Support NeoGAF

[Veelk]

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.

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.

At this point you are reading my arguments so poorly that I don't even actually need to write a reply to you. I can quote my old replies and they don't even lose any context.

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 your suggesting as benefits are compelling reasons to risk it.

Ahhhh, the slippery slope fallacy. I've missed you.

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?

Yes, it's better. It means hate is less acted on and materialized in behavior. People know it's wrong and are discouraged from expressing it. It's a good thing.

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.

Look, not to be 'rude', but can you shut the fuck up about my emotions. For someone who wants politeness, you're being an asshole by trying to attack my character and using it as a distraction for the issue at hand. How I feel about my argument has nothing to do with it's merits. Address my argument, not what you poorly think is the cause of my argument.

Second, to put it bluntly, you're remarkably ignorant about how political progress came about if you think it didn't involve first shaming homophobs and transphobs into silence. You previously used neogaf as an example for how transphobic topics used to be normal, but then they stopped. You know why that happened? Because mod started banning (aka silencing) people who participated in transphobia. Silencing and shaming hatred is a fundamental part of this (And I want to take this moment to remind you: broad, vague, generalized and comprehensively unquantifiable...) education you want to parade so much.

 

[Skyball Paint]

I 110% morally support Brubaker's actions, I also understand the necessity for the law to apply even when the victim is a hateful waste of flesh.

I wish we had hate speech laws so we don't have to break laws to protect ourselves from the likes of that preacher, who abuse their First Amendment rights to inflict psychological harm on others.

 

[Hyun Sai]

The thing I don't understand is how a "you deserve to be raped" sign is not a direct ban (and more) from the area.

It sure would be in my country.

 

[KHarvey16]

At this point you are reading my arguments so poorly that I don't even actually need to write a reply to you. I can quote my old replies and they don't even lose any context.



Ahhhh, the slippery slope fallacy. I've missed you.



Yes, it's better. It means hate is less acted on and materialized in behavior. People know it's wrong and are discouraged from expressing it. It's a good thing.



Look, not to be 'rude', but can you shut the fuck up about my emotions. For someone who wants politeness, you're being an asshole by trying to attack my character and using it as a distraction for the issue at hand. Address my argument, not what you poorly think is the cause of my argument.

Second, to put it bluntly, you're remarkably ignorant about how political progress came about if you think it didn't involve first shaming homophobs and transphobs into silence. You previously used neogaf as an example for how transphobic topics used to be normal, but then they stopped. You know why that happened? Because mod started banning (aka silencing) people who participated in transphobia. Silencing and shaming hatred is a fundamental part of this (And I want to take this moment to remind you: broad, vague, generalized and comprehensively unquantifiable...) education you want to parade so much.

Violence. We're talking about justifying violence. I have zero issues with shaming or banning or otherwise silencing people on private forums or property. My issue is using violence to do it. You keep moving the goalposts and changing the parameters of your position.

If you aren't supporting violence as a necessary or preferred response we have no disagreement.

Also that point is no more a slippery slope fallacy than your argument about Richard Spencer not being in public as much to spread his ideas being better (no matter what other effects result).

 

[MUnited83]

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.

Actually, being driven out of the public view is literally the most fucking effective way of dealing with human scum like that. In countries with decent laws that prosecute hate speech, far right extremists are a tiny fringe that cannot propagate easily because they will be kept in check.

In America, the far right extremists are a huge portion of the population and basically 99.999% of the Republican party. Good fucking job keeping hate in check by letting it literally grow in front of your very eyes.

 

[BumRush]

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

This. I understand her frustration but attacking the guy with a bat is unacceptable as well.

 

[Maxey]

Intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

However, there should be nonviolent ways to deal with hate speakers.

 

[Messofanego]

So the response to free speech is violence?

Aren't you British? We separate free speech from hate speech laws here in the UK, so this wouldn't count as freeze peach.

 

[schlynch]

Shocking to see how many of you seem to be okay with her actions. I hope both of them get dragged to court and sentenced accordingly... and in my opinion the woman did worse here.

 

[daviyoung]

Aren't you British? We separate free speech from hate speech laws here in the UK, so this wouldn't count as freeze peach.

yes but this happened in America

 

[moggio]

So the response to free speech is violence?

A sign saying "you deserve to be raped" is an act of violence.

Knock the cunt out.

 

[Messofanego]

yes but this happened in America

And whose legislation do you live by, UK or USA?

 

[daviyoung]

A sign saying "you deserve to be raped" is an act of violence.

is it? then why wasn't he arrested?

And whose legislation do you live by, UK or USA?

how is that relevant to this topic? what are you actually getting at?

 

[Riposte]

Aren't you British? We separate free speech from hate speech laws here in the UK, so this wouldn't count as freeze peach.

What are the UK laws on hitting people with bats?

 

[moggio]

is it? then why wasn't he arrested?

Are you being obtuse?

 

[Messofanego]

is it? then why wasn't he arrested?



how is that relevant to this topic? what are you actually getting at?

I'm getting at how you see hate speech the same as free speech, and why that is.

Because USA doesn't have hate speech laws, he wasn't arrested.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

A sign saying "you deserve to be raped" is an act of violence.

How is anyone going to be able to respond to this sentence?

 

[EmiPrime]

America, your freedom of speech laws are really weird. Holding a "You deserve to be raped" sign outside a school should not be legally protected speech.

No sympathy for the guy, that sign is an extreme provocation.

 

[Messofanego]

What are the UK laws on hitting people with bats?

The same as in USA. She got arrested, so this doesn't even need to be a question.

 

[daviyoung]

I'm getting at how you see hate speech the same as free speech, and why that is.

Because USA doesn't have hate speech laws, he wasn't arrested.

yes, because this happened in the USA they do not have hate speech laws and therefore he cannot get arrested for his speech while she can for assaulting him

welcome to the topic

 

[nelsonroyale]

I don't think his views were okay at all and I think it was positive that so many were confronting him over them. I am not condoning the girl hitting him at all, but I think his views were more offensive than the violence. False equivalence perhaps, but those kind of views have a huge amount of history and a lot to answer for.

Wait...I was forgetting the sign...Oh well, I can understand why the girl reacted the way she did.

 

[old manatee]

To everybody saying that this should have been dealt with in a nonviolent way: IT WASN'T. This bag of crap was allowed to repeatedly stand in front of schools FOR YEARS telling​ minors that they deserve to be raped. The system totally failed those children. The woman with the bat sacrificed her freedom to get shit done for once in this broken country, and I salute her.

 

[Veelk]

Violence. We're talking about justifying violence. I have zero issues with shaming or banning or otherwise silencing people on private forums or property. My issue is using violence to do it. You keep moving the goalposts and changing the parameters of your position.

If you aren't supporting violence as a necessary or preferred response we have no disagreement.

That's because the authorities of Neogaf are people who ally themselves on the side of progression. I already made it clear that if there were laws to deal with this sort of thing, we'd be using those. But we live in the real world, where the authorities actively work against this in many ways. And when a person is at risk of being dehumanized (which I stress involves rape and murder and denial of rights), yes, violence might be the only recourse people have to use as a tool of public shaming and discouragement.

And they should use it because it's their dignity, security, lives, and literal humanity that's at stake here. There was nothing whatsoever that was going to stop Spencer from spewing his hateful bullshit short of a punch to the face. You can't reason him into silence, or make him empathize with the plight he is feeding, and he feeds off the backlash he gets because he sees those he disagrees with as inherently wrong, not people he should consider listening to. I don't see it as the preferred response, but if that's what it takes to stop him from making the world an indisputably shittier place to live, then yeah, I would say it's necessary.

Also that point is no more a slippery slope fallacy than your argument about Richard Spencer not being in public as much to spread his ideas being better (no matter what other effects result).

No. That's not what a slippery slope is. And I'm tired of explaining basic concepts to you, so this is the last one before I go to sleep, but short version is that to justify your argument, you're trying to make up potential problems that aren't issues at the moment nor are even likely to be issues. That's a slippery slope fallacy. I, on the other hand, am talking about racism, a quantifiable social construct with verifiable effects being prevented by public shaming, a well researched and verifiable facet of basic sociology, that works to discourage behavior.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

they tried reasoning with him for 7 minutes but a quick bonk to the head put a stop to him

 

[EmiPrime]

If there's no recourse under the law to protect people (especially children!) from hate speech I can understand why decent people resort to violence. They have no other avenue open to them, the law has failed them.

 

[17 Seconds]

i was totally okay with spencer getting punched out, but i don't know about this. maybe i'm stupid and a fist is just as likely to do serious damage as a bat (especially since we can't see how hard he was actually hit), but hitting somebody in the head with a metal bat seems a lot more violent than punching someone. it just feels like a much bigger escalation that points more to a violent/dangerous person. just hearing the sound of it hitting his head makes me squeamish.

no sympathy for the guy, though. the world would be better without him.

 

[KHarvey16]

That's because the authorities of Neogaf are people who ally themselves on the side of progression. I already made it clear that if there were laws to deal with this sort of thing, we'd be using those. But we live in the real world, where the authorities actively work against this in many ways. And when a person is at risk of being humanized (which I stress involves rape and murder and denial of rights), yes, violence might be the only recourse people have to use as a tool of public shaming and discouragement.

And they should use it because it's their dignity, security, lives, and literal humanity that's at stake here. There was nothing whatsoever that was going to stop Spencer from spewing his hateful bullshit short of a punch to the face. You can't reason him into silence, or make him empathize with the plight he is feeding, and he feeds off the backlash he gets because he sees those he disagrees with as inherently wrong, not people he should consider listening to. I don't see it as the preferred response, but if that's what it takes to stop him from making the world a shittier place to live, then yeah, I would say it's necessary.



No. That's not what a slippery slope is. And I'm tired of explaining basic concepts to you, so this is the last one before I go to sleep, but short version is that to justify your argument, you're trying to make up potential problems that aren't issues at the moment nor are even likely to be issues. That's a slippery slope fallacy. I, on the other hand, am talking about racism, a quantifiable social construct with verifiable effects being prevented by public shaming, a well researched and verifiable facet of basic sociology, that works to discourage behavior.

Likewise I'm talking about the escalation of violence, a similarly understood and demonstrable phenomena in societies across the world and history.

You keep retreating to "public shaming". I agree 100% with shaming. Speak out against it. Call it out for what it is. You try to almost sneak in violence as an extension of that. I don't think you actually want to argue for violence but that's how you started so you feel an obligation to include it now.

The idea is to change society and culture to the point the effect of the Richard Spencers of the world is diminished as much as possible. That effort is working.

 

[Trident]

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

I'm sure they've worked great for the half a century they've existed. And I would love to have some well tailored ones written in the US now.

The thought experiment I was posing was if the US Constitution did not prevent laws governing speech, what other speech laws would we have put on the books in the last 200 years and what would their effects have been?

Lots of blasphemy laws for sure. Probably broader obscenity laws.

I don't know how these other countries are set up that they're able to limit hate speech without opening the door for more chilling speech laws. An exception in their constitutions?

 

[excelsiorlef]

yes, because this happened in the USA they do not have hate speech laws and therefore he cannot get arrested for his speech while she can for assaulting him

welcome to the topic

Hence why you end up with vigilantism

 

[daviyoung]

Hence why you end up with vigilantism

and the discussion about whether that is right or wrong

 

[moggio]

Wrong thread.

 

[Illiterate Actual]

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

In what way has he been given more rights than anyone else? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten away with conking some gay high school student with a baseball bat.

Besides the 'rawstory' article is kinda crap. It seems to conflate the rape sign thing from the ABC affiliate's story which is reported as something he 'often' does with what he was doing here specifically. He didn't appear to have a sign. He apparently had something on his shirt but it wasn't clear what. The conversation seems to be about LGBT=sinners and maybe transgender bathroom stuff. I think if it was his "rape sign" it would have come up in the discussions he was having with people on camera.

That teacher is a dullard too. He can't record you? Why not?

"Are you suing Jesus?" Huh lady? He's recording for when someone takes the bait and assaults him. You know, the thing that happens.

"I'm trying to influence the fact that you need to be gone!" Well, I hope she's not an English teacher.

 

[Veelk]

Likewise I'm talking about the escalation of violence, a similarly understood and demonstrable phenomena in societies across the world and history.

Just because escalation exists does not mean it's inevitable. Hence the slippery slope fallacy. The effects of spewing unchecked racism aren't hypothetical. They will happen. It's been months since Richard Spencer got punched, at the very least a significant portion of the population endorsed it, and, as you can see, we don't have a civil war going on. So don't try to equate your usage to mine here.

You keep retreating to "public shaming". I agree 100% with shaming. Speak out against it. Call it out for what it is. You try to almost sneak in violence as an extension of that. I don't think you actually want to argue for violence but that's how you started so you feel an obligation to include it now.

Being physically attacked for a transgression (and then have that attack endorsed by the public) is a form of public shaming. I'm not trying to 'sneak it in', it's the crux of the entire argument. So yeah, I do want to argue for violence in this context. Stop trying to tell me what I want to argue for or why I am doing it. It is not your place to do so. You're not only wrong, you are being an unbearably pretentious douchebag in doing so.

The idea is to change society and culture to the point the effect of the Richard Spencers of the world is diminished as much as possible. That effort is working.

Yes. Partially, or atleast notably, because he got punched. People don't want to get punched, so they don't pull a Richard Spencer. Glad you agree.

 

[MarionCB]

is it? then why wasn't he arrested?

This is my reaction to this story. Why wasn't he arrested? This isn't a free speech issue; yelling through a megaphone at kids at their school that they deserve to be raped because they are evil is straight up threatening speech. This is a total failure of the police authorities to do their job.

I support the criminalisation of hate speech in any case.

 

[old manatee]

The only thing she did wrong was failing to leave the weed at home. That's just sloppy vigilantism.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is my reaction to this story. Why wasn't he arrested? This isn't a free speech issue; yelling through a megaphone at kids at their school that they deserve to be raped because they are evil is straight up threatening speech. This is a total failure of the police authorities to do their job.

I support the criminalisation of hate speech in any case.

It is though in the US, that's the problem. All of that shit is legal.

 

[typist]

For those happy that the guy got bonked on the noggin... consider this: maybe he is just mentally ill. You could argue that anyone who is extremely stupid is suffering from the disease of ignorance. If you view religion as a massive delusion shared by many people, then all of those people are consequently sick and need help. How exactly they can be helped is a difficult question, he's an adult so sending him to school or a hospital isn't really possible. There just needs to be more vigor in the public dismantling of religion maybe. Arguing with the guy enough might eventually cure him of his sickness. Smacking him over the head probably won't and that could also be viewed as abusing a mentally ill person

 

[Siegcram]

For those happy that the guy got bonked on the noggin... consider this: maybe he is just mentally ill. You could argue that anyone who is extremely stupid is suffering from the disease of ignorance. If you view religion as a massive delusion shared by many people, then all of those people are consequently sick and need help. How exactly they can be helped is a difficult question, he's an adult so sending him to school or a hospital isn't really possible. There just needs to be more vigor in the public dismantling of religion maybe. Arguing with the guy enough might eventually cure him of his sickness. Smacking him over the head probably won't and that could also be viewed as abusing a mentally ill person

What is this garbage?

 

[KHarvey16]

Just because escalation exists does not mean it's inevitable. Hence the slippery slope fallacy. The effects of spewing unchecked racism aren't hypothetical. They will happen. It's been months since Richard Spencer got punched, at the very least a signifcant portion of the population endorsed it, and, as you can see, we don't have a civil war going on. So don't try to equate the usage here.

"Don't try to equate because if I overextend your point to ridiculous extremes you never intended it doesn't work!"

Please.

Before Richard Spencer was punched we didn't have a civil war either so obviously your entire argument has been defeated.

Being physically attacked for a transgression (and then have that attack endorsed by the public) is a form of public shaming. So yeah, I do want to argue for violence in this context.



Yes. Partially, or atleast notably, because he got punched. People don't want to get punched, so they don't pull a Richard Spencer. Glad you agree.

Again, you're especially rude and argue in bad faith.

Punching Spencer is a feel good bandaid that lets you and others pat themselves on the back and do nothing to address the actual problem. It's actively harmful.

 

[Violet_0]

they tried reasoning with him for 7 minutes but a quick bonk to the head put a stop to him

and he can do it again tomorrow or whenever he wants to while the woman is likely going to end up in jail for quite some time and possibly fucked up her future career prospects. Her action was commendable (arguably) but futile and ended up harming herself more than anyone else. The laws need to change, violence isn't an option. You ain't going to scare these people away

 

[old manatee]

For those happy that the guy got bonked on the noggin... consider this: maybe he is just mentally ill. You could argue that anyone who is extremely stupid is suffering from the disease of ignorance. If you view religion as a massive delusion shared by many people, then all of those people are consequently sick and need help. How exactly they can be helped is a difficult question, he's an adult so sending him to school or a hospital isn't really possible. There just needs to be more vigor in the public dismantling of religion maybe. Arguing with the guy enough might eventually cure him of his sickness. Smacking him over the head probably won't and that could also be viewed as abusing a mentally ill person

Yeah no shit, a person who spends years outside of high schools telling children they deserved to be raped is mentally ill. If you want to talk about more programs to deal with mental illness I'm 1000% all for that. The system failed to deal with his mental illness, and it fell on a citizen to protect a school full of children from a person who was repeatedly threatening them.

 

[EmiPrime]

I'm not comfortable with this stigmatising of mental illness.

Just because somebody is a reprehensible cunt doesn't mean they are mentally ill.

 

[typist]

What is this garbage?

I'm basically saying the guy is mentally ill and assaulting him is not going to improve his mentality. In addition the girl now has a criminal record, which does not help her. But in the end he probably won't preach outside the school anymore so it might be a net positive.

Yeah no shit, a person who spends years outside of high schools telling children they deserved to be raped is mentally ill. If you want to talk about more programs to deal with mental illness I'm 1000% all for that. The system failed to deal with his mental illness, and it fell on a citizen to protect a school full of children from a person who was repeatedly threatening them.

The government absolutely should've stepped in before this happened. Glad you can recognise that the guy is sick and needs help. Obviously the children were also being abused and thanks to the girl the preacher won't be abusing them anymore. Just a shame she has to go to court now, not the ideal result

 

[BronsonLee]

*CLINK*

JESUS

 

[zoukka]

He had it coming.

 

[Snowybreak]

I'm not comfortable with this stigmatising of mental illness.

Just because somebody is a reprehensible cunt doesn't mean they are mentally ill.

Hmm... Never even thought of that. I wonder if that rolls into when people defend racists by saying they're mentally ill? A sort of side-stepping deflection meant to semi-admonish the person while also demonizing mental illness.

Also, fuck the dude. I've lost all fucks to give for people hit with violence because they're massive horrible cunts. This namby-pamby attitude towards violence is starting to grate on my nerves. Should it be used in all cases? Of course not. Doesn't mean it can't send a strong fucking message.

 

[EmiPrime]

Hmm... Never even thought of that. I wonder if that rolls into when people defend racists by saying they're mentally ill? A sort of side-stepping deflection meant to semi-admonish the person while also demonizing mental illness.

That's absolutely what it does. It absolves hateful people of personal responsibility while stigmatising mental illness.

 

[PabloBolivar]

America, your freedom of speech laws are really weird. Holding a "You deserve to be raped" sign outside a school should not be legally protected speech.

No sympathy for the guy, that sign is an extreme provocation.

Think about what you are saying. No thanks to some bullshit speech laws. I prefer freedom.

 

[Veelk]

Before Richard Spencer was punched we didn't have a civil war either so obviously your entire argument has been defeated.

That doesn't work because I'm not the one whose arguing there was escalation going on, you discount, bargain bin socrates wannabe.

Again, you're especially rude and argue in bad faith.

Punching Spencer is a feel good bandaid that lets you and other pat themselves on the back and do nothing to address the actual problem. It's actively harmful.

I have to say, the extent to which you use words you clearly do not understand is astounding.

If I was trying to 'sneak in' the argument that I am arguing for violence when I don't actually believe that, that would be arguing in bad faith. When I affirm that I am actually arguing what I'm arguing, that is by definition an affirmation of faith in the argument being had. It's not bad faith, you're just disagreeing with me really, really hard in addition to being unable to process more than 60% of any given post and don't know how to handle it.

I'm done with you, but in regards to rudeness, you treated me with presumptuousness, condescension, and outright pretentiousness through this entire exchange. You warrant more rudeness than the TOS allows.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

For everyone clutching their pearls about the attack, go to the next NAACP, BLM, or any Black organizational gathering in town and hold up a "You deserve to be lynched" sign and see how people react to your opinion.