The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Forty Two]

"Cultural Marxism" as a term is little more than empty rhetoric. It's actually a dumb conspiracy theory - a point made to you before that you conveniently ignored. The concepts behind it have very little to do with actual Marxism.

You often confuse, as you've done here, a point being expressed with a point being established. I haven't "ignored" anything, and you've not established that cultural Marxism as a concept is merely empty rhetoric or a dumb conspiracy theory. You may have said so, but your usual belief that you saying so means a point has been "made" as in established, is something you need to understand is not the case.

yeah, blah blah. If my point was so obviously not "made", then you should have had no trouble rebutting it. But you didn't. You ignored it, like all points that are inconvenient to your bubbled existence.

I said that the mere fact that you say something doesn't mean you've made a point or established something. That's your modus operandi, though. You make a one or two line statement, and then declare over the course of a thread that whatever you said has already been explained and the discussion is over, and then you keep referring back to your post declaring that nobody has refuted your unsupported assertion.

Fuck off with your usual slurs that I'm "ignoring" your points and I live in a "bubbled existence." Just for the love of the universe, please just for once - for fucking once - talk about an issue without making it a personal vendetta.

We've seen the propaganda of the Marxists and communists coming to fruition as they adopted "incrementalism" and incrementally socialism is becoming more and more accepted in western countries,

This is just absolute nonsense. Neoliberalism has been the dominant and growing ideology since the late 70's, and has seen capitalism absolutely dominate our societies. Actual Marxism is about the destruction of capitalism and the capitalist state. In no way could the dominance of capitalism since the 80's be seen as synonymous with "[incremental] socialism". That's fucking ridiculous.

Read The Fabian Freeway, by Rose Martin. It discusses incrementalism in the US and UK. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/F ... Book_3.pdf While we are not yet socialist in terms of government ownership of the means of production - Both Britain and the United States are heavily regulated and heavily taxed societies

Regulations and taxes are not socialism. I thought you understood that from your posts in the socialism thread.

Once again, I'm talking about their strategy of incrementalism. And, I just fucking got done saying, outright, right in the post you've responded to, that the US and UK are NOT YET SOCIALIST. For fuck's sake. I didn't say regulation and taxes were socialism -- the fucking god damn strategy is incrementalism, which is that they continue to more and more heavily regulate and more and more heavily tax, and continue to propagandize in favor of socialism and against capitalism, so they can get closer and closer to socialism INCREMENTALLY. Christ, man.

And, here you go again with your "I thought you understood..." fucking bullshit. Can you just discuss the fucking topic...? Oh, no, I forgot, you already admitted a while back on another thread that you intentionally troll people and you want to badger people you disagree with.

Not to mention, this is absolute nonsense as well. Regulations have been significantly reduced since the late 70's. That's what neoliberalism does.

As far as the US is concerned, hogwash. You're just wrong.

In the US, we have many, many times over a larger quantity of regulations and more regulatory agencies now than we did in the 1970s, and in the 1970s, we had many times over more than in the 1950s. Deregulation at most means that some areas had some loosening of the regulatory noose for some periods of time. Deregulation was never an actual reduction in the overall regulatory state.

In 2016, the US electorate was ready to nominate an avowed socialist as a major party nominee. We are today faced with cocktail of neo-Marxism, multiculturalism and postmodernism which has taken hold of universities and even public primary schools. Today's leftists have absorbed the "debunking" critique of our democratic liberties and are drawn to the hardball tactics of its organizer-activists. This is evident by the level of support for socialism among the under-30 crowd, and the readiness by which that crowd agrees with beating people up who don't toe the leftist line. The current leftist goal is nationalization of the energy sector - you find it in their actions -- http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-they- ... le/2001393 And, you find their aggressive activism in the efforts to shut down Trump rallies, and now Jordan Peterson rallies, and Milo Yiannopoulus rallies, and anyone else who they can silence.

This is all just more "cultural Marxism". It has very little to do with actual Marxism.

One, that was not "just" more cultural Marxism. And, two cultural Marxism is based on Marxist thought. It's hard to accept the identity politics and oppressor/oppressed race or gender classification without an acceptance of basic Marxist ideas. I'm not suggesting the average screaming SJW understands much about Marxism, but they have been steeped in its language and ideas, and they've adopted those ideas.

And despite the support for "socialism" (do these people actually know what socialism is? Most Americans have no idea), we have the most capitalist society since the turn of the previous century. The idea that socialism is currently a threat to anything is ridiculous.

This is just counterfactual, other the fact that most Americans probably don't know what socialism is. Most Bernie supporters didn't, but when asked about it, large swaths of the population claim to have a favorable opinion of it, and more negative opinion of capitalism, which allows the leaders, who do know what socialism is, to use that political clout. And, it's impossible to seriously argue that the United States is the most capitalist it's been in 100+ years. The very notion is absurd. We have more government control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, a far more pervasive and federalized education system, a far more governmentally controlled health system, far more governmentally controlled banking system, than ever before in our history. The energy sector is far more controlled than it ever was. The control the state has over the economy today is worlds greater than 100 years ago.

Among young people especially, the absurd notion of communism as a utopian ideal, and socialism as almost synonymous with kindness and goodness and compassion, while capitalism is more and more viewed as evil, is really taking root.

Are you becoming Seth? Socialism isn't synonymous with Marxism. Marxism is only one form of socialism. There are plenty of socialist ideologies that are about goodness and compassion. Marxism is definitely offensive and dangerous at large scale. But there is no marxist threat to our societies. Governments have been moving steadily to the right since the 80's. That is, they are moving towards fascism (greater entanglement of corporations and the state, greater surveillance, reduced worker rights, more legal restrictions on protests, reduced press freedoms, etc, etc).

I didn't say socialism was "synonymous" with Marxism. But, feel free to identify a socialist ideology that is about goodness and compassion.

Democratic socialism. Libertarian socialism.

Nothing in the democratic socialism refers to goodness and compassion. Democratic socialism is democracy + state ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There is no inherent attachment to goodness or compassion. Democratic capitalism lays claim to affording the common person the best life or the greater good for the greater number, just as democratic socialism does. However, neither has a "goodness" or "compassion" as part of its definition or a main feature of its structure.

Libertarian socialism is not a single ideology but a set of ideologies sharing common features like a disdain for the existence of the State at all. And, libertarian socialism actually rejects State or centralized ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The key features of libertarian socialism is freedom and liberty, not goodness and kindness. And, that greater freedom and liberty is gained by a decentralization and spreading government into small bits and municipalities. It also claims that things would be better if we did it their way, but that claim is made by every political philosophy - each one says life would be better under its auspices. None of them however is about being good and compassionate.

You make my point, though, when you misapprehend what I said there. I said socialism is drawing greater acceptance, whereas capitalism is drawing greater negatives. You then responded by referring to Marxism as being different from the "good" socialism (which you do not identify), and then you compare that to fascism, not capitalism. It's a success of the left to have folks confusing fascism with liberal capitalism.

We don't have "liberal capitalism". We have increasing crony capitalism and corporatism. It's pointless debating you. You live in an entirely different universe.

Pointless debating me? I didn't say we HAD "liberal capitalism." I said you are comparing socialism to fascism, not capitalism. Right now we have a highly, heavily controlled "regulatory state" which is pushing us toward socialism. This 'crony capitalism' of which you speak is a function of the over-regulation and over-involvement of the State with business. Examples of crony capitalism include, but are not limited to, Solyndra, and other recipients of government largesse. Also the hundreds of Obamacare waivers that were issued after the enactment of the ACA. The vast majority of recipients of those waivers were labor-union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments with strong Democratic Party connections. One in 5 waivers issued in April 2011 went to upscale nightclubs, bars and hotels in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. LOL. As of 2012, eighty percent of the $20.5 billion in Energy Department loans for “green” energy went to Mr. Obama’s top donors....like Solyndra....run by Mr. Kaiser... of the Kaiser Family Foundation... When failing Solyndra sought to restructure the loan, investors such as Mr. Kaiser were put ahead of taxpayers for recouping their investments. Obama railed against "no bid contracts"....except for his friends... In May 2011, the pharmaceutical firm Siga Technologies, headed by Obama intimate Ronald Perelman, received a $443 million sole-source, no-bid, no-questions-asked government contract for an unnecessary anti-smallpox pill. Siga previously had been awarded a $3 billion contract after placing former Service Employees International Union boss and frequent White House visitor Andy Stern on its board.

So, while, obviously, which is a danger to you or me or someone else is always a matter of opinion. To some people, democracy and social democracy and the idea of human rights is a danger to society. If you were to look at some fundamentalist religious folks, they think the idea of individual rights and secular government is damaging and dangerous to society. Each person picks his poison in that regard. The tough part seems to be for certain people to understand that one's own concepts of right, morality, goodness, and one's own concepts of what constitutes a danger to society, are not objective truths.

This is all irrelevant to the question of punching Nazis (or anyone).

No, it is quite relevant. Once you understand that your opinion of Nazis, or alleged Nazis, and their views or alleged views, is not an objective truth,

Once you learn to read properly, you might have a hope of constructing a coherent argument. I never said it was an objective truth. I've explained my views to you enough times before for you to surely understand that the same ethic that I apply to punching nazi's is just as good an ethic for a right-winger to punch a communist. That's why your paragraph above is irrelevant.

What is the moral basis for punching either of them? Perhaps they're "just as good" but at the moment, other than a subjective distaste for Nazis, what moral basis have you provided? What about punching moderate centrists? What if they really piss a person off? Does the same moral argument apply?

However, now that so many folks are approaching things, wittingly or unwittingly, from a postmodernist perspective, the modern and Enlightenment notions of reason and rationality are largely eschewed, like human nature (there is none, it's just a social construct), social progress (social construct), reality (social construct) and morality (social construct), truth (subjective and relative), and reason (a tool of the patriarchy). It's this postmodernist ideology, nested in a bed of Marxist thought.

Ok Seth.

Incisive.

[pErvinalia]

Well, NSDAP does contain the word "socialist"... even if the party was actually a far right corporatist entity.

The lie of the left.

Hitler was far left, and not a corporatist since the government controlled large corporations. Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin.

Oh hello Seth. You two just spout the same empty fox news rhetoric.

Pervin dropped out of school at 12, so he is lacking in education and generally has no idea what he's talking about.

Says the racist...

[pErvinalia]

Hitler wasn't a socialist.

So you agree Pinochet was a mass murdering conservative? Thank you.

Oh, he had 3000 communist terrorists and drug dealers killed in his long rule.

Can you link to the just trials these 3000 got?

[Forty Two]

Hitler wasn't a socialist.

So you agree Pinochet was a mass murdering conservative? Thank you.

Oh, he had 3000 communist terrorists and drug dealers killed in his long rule. That death toll would barely earn him the rank of Captain under socialism lol.
3000 dead is a before lunch murder fest for socialists like Mao and Stalin.

66 million in Russia alone between 1918 and 1959 and 100 million in China during the Cultural Revolution..... the philosophy underpinning those regimes allowed the people involved to commit their atrocities with the notion that they were doing what was good and right. As Solzenitzen said, ideology is what gives the evildoer the warrant. In religion, it's a divine warrant - when you have adherence to a dogma that involves subjection of the individual to the State and/or to "group identities," you get way to assign guilt by association. Like the Kulaks in Ukraine -- as a class, they were considered enemies of the state, because they were the profitable farmers -- 6 or 7 million of them were murdered and starved by the communists.....

Required reading for the Marxists and utopian socialists among us is Alexandr Solzenytsen's Gulag Archipelago.

[Forty Two]

42 is worried about certain PC issues, typically observed in US universities. It can indeed be OTT crap, and worthy of criticism, but creeping socialism threatening the fabric of society it is not...

The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society. The rejection of Enlightenment rationality is a fundamental issue. If that foundation is gone, then things change. It is this postmodernism and social constructionism nested in Marxist thought that is generating things like C-16 and M-103 in Canada -- i.e. these ideas are filtering through our culture and into the machinery of government.

Postmodernism includes the notion that there are no overarching truths, and is directly contrary to the traditional liberal educational system, which is predicated on reason, rationality and learning. Postmodernism involves this oppressor vs oppressed language, and rejects overarching truths or reality. The oppressor vs. oppressed narrative is not questioned by postmodernists, who are rife within our education system now. They adopted the notion that value systems are to be dispensed with because they cause oppressor and oppressed. They say there is no stability in viewpoint or value, and value systems in and of themselves are oppressive. These are fundamental claims of postmodernism, and it is that foundational philosophy that rules now in academia, and has been sold to the students. Over the last decade or or, these ideas have seeped into the private sector and government as time goes on.

Look how students react when asked basic questions anymore. There is no value judgment or recognition of reality. Ask students today if a 5 ' 4" white European male can "identify" as a 6'5" Chinese woman, and a disturbingly large number of them will not be able to get themselves to suggest that such a self-identification is incorrect or incoherent. To them, there is no coherence. Reason doesn't enter into it. Value systems are oppressive, right? So a value system that would prevent someone as identifying as something is oppressive to them. It's postmodernism nested in Marxism even if they don't know it.

[Forty Two]

Hitler wasn't a socialist.

Pinochet was a capitalist.

Agreed, Hitler was not a socialist. He joined the National Socialist German Worker's Party, but once he gained control he had the socialists booted from the party. He was an out and out fascist. Socialism focuses on class, and Hitler focused on race. He was into identity politics before it was cool.

Pinochet was, indeed, pro-capitalist, although he was a dictator. On the plus side, the Chicago boys got their free market capitalist system in place for the most part there in Chile, and it is, to this day, probably the strongest and most vibrant economies, with the best standard of living for its people of any country south of the Rio Grande.

On the downside, he was tyrant, and he is reported as having killed about 3,000 or so people, and tortured about 10 times that. But, as horrible as even 1 of those murders/tortures are, it's not even a drop in a drop in the bucket compared to the the communist monstrosities. Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim boys in Korea, Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Che Guevara...the list goes on.

[Forty Two]

I think its fundamentally necessary to resist those who would assert a freedom and/or right to restrict your rights and freedoms - particularly those who would employ violence to do so.

I don't think political categories play any part in that.

That's avoiding the question. Is it o.k. to punch Communists, who often assert a right or desire to restrict rights and freedoms, and Communists have often advocated violence. Is it o.k. to punch the ones who advocate restricting rights, and using violence? Thus, do you apply the same test to alleged Nazis - i.e., is it only o.k. that the alleged white nationalist Spencer got punched, if he actually expressed a desire to restrict freedoms and use violence? Or, are alleged Nazis automatically in that category?

Also, what of SJWs and progressive who do both of those things: (a) many of them express a desire to restrict freedoms and rights (limit free speech, for example, to exclude the messages of people they think are hateful and dangerous), and (b) many expressly advocate violence where they claim that punching Nazis is a good idea. Thus, of those Progressives/SJWs who both desire to restrict the individual liberty of freedom of speech, and desire to use violence against some folks, are they in the punchable category? Are they among those we should "resist?"

Also, I point out an inherent vagueness in your post there. Resist. What do you mean by that? Everyone can "resist" ideas they don't like, by peaceably protesting, marching, writing, publishing, blogging, vlogging, talking, singing songs, carrying signs, saying hooray for their side, that kind of thing....but, does "resist" in your comment mean or include something more than that?

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not avoiding the question, just the dichotomy. I'm saying I think it should be resisted no matter who is advocating limiting others rights and freedoms by force - and here I mean 'resist' in it's usual sense of withstanding, combating the effects of, etc, and that the form which that resistance takes is best determined in light of the context and the circumstances. You're asking if it is OK to punch Nazis or Communists, because they're Nazis and Communists, and I'm saying it depends, that is; no outright condemnation but no outright endorsement either. I'd also point out that my political views are not grounded in a commitment to an ideological position or by the affiliatory politics of identity but but by the application of certain ethical and meta-ethical considerations arrived at on a case-by-case basis. That I end up on the left-hand side of the divide is a happen-stance, not an ideal, and certainly not an imperative.

Interesting - what does it depend on? (referring to your statement that whether it's o.k. to punch Nazis or communists "depends?" What are the "meta-ethical considerations" -- i.e. what ethical principles do you bring to bear on each case to determine who is punch-worthy?

[Forty Two]

. . . the alleged white nationalist Spencer . . .

Spencer is an unabashed white nationalist who promotes the ideal of a white ethnostate. Mealy-mouthed drivel like the above only erodes your credibility, such as it is.

Well, shortly before he was punched, Spencer denied that he was a neo-Nazi and said, “Yeah, sure,” when asked if he liked black people. Then a man approached Spencer off camera and attacked him. I've read little of him, but many of his quotes seem racist, but whether he's a "nationalist" is really not something I'm familiar with.

Right, so you carefully maintain your ignorance, which in your mind allows you to say, "well, I don't know whether he's a white nationalist." To me that reeks of intellectual dishonesty, and is remarkably similar to your dear Leader Trump denying that he knew anything about David Duke.

I've been quite clear that I don't think that it matters whether he is or is not a white supremacist. I find the person irrelevant, and the first time I heard of him was when he was punched. I had no idea who the guy was before that. However, by my argument, it is both wrong and illegal (and should be) for someone to punch even admitted white supremacists and admitted Nazis, absent circumstances that would justify punching anyone else (like self-defense).

In your view, does the substance of a person's peacefully expressed views in some way warrant violence against them? Like, if a librarian opts to stack Mein Kampf in the library for anyone to take out, is that enough? Is he carrying enough water for the Nazis by doing that? What if the librarian says "I can understand and appreciate, and even agree with, a lot of what Adolph wrote there...." would that render him properly the subject of violence? What if a person wrote their own screed, railing against some imagined conspiracy of one race or religion or another? What about Geert Wilders, who published Fitna, and was even recently convicted of Hate Speech in the Netherlands. He's been legally ruled a hate speaker. Is it o.k. in your book to punch the guy out while he's being interviewed by a reporter?

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Sounds like an idea I would wholeheartedly object to, and I think it's a racist idea. I bet we agree on that. On what basis would such a statement render him worthy of being punched while talking to a reporter?

[

The Nazis themselves resented the term "Nazi," so it would be in keeping for Spencer to reject the term neo-Nazi. Many neo-Nazis reject the term--so what?

So what? Because he may either be lying about his lack of Nazi-cred, or he may be telling the truth. Unless you're a mind-reader, you have no idea. All we can do, all any of us can do, is look at what is said and done and draw a conclusion. However, it's not a conversation with an end. It's an ongoing conversation. If it's a conversation with an end, then if someone accused you, say of being a Maoist, and you said "hey, I'm not a Maoist..." and they retorted, well, hey, that's just what a Maoist would do these days, deny being a Maoist, and I've looked at your ideas, and they line up pretty well with Maoism, so you're a Maoist, here comes a knuckle sandwich. You could protest and say, but my ideas do not line up with Maoism - my ideas are such and such. And, then I would point out to you that -- see -- look - that's public discourse. That's public debate. It's not a moral good for me to haul off and punch you for being a Maoist, because whether you are or are not one is a conversation that doesn't have an end. Just as you don't have to take Spencer's word for it, I don't have to take your word for it.

[
:

It is a fact that the label "Nazi" was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period [in Germany] as a term of contempt and derision against Adolf Hitler and his Movement. Nowhere did the Leader himself use this designation, either in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.

Not only is the expression a distortion of our true name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance and seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible perception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are—National Socialists—and not as some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as much credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would if they were to go around referring to themselves as "Commies."

There is perhaps a more important reason, however, why we National Socialists must reject the term "Nazi." If this label was originally used to belittle the National Socialist cause, subsequent wartime propaganda introduced sinister new connotations. Conjured up was the monstrous image of hate and evil, an image which every decent person must find repulsive.

Sounds like a possible reason he might deny being a neo-Nazi. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's a really plausible argument in that regard. Obviously, logically, it is not a conclusive argument. At most, it can show that he has an ideological reason for denying it, while being it. Right? He could, also, quite simply, not be a Nazi. So what? So what if he's lying about it? On what basis does that justify punching him?

[

It in no way effects my credibility to have not labeled him something.

Your use of the rhetorical device of casting doubt on Spencer's status is discreditable.

Not in the least. His "status" is irrelevant to my argument. The evidence of white nationalism might, but does not necessarily, refute his denial of the specific allegation that he is a neo-Nazi. Not all white nationalists are Nazis. He might be in that subset.

He promotes white nationalism

Which is what neo-Nazis generally do, but also non-NeoNazis can promote white nationalism, without being neo-Nazis.

and his apparent rationale is that the white race superior to other races. If you had read past the first couple of paragraphs of the Vox article you directly quoted without attribution, you would have read the description of Spencer's views taken from his own statements.

Sure, none of which means he's necessarily a "neo-Nazi." He could be a white supremacists, white nationalist, and a racist without being a neo-Nazi. It doesn't matter, though, does it? If he wrote a book entitled "Nazism in the Modern Day: How We Can Bring About an Ethically White Nation and Rid the Country of the Jews and Inferior Races" -- would that render him rightfully punchable if he was seen talking to a news reporter?

If so, then what about books on "Black Nationalism: How to Have a non-White Country", advocating a racially based, ethnically black nation without white people, or with white people in a second-class role? Would the writer of such a book be equally punchable (morally or legally)?

Maybe it matters that as a group, blacks have been "marginalized" and "oppressed" so they can publish and speak racist and hateful screeds. Some folks argue that.

My view on this should be quite clear -- it has nothing to do with what other people call him, or even what he calls himself. If he said he was a neo-Nazi, rather than deny it, then he'd still, in my view, have a right not to be sucker punched.

In my view, the concept of individual rights, such as free expression, does not depend on the substance of a person's political opinion. Your view may differ. I'll let you explain your view, if you have one on this topic that doesn't involve trying to insult me.

I've explained my position in this thread, Forty Two. I don't agree with nor do I support black bloc tactics, and I don't support black bloc dingalings sucker punching people, even racist shits like Richard Spencer.

Oh, well, then I wholeheartedly agree. I don't like Nazis, and I disagree with their views entirely, or probably almost entirely. They may have some benign views I'm unaware of, or views that are equally held by mainstream parties. But, in general, their racism, their advocacy of violence, their anti-democracy, their anti-human rights agenda, are repugnant. But, they have the same right of free speech as everyone else.

[Forty Two]

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm not going to bother to try to straighten out the mess you've made of the quote function in your post, Forty Two. You've spent a lot of time disputing something that isn't actually in dispute. I never asserted that Richard Spencer is a neo-Nazi. What I did is point out that people who deny being neo-Nazis may in fact be just that.

1. Spencer's stated views in large part coincide with those of neo-Nazis.

2. His followers are infamous for giving the Nazi salute.

3. He is known for using Nazi rhetoric "Hail Trump, Hail our people, Hail victory!" (directly equivalent to "Heil Hitler, Heil unserem Volk, Seig Heil!).

So I don't think it's completely unreasonable to call him a neo-Nazi. I agree that it's largely irrelevant, except to people who feel compelled to tar him with that particular brush, and to those who feel compelled to defend his contemptible views.

Similarly, those who are attempting to downplay Spencer's well deserved ignominy might very well say something about how his white nationalism is merely "alleged," which is why I found your use of that word questionable. You quoted an article in which Spencer's white nationalism is well established, and you've been arguing in this thread about him for over a month, which is why I still doubt your claims of ignorance about Spencer.

[Forty Two]

I'm not going to bother to try to straighten out the mess you've made of the quote function in your post, Forty Two. You've spent a lot of time disputing something that isn't actually in dispute. I never asserted that Richard Spencer is a neo-Nazi. What I did is point out that people who deny being neo-Nazis may in fact be just that.

I agree, just as people who hold any other view may well still hold it. It's an irrelevant point to whether it's moral or legal to attack them physically for espousing whatever dopey or evil views they hold. The argument for punching Nazis is the same argument that religious people used to make for stringing up witches, or taking away the civil rights of atheists and satanists. They're dangerous. Their views are dangerous. An atheist shouldn't have the right to free speech. His ideas are dangerous.

1. Spencer's stated views in large part coincide with those of neo-Nazis.

Perhaps so. I am willing to accept that - so what?

2. His followers are infamous for giving the Nazi salute.

Taken as read. So what? Is the Roman salute now a reason to punch someone?

3. He is known for using Nazi rhetoric "Hail Trump, Hail our people, Hail victory!" (directly equivalent to "Heil Hitler, Heil unserem Volk, Seig Heil!).

Taken as read. So what? Have we all not the right to "hail" anyone we want? Is there a moral case to be made for punching people who hail?

So I don't think it's completely unreasonable to call him a neo-Nazi. I agree that it's largely irrelevant, except to people who feel compelled to tar him with that particular brush, and to those who feel compelled to defend his contemptible views.

Perhaps so. Like I said, I never heard of the guy before he was punched. He probably had an increase in his own celebrity by virtue of it.

Similarly, those who are attempting to downplay Spencer's well deserved ignominy might very well say something about how his white nationalism is merely "alleged," which is why I found your use of that word questionable. You quoted an article in which Spencer's white nationalism is well established, and you've been arguing in this thread about him for over a month, which is why I still doubt your claims of ignorance about Spencer.

Well deserved? Treat every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping? To me, a lot of SJWs are total dickheads, espousing evil and damaging views. Example, the ones who claim that certain views are too dangerous for people to hear - the ones that would seek to deprive me the right to hear Mr. Spencer talk, should I desire to. The arrogance of those people, who think they have the right to determine who can stand up on a stage and give a speech.

Lastly it really doesn't matter what you doubt or don't doubt. What does it matter what his views are? Nobody here is defending his views. Whether or not he's a neo-Nazi or a member of the KKK or a member of Aryan Nations, or the Aryan Brotherhood, or a member of the local public library and the Police Benevolent Association, the Lion's Club and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, he has the same right as everyone else to speak and write, and the same right as everyone else to not be punched, doesn't he?

[Tyrannical]

Pervin dropped out of school at 12. Am I wrong?

[Hermit]

Pervin dropped out of school at 12. Am I wrong?

You're wrong no matter when rEv dropped out of school.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Well deserved? Treat every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping? To me, a lot of SJWs are total dickheads, espousing evil and damaging views.

Fine. You keep on yapping about the horrid "SJWs" and I'll continue to consider neo-Nazis and their fellow travellers despicable jackasses. We'll both be content.

[pErvinalia]

"Cultural Marxism" as a term is little more than empty rhetoric. It's actually a dumb conspiracy theory - a point made to you before that you conveniently ignored. The concepts behind it have very little to do with actual Marxism.

You often confuse, as you've done here, a point being expressed with a point being established. I haven't "ignored" anything, and you've not established that cultural Marxism as a concept is merely empty rhetoric or a dumb conspiracy theory. You may have said so, but your usual belief that you saying so means a point has been "made" as in established, is something you need to understand is not the case.

yeah, blah blah. If my point was so obviously not "made", then you should have had no trouble rebutting it. But you didn't. You ignored it, like all points that are inconvenient to your bubbled existence.

I said that the mere fact that you say something doesn't mean you've made a point or established something. That's your modus operandi, though. You make a one or two line statement, and then declare over the course of a thread that whatever you said has already been explained and the discussion is over, and then you keep referring back to your post declaring that nobody has refuted your unsupported assertion.

Fuck off with your usual slurs that I'm "ignoring" your points and I live in a "bubbled existence." Just for the love of the universe, please just for once - for fucking once - talk about an issue without making it a personal vendetta.

Sorry boss, but you've proven yourself to be an utterly dishonest debater. You have no respect from most people here, me included, for good reason. That's why you get rubbished.

We've seen the propaganda of the Marxists and communists coming to fruition as they adopted "incrementalism" and incrementally socialism is becoming more and more accepted in western countries,

This is just absolute nonsense. Neoliberalism has been the dominant and growing ideology since the late 70's, and has seen capitalism absolutely dominate our societies. Actual Marxism is about the destruction of capitalism and the capitalist state. In no way could the dominance of capitalism since the 80's be seen as synonymous with "[incremental] socialism". That's fucking ridiculous.

Read The Fabian Freeway, by Rose Martin. It discusses incrementalism in the US and UK. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/F ... Book_3.pdf While we are not yet socialist in terms of government ownership of the means of production - Both Britain and the United States are heavily regulated and heavily taxed societies

Regulations and taxes are not socialism. I thought you understood that from your posts in the socialism thread.

Once again, I'm talking about their strategy of incrementalism. And, I just fucking got done saying, outright, right in the post you've responded to, that the US and UK are NOT YET SOCIALIST. For fuck's sake. I didn't say regulation and taxes were socialism -- the fucking god damn strategy is incrementalism, which is that they continue to more and more heavily regulate and more and more heavily tax, and continue to propagandize in favor of socialism and against capitalism, so they can get closer and closer to socialism INCREMENTALLY. Christ, man.

And, here you go again with your "I thought you understood..." fucking bullshit. Can you just discuss the fucking topic...? Oh, no, I forgot, you already admitted a while back on another thread that you intentionally troll people and you want to badger people you disagree with.

More lies. I never said I want to badger people I disagree with. I disagree with the political positions of virtually everyone on this board. You and Seth are really the only people I badger. I badger dishonest debaters.

I'm not reading the rest of your equivocating rubbish. The idea that we are turning socialist is so farcical that it doesn't deserve any more of my time wasted on it. You don't inhabit the same universe as the rest of us.