Was he punching people? No? Then don't punch him, it's not difficult.
The way to combat hate peddlers is to expose them for how silly they are. The Klan didn't get punched in the face, they were forced to walk around with their hoods up looking like idiots. At Neo-Nazi rallies there are more people protesting then actual Neo-Nazis.
Spreading Nazi thought and promoting white nationalist ideals is an inherently non-peaceful act, therefore Spencer was not just standing on a street corner peacefully.
If that's true then is it ok to beat the Black Israelites standing on street corners screaming about how they bred white people to be their slaves?
Geez Marcus, no one here is a Nazi - we don't believe in that stuff.
But that nicely dressed young man does have a point, we really should get these illegals out, they could be dangerous... and I guess we have to put them somewhere.
And being gay is fine, just not in my face please! And really I'm not sure if I'm ok with them being around my kids when I'm not around, some of the things they do make me uncomfortable. And you shouldn't be uncomfortable around a teacher... or a cop or any sort of civil servant really, you really need their help sometimes!
Honestly maybe things would just be better if they had their own neighborhoods like that guy was saying, doing things their own way. They'd probably feel safer too!
What kind of Nazi would be looking out for gays like that?
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Allowing Muslim Fundamentalists to spread their ideology unchecked within disaffected Muslim populations allowed the radicalization of vulnerable people to commit terrorism.
We're seeing similar radicalization among rural white populations that have been left behind by technology and globalization. Who have felt ignored by our politics. Luckily or unluckily, our system let that radicalization have a non-violent outlet in the form of Trump and the alt-right movement.
Muslim terrorism and rural white nationalism have the same root issue - populations feeling unrepresented in politics, lacking hope in a future for themselves, radicalized by an ideology that promises something better.
Except one actually is represented in politics (by a terrible, exploitative GOP) and has disproportional power compared to its size, so I consider them much more dangerous to us as a society.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I gotta say, I've been in a pretty fucking dark place for the last three months watching my students and the rest of the world, and this is one of the few precious things that has made me smile. Thanks.
If people who aren't fascists are jumping to Spencer's defense, like your circumspect "wait and see" hand-wringing liberal friends, look at it as an opportunity to educate them into not being a foot-shuffling milk-toast who equivocates and says "both sides are the same" shit with fucking fascism.
Surely you would not argue that violence is always the best response to expressions of fascism in every possible instance? Is there not more nuance to it than that?
To be clear, I do think violence in opposition to such movements can be both permissible and necessary. Perhaps it is now! But you have to get into the weeds and determine whether the backlash causes more harm than good. If your action sways more people to the fascist side or pushes them away from the anti-fascists, getting that one fascist to shut up may not have been worth it. It's almost a mathematical question, in my opinion. Spencer has not been silenced by this action. He may have suffered a bruise on his head. Maybe he won't
When you fight a war, PR has to be part of the war effort, especially given today's rapid mass communication. The battle "hearts and minds", or the consideration of optics, must be part of the struggle. The US military and others learned this while fighting militant Islamic factions throughout the world, we should not ignore their lesson or dismiss the dangers of backlash to violent action.
Do you think the attack on Spencer helped or hurt the anti-fascist cause?
It's not always about "hearts and minds" or the Greater Impact.
Sometimes it's about silencing that fascist, right now. Making that fascist feel afraid, feel silenced. When it's someone prominent like Spencer, I don't care what hem-hawing Twitter eggs think. I care what Spencer thinks, and if it works on him that's enough, because that's an impact worth it.
I feel very ambivalent to the "hearts and minds" or "bad optics" arguments.
Sure, there's nuance. But with Nazis, there's less nuance than many seem to suggest.
It is always about hearts and minds and the greater impact. That is, in fact, why it's the greater impact. What good is punching him in the face going to do? It's not going to change his mind about being a nazi. If anything it's going to further solidify him as one as he has a personal experience that will let him see his opponents as brutes uninterested in discourse. It's not going to win anyone over to your side, and is going to make your side actually look worse. And let's not forget the action itself of attacking another human being. Even if they're a human being with repellent views, they are still a human being. The only positive of punching him is the rush you get by doing it. If you're willing to harm your cause, give a nazi something he can help use to support his views, and harm another human being, all so that you can get a moment of adrenaline and self-satisfaction? Then I question what exactly the basis of your morality is.
+1
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
False equivalency, minority groups can't engage in racial injustice the way that white supremacists can because they aren't supported by a system of white supremacy that has existed for centuries.
Edit: also, the Klan ABSOLUTELY got punched in the face and chased off with rifles and shotguns and shit, what are you even?
No no no enough with the "false equivalence" bullshit you people pull. If two people are peddling hate against an outgroup and the only difference is the color of the people they hate, -they're the same-. If you think it's ok to punch one and not the other based on who they hate you're the racist. Or a hypocrite.
Also, thinking about non-violent ways to instill fear in Nazis and make them feel like they need to shut the fuck up. I'm thinking finding them online and fliering their neighborhoods might work pretty well.
We don't need to assault them (yet) but making it so their actions have consequences (ostracization and rebuke from their neighbors) may do the trick.
Sure! And finding their workplaces, calling their boss to get them fired, stopping their children on the way home from school and telling them the truth about their parents, etc.
like jesus here I am saying it's wrong to sucker-punch people on the street and you're actively calling for terrorism, i.e. the unlawful use of fear to achieve a political aim, but because they're Bad People it makes it Okay
replace "nazis" with "civil rights activists" and do a little self-reflection yourself
Captain Marcus on
+5
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
replace "nazis" with "civil rights activists" and do a little self-reflection yourself
One calls for the extermination of all other peoples, the other calls for the protection of all peoples' rights.
There is no equivalence.
I got one for you: Replace "Nazis" with "Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorists."
Oh right we already hunt them down where they live.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I apologize in advance if this post is disturbing, but, well, this conversation is fucked up and horrifying, so there's no way to pretty things up. Not that we shouldn't be debating the use of violence against fascism; I'm just deeply upset that things have reached the point where we judge this to be a relevant conversation to have (I'm sure most of you feel the same way).
If people who aren't fascists are jumping to Spencer's defense, like your circumspect "wait and see" hand-wringing liberal friends, look at it as an opportunity to educate them into not being a foot-shuffling milk-toast who equivocates and says "both sides are the same" shit with fucking fascism.
Surely you would not argue that violence is always the best response to expressions of fascism in every possible instance? Is there not more nuance to it than that?
To be clear, I do think violence in opposition to such movements can be both permissible and necessary. Perhaps it is now! But you have to get into the weeds and determine whether the backlash causes more harm than good. If your action sways more people to the fascist side or pushes them away from the anti-fascists, getting that one fascist to shut up may not have been worth it. It's almost a mathematical question, in my opinion. Spencer has not been silenced by this action. He may have suffered a bruise on his head. Maybe he won't
When you fight a war, PR has to be part of the war effort, especially given today's rapid mass communication. The battle "hearts and minds", or the consideration of optics, must be part of the struggle. The US military and others learned this while fighting militant Islamic factions throughout the world, we should not ignore their lesson or dismiss the dangers of backlash to violent action.
Do you think the attack on Spencer helped or hurt the anti-fascist cause?
It's not always about "hearts and minds" or the Greater Impact.
Sometimes it's about silencing that fascist, right now. Making that fascist feel afraid, feel silenced. When it's someone prominent like Spencer, I don't care what hem-hawing Twitter eggs think. I care what Spencer thinks, and if it works on him that's enough, because that's an impact worth it.
I feel very ambivalent to the "hearts and minds" or "bad optics" arguments.
Sure, there's nuance. But with Nazis, there's less nuance than many seem to suggest.
I think the "greater impact" and the "individual case" both must be considered in light of each other. The relationship between the two seems murky, especially at this stage of analysis, but I think that no event is standalone. Everything effects everything and I don't think attempting to isolate any particular situation from the broader context is the best way to decide what action to take.
The fascists themselves are very aware of the importance of optics. I remember following the Stormfront threads immediately after the Dylan Stormroof massacre. Some were in favor of it, saying things like "talking doesn't do anything, we have to actually act." But most thought Stormroof was an idiot who harmed their movement by reminding the fence sitters that racism not only still exists but is also really violent and terrifying. No one there cared about the lives of those black people, but the general consensus was that Stormroof's massacre was a strategic error. The massacre of innocents out of racial hatred isn't remotely comparable to punching a fascist on the street, but strategic and tactical consideration beyond "punch the fascists" still seems necessary to me.
A question that doesn't directly follow but seems relevant: What level of violence was best in the instance of Spencer? Punching him in the head, as happened? What about taking a rock and smashing in his teeth? Or fatally stabbing him in the back? Would that level of violence have been justifiable/beneficial? If not, why, given the framing you've presented?
edit- changed last sentence to a negative to make sense, sorry for sloppiness
False equivalency, minority groups can't engage in racial injustice the way that white supremacists can because they aren't supported by a system of white supremacy that has existed for centuries.
Edit: also, the Klan ABSOLUTELY got punched in the face and chased off with rifles and shotguns and shit, what are you even?
No no no enough with the "false equivalence" bullshit you people pull. If two people are peddling hate against an outgroup and the only difference is the color of the people they hate, -they're the same-. If you think it's ok to punch one and not the other based on who they hate you're the racist. Or a hypocrite.
Also, thinking about non-violent ways to instill fear in Nazis and make them feel like they need to shut the fuck up. I'm thinking finding them online and fliering their neighborhoods might work pretty well.
We don't need to assault them (yet) but making it so their actions have consequences (ostracization and rebuke from their neighbors) may do the trick.
Sure! And finding their workplaces, calling their boss to get them fired, stopping their children on the way home from school and telling them the truth about their parents, etc.
like jesus here I am saying it's wrong to sucker-punch people on the street and you're actively calling for terrorism, i.e. the unlawful use of fear to achieve a political aim, but because they're Bad People it makes it Okay
replace "nazis" with "civil rights activists" and do a little self-reflection yourself
I don't hate that guy because of his color!
I hate that guy because he thinks we should kill people based on theirs!
I don't hate him for some stupid surface shit. I hate him due to the content of his fucking character.
That's why I'm fine with him getting punched in the dome.
Sleep on
+5
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
False equivalency, minority groups can't engage in racial injustice the way that white supremacists can because they aren't supported by a system of white supremacy that has existed for centuries.
Edit: also, the Klan ABSOLUTELY got punched in the face and chased off with rifles and shotguns and shit, what are you even?
No no no enough with the "false equivalence" bullshit you people pull. If two people are peddling hate against an outgroup and the only difference is the color of the people they hate, -they're the same-. If you think it's ok to punch one and not the other based on who they hate you're the racist. Or a hypocrite.
Also, thinking about non-violent ways to instill fear in Nazis and make them feel like they need to shut the fuck up. I'm thinking finding them online and fliering their neighborhoods might work pretty well.
We don't need to assault them (yet) but making it so their actions have consequences (ostracization and rebuke from their neighbors) may do the trick.
Sure! And finding their workplaces, calling their boss to get them fired, stopping their children on the way home from school and telling them the truth about their parents, etc.
like jesus here I am saying it's wrong to sucker-punch people on the street and you're actively calling for terrorism, i.e. the unlawful use of fear to achieve a political aim, but because they're Bad People it makes it Okay
replace "nazis" with "civil rights activists" and do a little self-reflection yourself
Doxxing is also unlawful bro.
+1
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
FWIW Spencer's basically turned into a humiliating meme character thus far in terms of "optics".
If people who aren't fascists are jumping to Spencer's defense, like your circumspect "wait and see" hand-wringing liberal friends, look at it as an opportunity to educate them into not being a foot-shuffling milk-toast who equivocates and says "both sides are the same" shit with fucking fascism.
Surely you would not argue that violence is always the best response to expressions of fascism in every possible instance? Is there not more nuance to it than that?
To be clear, I do think violence in opposition to such movements can be both permissible and necessary. Perhaps it is now! But you have to get into the weeds and determine whether the backlash causes more harm than good. If your action sways more people to the fascist side or pushes them away from the anti-fascists, getting that one fascist to shut up may not have been worth it. It's almost a mathematical question, in my opinion. Spencer has not been silenced by this action. He may have suffered a bruise on his head. Maybe he won't
When you fight a war, PR has to be part of the war effort, especially given today's rapid mass communication. The battle "hearts and minds", or the consideration of optics, must be part of the struggle. The US military and others learned this while fighting militant Islamic factions throughout the world, we should not ignore their lesson or dismiss the dangers of backlash to violent action.
Do you think the attack on Spencer helped or hurt the anti-fascist cause?
It's not always about "hearts and minds" or the Greater Impact.
Sometimes it's about silencing that fascist, right now. Making that fascist feel afraid, feel silenced. When it's someone prominent like Spencer, I don't care what hem-hawing Twitter eggs think. I care what Spencer thinks, and if it works on him that's enough, because that's an impact worth it.
I feel very ambivalent to the "hearts and minds" or "bad optics" arguments.
Sure, there's nuance. But with Nazis, there's less nuance than many seem to suggest.
This doesn't seem like a rational or coherent argument, though. If silencing that fascist is a net detriment to the political changes we want to see--which is exactly the argument being made--then yes, it is about the greater impact. Punching the Nazi to make yourself and the people watching feel better, and to deter that Nazi and his Nazi ilk, may have some value. But it is potentially playing exactly into the hands of the new white supremacist position.
Because it is new. The way they'll sink their tendrils into the public brain, into the waffling moderates who don't really know what fascism is and just want to be protected and safe, is by pointing at videos like this one and inflaming racial fears and fears of "thugs" and aggressive violent leftist anarchists to lend themselves legitimacy. It doesn't somehow tear off the mask and reveal them as Nazis, and it could be used to do the opposite.
But in a broader sense: we also have to keep in mind that no matter how right we are in condemning Nazis as monstrous, there is always someone who thinks your positions are just as monstrous, or worse. You simply cannot control that. To us, this Nazi fuck is self-evidently, obviously, clearly an abhorrent blight on society. To the fringe right, abortion doctors are as bad as Nazis. You can yell that your position is the true one until you're blue in the face, but it won't change their mind. The notion that we can condone or permit violence against those we find monstrous because we're the ones who are actually right is understandable, but it can't stand, because the whole structure of our institutions is built to accommodate the fact that every fucking lunatic is exactly as certain as you are. There is no room for that kind of violence as acceptable behaviour, because if you're absolutely, completely certain that you are righteous in punching Nazis, and the Nazis are absolutely, completely certain they're righteous in shitkicking minorities, and fringe right extremists are absolutely certain they're righteous in bombing a clinic full of hellbound baby-killers, then you're just going to get a country full of communities resorting to hitting each other in the face instead of looking for other solutions. If we've gotten to the point where that's actually where we're looking for real, plausible solutions, then we're already fucked.
There are multiple, recent instances in which Jewish community members have intervened to protect and possibly save the lives of Nazis being mobbed by protesters. I am more inclined to side with the protectors than the mob, no matter how satisfying it is to see a Nazi get hammered in the face.
If people who aren't fascists are jumping to Spencer's defense, like your circumspect "wait and see" hand-wringing liberal friends, look at it as an opportunity to educate them into not being a foot-shuffling milk-toast who equivocates and says "both sides are the same" shit with fucking fascism.
Surely you would not argue that violence is always the best response to expressions of fascism in every possible instance? Is there not more nuance to it than that?
To be clear, I do think violence in opposition to such movements can be both permissible and necessary. Perhaps it is now! But you have to get into the weeds and determine whether the backlash causes more harm than good. If your action sways more people to the fascist side or pushes them away from the anti-fascists, getting that one fascist to shut up may not have been worth it. It's almost a mathematical question, in my opinion. Spencer has not been silenced by this action. He may have suffered a bruise on his head. Maybe he won't
When you fight a war, PR has to be part of the war effort, especially given today's rapid mass communication. The battle "hearts and minds", or the consideration of optics, must be part of the struggle. The US military and others learned this while fighting militant Islamic factions throughout the world, we should not ignore their lesson or dismiss the dangers of backlash to violent action.
Do you think the attack on Spencer helped or hurt the anti-fascist cause?
It's not always about "hearts and minds" or the Greater Impact.
Sometimes it's about silencing that fascist, right now. Making that fascist feel afraid, feel silenced. When it's someone prominent like Spencer, I don't care what hem-hawing Twitter eggs think. I care what Spencer thinks, and if it works on him that's enough, because that's an impact worth it.
I feel very ambivalent to the "hearts and minds" or "bad optics" arguments.
Sure, there's nuance. But with Nazis, there's less nuance than many seem to suggest.
It is always about hearts and minds and the greater impact. That is, in fact, why it's the greater impact. What good is punching him in the face going to do? It's not going to change his mind about being a nazi. If anything it's going to further solidify him as one as he has a personal experience that will let him see his opponents as brutes uninterested in discourse. It's not going to win anyone over to your side, and is going to make your side actually look worse. And let's not forget the action itself of attacking another human being. Even if they're a human being with repellent views, they are still a human being. The only positive of punching him is the rush you get by doing it. If you're willing to harm your cause, give a nazi something he can help use to support his views, and harm another human being, all so that you can get a moment of adrenaline and self-satisfaction? Then I question what exactly the basis of your morality is.
No.
I'm going to "Hard No" this post.
I don't care about winning over Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer is a write-off. He's a virulent, dangerous person who needs to be stopped. In a just world, he'd be in fucking jail. We don't live in that world.
I care about Richard Spencer being silent. About Richard Spencer being told, firmly, cleanly, absolutely "No, this is not acceptable".
I care about him thinking twice about openly having an interview on a street corner talking about Pepes. Will that make him regret or reconsider his Nazi views? Nnnnnnnnnnope, not even a little, and you're not wrong there.
I care about him feeling "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be doing this." because he's afraid of violent rebuke. Is that fair? Is that "right" in some larger, happy, loving humanity sense? Nope!
Can it work? Yes. These people need to go back under the rock they came from. They need to be made to feel like they cannot do this out in the open. Some might say "but then they operate in the shadows!" as if that's somehow worse. I don't think it is, because them operating in the fucking open is part of how we got fucking Trump as the President.
As an aside, cB, I'm going to caution you strongly against making a personal attack on someone's motives or moralities for despising Nazis when they've been held down and kicked in the face and called a kike by Nazis growing up. Like maybe that's a place where you're out of your element, Donny.
Posts
Geez Marcus, no one here is a Nazi - we don't believe in that stuff.
But that nicely dressed young man does have a point, we really should get these illegals out, they could be dangerous... and I guess we have to put them somewhere.
And being gay is fine, just not in my face please! And really I'm not sure if I'm ok with them being around my kids when I'm not around, some of the things they do make me uncomfortable. And you shouldn't be uncomfortable around a teacher... or a cop or any sort of civil servant really, you really need their help sometimes!
Honestly maybe things would just be better if they had their own neighborhoods like that guy was saying, doing things their own way. They'd probably feel safer too!
What kind of Nazi would be looking out for gays like that?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We're seeing similar radicalization among rural white populations that have been left behind by technology and globalization. Who have felt ignored by our politics. Luckily or unluckily, our system let that radicalization have a non-violent outlet in the form of Trump and the alt-right movement.
Muslim terrorism and rural white nationalism have the same root issue - populations feeling unrepresented in politics, lacking hope in a future for themselves, radicalized by an ideology that promises something better.
Except one actually is represented in politics (by a terrible, exploitative GOP) and has disproportional power compared to its size, so I consider them much more dangerous to us as a society.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
They're declarations of war. Promoting them is a form of violence. And I am comfortable, 100%, responding to that with violence where appropriate.
I gotta say, I've been in a pretty fucking dark place for the last three months watching my students and the rest of the world, and this is one of the few precious things that has made me smile. Thanks.
Sure! And finding their workplaces, calling their boss to get them fired, stopping their children on the way home from school and telling them the truth about their parents, etc.
like jesus here I am saying it's wrong to sucker-punch people on the street and you're actively calling for terrorism, i.e. the unlawful use of fear to achieve a political aim, but because they're Bad People it makes it Okay
replace "nazis" with "civil rights activists" and do a little self-reflection yourself
There is no equivalence.
I got one for you: Replace "Nazis" with "Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorists."
Oh right we already hunt them down where they live.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
So yeah, false equivalence dawg.
I think the "greater impact" and the "individual case" both must be considered in light of each other. The relationship between the two seems murky, especially at this stage of analysis, but I think that no event is standalone. Everything effects everything and I don't think attempting to isolate any particular situation from the broader context is the best way to decide what action to take.
The fascists themselves are very aware of the importance of optics. I remember following the Stormfront threads immediately after the Dylan Stormroof massacre. Some were in favor of it, saying things like "talking doesn't do anything, we have to actually act." But most thought Stormroof was an idiot who harmed their movement by reminding the fence sitters that racism not only still exists but is also really violent and terrifying. No one there cared about the lives of those black people, but the general consensus was that Stormroof's massacre was a strategic error. The massacre of innocents out of racial hatred isn't remotely comparable to punching a fascist on the street, but strategic and tactical consideration beyond "punch the fascists" still seems necessary to me.
A question that doesn't directly follow but seems relevant: What level of violence was best in the instance of Spencer? Punching him in the head, as happened? What about taking a rock and smashing in his teeth? Or fatally stabbing him in the back? Would that level of violence have been justifiable/beneficial? If not, why, given the framing you've presented?
edit- changed last sentence to a negative to make sense, sorry for sloppiness
I don't hate that guy because of his color!
I hate that guy because he thinks we should kill people based on theirs!
I don't hate him for some stupid surface shit. I hate him due to the content of his fucking character.
That's why I'm fine with him getting punched in the dome.
Doxxing is also unlawful bro.
This doesn't seem like a rational or coherent argument, though. If silencing that fascist is a net detriment to the political changes we want to see--which is exactly the argument being made--then yes, it is about the greater impact. Punching the Nazi to make yourself and the people watching feel better, and to deter that Nazi and his Nazi ilk, may have some value. But it is potentially playing exactly into the hands of the new white supremacist position.
Because it is new. The way they'll sink their tendrils into the public brain, into the waffling moderates who don't really know what fascism is and just want to be protected and safe, is by pointing at videos like this one and inflaming racial fears and fears of "thugs" and aggressive violent leftist anarchists to lend themselves legitimacy. It doesn't somehow tear off the mask and reveal them as Nazis, and it could be used to do the opposite.
But in a broader sense: we also have to keep in mind that no matter how right we are in condemning Nazis as monstrous, there is always someone who thinks your positions are just as monstrous, or worse. You simply cannot control that. To us, this Nazi fuck is self-evidently, obviously, clearly an abhorrent blight on society. To the fringe right, abortion doctors are as bad as Nazis. You can yell that your position is the true one until you're blue in the face, but it won't change their mind. The notion that we can condone or permit violence against those we find monstrous because we're the ones who are actually right is understandable, but it can't stand, because the whole structure of our institutions is built to accommodate the fact that every fucking lunatic is exactly as certain as you are. There is no room for that kind of violence as acceptable behaviour, because if you're absolutely, completely certain that you are righteous in punching Nazis, and the Nazis are absolutely, completely certain they're righteous in shitkicking minorities, and fringe right extremists are absolutely certain they're righteous in bombing a clinic full of hellbound baby-killers, then you're just going to get a country full of communities resorting to hitting each other in the face instead of looking for other solutions. If we've gotten to the point where that's actually where we're looking for real, plausible solutions, then we're already fucked.
There are multiple, recent instances in which Jewish community members have intervened to protect and possibly save the lives of Nazis being mobbed by protesters. I am more inclined to side with the protectors than the mob, no matter how satisfying it is to see a Nazi get hammered in the face.
No.
I'm going to "Hard No" this post.
I don't care about winning over Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer is a write-off. He's a virulent, dangerous person who needs to be stopped. In a just world, he'd be in fucking jail. We don't live in that world.
I care about Richard Spencer being silent. About Richard Spencer being told, firmly, cleanly, absolutely "No, this is not acceptable".
I care about him thinking twice about openly having an interview on a street corner talking about Pepes. Will that make him regret or reconsider his Nazi views? Nnnnnnnnnnope, not even a little, and you're not wrong there.
I care about him feeling "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be doing this." because he's afraid of violent rebuke. Is that fair? Is that "right" in some larger, happy, loving humanity sense? Nope!
Can it work? Yes. These people need to go back under the rock they came from. They need to be made to feel like they cannot do this out in the open. Some might say "but then they operate in the shadows!" as if that's somehow worse. I don't think it is, because them operating in the fucking open is part of how we got fucking Trump as the President.
As an aside, cB, I'm going to caution you strongly against making a personal attack on someone's motives or moralities for despising Nazis when they've been held down and kicked in the face and called a kike by Nazis growing up. Like maybe that's a place where you're out of your element, Donny.
It has the potential to be an interesting discussion but we can't have a thread that's simply people advocating violence over and over again.