leaves society better.

If Richard Spencer is appearing in public less, we can safely conclude he is appearing in public less. Did the publicity over his getting punched inspire more racists? Do his less frequent appearances lead to fewer racists? Less racism?

Dude, you accuse me of obsfuscation, when you seem to willfully refuse to understand basic, straightforward sentences. This is literally what I directly answered the previous post. It's not about 'less' racism, it's about silenced and discouraged racism. I cannot tell you why it's so difficult for you to understand this, but it's not because i'm obfuscating.

You say getting him off his platform is the only goal and it's inconceivable that can't be the most irrefutable argument is pretty silly.

No, I never said that was the only goal or that it's irrefutable. I just said this was the assertion of my argument, which I don't need to prove other venues to be false or unviable, just that this one assertion I am making is true.

Being in public is certainly part of his persona, but he hasn't stopped going into public and he certainly hasn't stopped doing whatever he does online.

but he no longer says this shit in the public streets? Because that's all I actually need for my argument to be valid here. My argument has always been contained to Spencer not saying anything in public places, not online, not in his private get togethers with racists. You shouldn't move goalposts on your own argument, you sure as hell aren't going to do so on mine.

Though really, you're the one who asserted the original claim that this stuff wasn't effective, something you first brought up. The burden of proof of establishing a lack of correlation is still very much on you, btw.

If allowing and normalizing violence against someone like Richard Spencer achieves nothing more than making it so he goes outside a little less often I am absolutely not in favor of that trade-off. The cost is too great.

If you're never going to specify (And substantiate!) this 'cost', stop referring to it.

That's where you and I disagree. He was holding up a sign saying "You deserve to raped" to high school kids. Like my momma used to say "them's fighting words".

I don't think you read that right because we're not disagreeing.

 

[darkinstinct]

You can't change the law. It's so brutally enshrined in the US Constitution.

Again hence why some get pulled into vigilantism

I just read up on hate speech in the US, seems like a real oversight. But instead of resorting to vigilantism it would be much better to use the protection of hate speech against those that spread hate. It shouldn't be too hard to simply surround these people and shout them down by being hateful toward them.

 

[old manatee]

Pretty much this. People seem not to care about the law when they see fit.

Sometimes what's right and what's legal aren't the same thing.

 

[MUnited83]

Pretty much this. People seem not to care about the law when they see fit.

You mean the same shitty broken laws that allow for a shithead like this do threaten rape to high school girls and he gets away with it? Amazing example of laws, totally.

Sometimes what's right and what's legal aren't the same thing.

Exactly.

 

[Bko]

Should have swung harder so that fucker wouldn't stand up ever again...

 

[MsKrisp]

If Democracy meant what you think it means, democracy would have never been established in America. Democracy in this country was built partially by killing people who held opposing arguments.

What are you talking about?

 

[Lucumo]

Sometimes what's right and what's legal aren't the same thing.

You mean the same shitty broken laws that allow for a shithead like this do threaten rape to high school girls and he gets away with it? Amazing example of laws, totally.

There is a difference between a bat and a hand. If you want to get your point across, a bat isn't necessary.

 

[Siegcram]

There is a difference between a bat and a hand. If you want to get your point across, a bat isn't necessary.

Hitting someone is also illegal though.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

There isn't a single person who makes that argument sincerely. They do it to be annoying, to piss people off, to attract attention to themselves. This is not an honest discussion if you've ever taken a history class in your life. It's pretty cut and dry.

I believe those people exist.

They are the ones who simply "don't want any trouble", who look away when someone gets mugged, who look away when people suffer, who look away when the Holocaust happened. They are simply the worst. At least with racist and bigots you know where they stand and what their opinion is.

These are the slimeballs that you can't count on, can't rely on. They wait out any violent revolutions or civil wars in hiding then come out of hiding waving the flag of whoever won.

They just don't want any trouble...

 

[Trident]

You can't change the law. It's so brutally enshrined in the US Constitution.

Again hence why some get pulled into vigilantism

I have to wonder, if free speech weren't so "brutally" enshrined in the Constitution, what limitations would have been put into law since our country's inception, and what impact they would have had over our history?

 

[Veelk]

I have to wonder, if free speech weren't so "brutally" enshrined in the Constitution, what limitations would have been put into law since our country's inception, and what impact they would have had over our history?

Well, I'm not a historian, but it seems to me that basic stuff like the Free speech law was pretty much designed to prevent revolutionary era trumps popping up where where they'd use their money to buy influence of news organizations as they existed then, make themselves look good to the public so that they'd be able to gain as much power as possible.

With the advert of fake news and Fox basically acting as a republican propaganda machine, Trump circumvented the limitations of free speech by going directly the opposite direction.

 

[KHarvey16]

You're preceding paragraph is chalk full of pretension and condescension. You lost you're right to claim rudeness here. You're entirely wrong on top of it. I'm not even obfuscating. I'm being very, very specific about the logical followthrough of how Punched spencer led to him not voicing his racism in public, which means there is less racism in the world. Not in terms of lacking existence, because Spencer is as racist as he was before, but he and others are now discouraged because they know vocalizing that racism has consequences. And that leaves society better.



Dude, you accuse me of obsfuscation, when you seem to willfully refuse to understand basic, straightforward sentences. This is literally what I directly answered the previous post.



No, I never said that was the only goal or that it's irrefutable. I just said this was the assertion of my argument, which I don't need to prove other venues to be false or unviable, just that this one assertion I am making is true.



but he no longer says this shit in the public streets? Because that's all I actually need for my argument to be valid here.

Though really, you're the one who asserted the original claim that this stuff wasn't effective, something you first brought up. The burden of proof of establishing a lack of correlation is still very much on you, btw.



If you're never going to specify (And substantiate!) this 'cost', stop referring to it.

He hasn't stopped spreading his hate in public, he's just doing it a little less. And he's still doing it just as much online.

The cost of normalizing violence is escalation and blurring the lines between the acceptability and unacceptability of violence. If racists in public are met with violences, do all of them stop going in public? Or do they bring friends and/or weapons? What happens if the majority holds a view, even if it's wrong, and violence is seen as an acceptable way to suppress ideas? It's a bad road to go down and nothing you're suggesting as benefits are compelling reasons to risk it.

Also, maybe they're driven out of public view and exist on the internet and in dark basement meetings. Is that better? Does that mean less hate in the world or just less obvious hate?

You seem to define "real" progress here as token victories that satisfy your short term emotional desire. You reject the notion of addressing the actual issue and dismiss progress here as "utopia." That is ridiculous. "Real" progress has been made with regards to gay marriage and transgendered people in the past decade. The education I spoke about has led to greater and greater levels of support and acceptance. This progress has absolutely not been sustained by violence.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Fuck people who value order over justice.

 

[Royce McCutcheon]

Fuck people who value order over justice.

And what justice was served, she's facing felony charges and he's still on the streets, unless pain is justice to you.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I have to wonder, if free speech weren't so "brutally" enshrined in the Constitution, what limitations would have been put into law since our country's inception, and what impact they would have had over our history?

Hate speech laws work in every other first world country that has them.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

And what justice was served, she's facing felony charges and he's still on the streets, unless pain is justice to you.

Him getting hit is justice.

 

[Messofanego]

USA needs to sort out its hate speech issue. Where the instigator is given more rights than the marginalised groups being targeted.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Speaking as someone who despises religion, and as someone who lived through the horror and pain of their dearest and closest friend and lover surviving a rape, I am yet truly disheartened and disturbed to see people respond to preachers of hate and violence and rape with physical violence and revel in it.

Him getting hit is justice.

Yessssssss, let the irony flow through you...

We can and must push back against hate through peaceful resistance and smart legislation. Mob violence is demonstrably ineffective.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Only bummed he lived and she got caught.

Scum like this should live in fear that they are next.