Mr.Micro wrote: » As much as I detest the likes of a white supremacist like Spencer, it was just ugly of that guy to punch him in the face without warning. Such a guy is no better than Spencer.
Brian? wrote: » We have no idea who the guy punching him was, but I'd put money on it he's a better person than Spencer.
Brian? wrote: » In Mexico, and the rest of Latin America, people who are descended from Spanish people are considered white. But if they move to the US they become Latino. The term "white" is so arbitrary it's almost meaningless. That's why I want a definition of white from these supposed white nationalists. I've yet to get one yet.
RDM_83 again wrote: » I've the feeling you actually know this already but are using it too make a point that wouldn't work if you couldn't pretend ignorance of it. Your statement isn't true, Hispanic is not a racial identity officially, in practice its also not always considered a racial identity, look at George Zimmerman, the media ran with it being a white guy shooting a black kid, Zimmerman was white hispanic though, if it was a racial term they wouldn't have framed it the way they did.
Brian? wrote: » You think I already know the definition of white? I have an idea. I'm not the one who supports white nationalism though. I think it's a stupid idea because the term white is so broad.
Brian? wrote: » It's mad eh? I've Mexican friends who look nothing like each other at all, one looks remarkable similar to Geronimo. I've a friend who's mother is Mexican and father is of Scottish extraction, but he's Mexican as far as white Americans are concerned. They don't seem to get that Mexican is a nationality not a ethnicity.
Brian? wrote: » I thought it was free speech to mock whoever we want? How do you know the puncher was liberal? He could have been a socialist. Did you happen to note the reaction of the protesters around when it happened. There was no support for the violence. It was hilarious though.
FA Hayek wrote: » So you find violence to censor free speech hilarious. This ladies and gentlemen is the mask slipping from the usual progressives, they talk a good game about rights, equality, tolerance but when their ideology is threatened they are well able to use violence, more so in fact then the right to get what they want, for the greater good of course for the 'people'. The people who punched him were Anti-FA. These left wing extremist groups have in the past murdered and killed scores of people in Europe since WWII. We should not be surprised then that you find that hilarious too?
FA Hayek wrote: » So you find violence to censor free speech hilarious.
This ladies and gentlemen is the mask slipping from the usual progressives, they talk a good game about rights, equality, tolerance but when their ideology is threatened they are well able to use violence, more so in fact then the right to get what they want, for the greater good of course for the 'people'. The people who punched him were Anti-FA. These left wing extremist groups have in the past murdered and killed scores of people in Europe since WWII. We should not be surprised then that you find that hilarious too?
Brian? wrote: » No. I find seeing a horrible neo Nazi being punched in the ear hilarious.
20Cent wrote: » The guy punching the nazi is always better than the nazi.
FA Hayek wrote: » If you find an individual punching someone else on TV hilarious then yes, you do condone it. You are shifting your moral stance based primarily on ideology, which is quite extremist actually.
Brian? wrote: » Who said I wasn't extremist?
Palmach wrote: » Those who use violence to further their aims are the same as Nazis.
HivemindXX wrote: » Palmach wrote: » Those who use violence to further their aims are the same as Nazis. No. Not even close to accurate. I don't agree with using violence to achieve your goals but doing so does not automatically put you on a par with the disgusting vermin that are neo-nazis. You are either terribly ignorant of the facts or are cynically trying to create the impression that they are all as bad as each other.
FA Hayek wrote: » So you find violence to censor free speech hilarious. This ladies and gentlemen is the mask slipping from the usual progressives, they talk a good game about rights, equality, tolerance but when their ideology is threatened they are well able to use violence, more so in fact then the right to get what they want, for the greater good of course for the 'people'.
...we should instead be asking questions like, ‘Does human civilization actually need the Black race?’ ‘Is Black genocide right?’ and, if it is, ‘What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?’
Mr.Micro wrote: » No I don't agree. He could have challenged Spencer and then punched him and not do it the underhand way.
...yes, it is always correct to punch Nazis. They lost the right to not be punched in the face when they started spouting genocidal ideologies that in living memory killed millions upon millions of people. [...] Nazis need a punch in the face.
oscarBravo wrote: » I thought Warren Ellis's take on it was interesting:
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » Really ! You find someone getting assaulted like that hilarious ?? wow ..
FA Hayek wrote: » leftists on the other hand are knee deep in violence.
Tony EH wrote: » That's the price of some "free speech". Plus free speech doesn't mean tollerating such racist remarks as the above. People can be free to say such ****e, but they better be prepared for the consequences of their speech.
FA Hayek wrote: » That is just authoritarian totalitarian garbage.
FA Hayek wrote: » Say the wrong thing and you can expect violence. Tell me, if the person was advocating free college tuition would you be saying the same thing?
FA Hayek wrote: » The problem with your point of view is that you decide who can have rights and who cannot. The mark of someone who supports freedom of speech is not allowing things to be said they agree with, but allowing things to be said they do not agree with. People who claim to be liberals are not, they are in fact il-liberal.
