Richard Spencer booted from my gym

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-natio ... rontation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just want to know who in the heck let him join in the first place. The best part though was when he had the gall to call over a female, black trainer to help him.

[Anakin McFly]

As morally abhorrent as I find him, and despite the fact that I defend the right to punch him when he's spewing hate speech, and despite my agreement that he shouldn't have been approved for membership, in this particular instance he wasn't actually bothering anyone, and I'm not really comfortable with how someone can just go up and start yelling at him and then get him booted. Especially:

When I approached this flaccid, sorry excuse of a man and asked 'Are you Richard Spencer,“ this pendulous poltroon said "No. I am not." But of course he was.

If she was so sure, then why even ask? And if she wasn't, what if she turned out to be wrong, and she'd just harassed some random guy who was just there to work out?

As a white woman, I find his membership at this gym to be unacceptable. I found his membership at this gym to be an unfair burden upon the women and people of color-and white male allies of the same.

This part also doesn't sit right with me at all, nor the way her whole blog (dedicated to doxxing people, which she paradoxically both says she's not doing but then defensively insists is legal) gives the impression that she's someone who has taken it upon herself to research strangers who insult her online and dox them in the name of social justice, and that whole thing makes me uneasy. There's a boatload of self-righteousness coming off her.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad Spencer got booted, but not the way it happened.

[Anakin McFly]

On further thought, I think I would have reacted differently had she not been white. Whereas I believe in tone-policing allies, simply because they're not the ones who'll have to deal with the bulk of the backlash. If a white person like her makes a neo-Nazi angry, it's not white people who are going to suffer the consequences, but POC. That doesn't seem fair. It's one reason why various marginalised people often prefer to pick their battles and see which fights are worth it and which aren't. Whereas that isn't a concern for allies, who don't have to account for that cost of confrontation for even the smallest offences.

If this had been a response to something Spencer said or did, it would be completely different - the hurt was already suffered, and in such a situation it would have been admirable of her to stand up in solidarity with those who might not be in a mental state that would allow them to effectively respond. But this is like jabbing a sleeping dragon and then running away while it rages and burns down someone else's village.

tl;dr I think allies should play defense rather than offense.

[Islandmur]

Sometimes I don't know what to think when I see people condoning this kind of behavior because well the guy is an ass so he deserves it.

That story was so wrong it made my teeth hurt.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that creates monsters like this and that gets you a Trump president.

The woman in that blog I personally find revolting. Spencer was so not creating an atmosphere that until she pointed him out in her rampage no one knew who the heck he was. She should have been the one kicked out.

Now I have to defend the likes of him go figure.

[Anakin McFly]

I don't think it's this type of behaviour that creates those monsters - they manage fine without it, like with the original Nazis - but I agree with the rest of your post.

[Islandmur]

I don't think it's this type of behaviour that creates those monsters - they manage fine without it, like with the original Nazis - but I agree with the rest of your post.

Some people are natural monsters but some are created and a lot have been created by these kind of actions from people that are "helping" "protecting" etc...

This woman was not acting in the interest of anyone but herself, in order to put herself as the hero who saved the gym, she was the white woman who stood up for the people of color in the gym (god I hate that term). And then she could boast about it on her blog with her slant and her vulgar words.

is this on twitter trending? I feel the need to vent.

[Cassius Clay]

I haven't read it yet, but you can be angry at this woman(whatever she did) without making excuses for monsters.

Having compassion/understanding for monsters without accountability is dangerous infantilization.

-Castor Troy, Just now

[Cassius Clay]

^ Richard Spencer's origin story

[Cassius Clay]

I've randomly been thinking about how superhero stories actually have really important, basic moral lessons. Superheroes and supervillains both have origin stories that "justify" their fate. They both often come from some kind of pain/hurt and anger...yet they go in very different directions. Batman is the shit because he's a peak example of moral discipline regardless of painful/traumatic origin. In fact he fights for good/humanity because of his pain. Compare a tragic hero like Batman to a tragic villain like Vader, who is whiny little bitch because he thinks his pain gives him the right to hurt innocent people.

No one is "pushed" into evil(unless we're talking about extreme situations like child soldiers), some people are just selfish/narcissistic/undisciplined in their behavior, and we don't do them or ourselves any favors by making excuses for them/not holding them fully accountable.

[phe_de]

I haven't read it yet, but you can be angry at this woman(whatever she did) without making excuses for monsters.

I don't think anyone did on this thread.

[Islandmur]

I haven't read it yet, but you can be angry at this woman(whatever she did) without making excuses for monsters.

Having compassion/understanding for monsters without accountability is dangerous infantilization.

-Castor Troy, Just now

I have not made any excuses for that man.

[Cassius Clay]

This is exactly the kind of behavior that creates monsters like this and that gets you a Trump president.

Some people are natural monsters but some are created and a lot have been created by these kind of actions

There are no Dr Frankensteins running around creating monsters. Monsters create themselves.

[BruceSmith78]

I think he means that when you say this woman's actions create monsters, you're removing, or at least discounting, the agency and responsibility of monsters for being monsters.

Like anti-SJW's aren't monsters because they're shitty people who don't give a damn about the oppressed and just want to continue enjoying their privilege, they're just monsters because crazy white ladies go looking for glory on misguided vendettas. It's letting them off the hook.

*edit*. And while I was typing that Troy beat me to to the punch, with a much simpler explanation.

[Islandmur]

This is exactly the kind of behavior that creates monsters like this and that gets you a Trump president.

Some people are natural monsters but some are created and a lot have been created by these kind of actions

There are no Dr Frankensteins running around creating monsters. Monsters create themselves.

1st I didn't mean that her actions created Spencer but that her actions will sway others to think that there is something to his way of thinking.

2nd. Actions do create monsters... actions things that are done to us or that we witness are what shapes part of us. Seing injustice motivates us to rebel, seeing horrible acts motivates us to act to do something, child abusers create other child abusers, child molesters the same, people who feel cornered and put upon (rightly or wrongly) vote for trump. These are the kinds of monsters i'm talking about.

These kind of things only serve to sway those that are already wavering.

Words and actions do affect us, if they didn't there wouldn't be revolutions, wars, fights and alt-rights and stuff.

I'm not saying creating monsters in the litteral sense of course. Ignorance plays a big part of it.

Just because i blame this woman for her actions does not mean I take away blame from others.

Like i said just because the guy is an ass doesn't mean that woman isn't just as much of an ass.

[Anakin McFly]

Nah, maybe not to that extent; he's definitely still much more of an ass, given that he's an actual neo-Nazi whereas she's likely just seen one too many white saviour movies which she decided to emulate in the most obnoxious way possible. Unless you're differentiating between behaviour vs evilness, in which case she's probably more of an ass but he's far ahead on evil.

[phe_de]

This is exactly the kind of behavior that creates monsters like this and that gets you a Trump president.

Some people are natural monsters but some are created and a lot have been created by these kind of actions

There are no Dr Frankensteins running around creating monsters. Monsters create themselves.

1st I didn't mean that her actions created Spencer but that her actions will sway others to think that there is something to his way of thinking.

Or maybe: Her actions will make others take Richard Spencer's side in this particular incident.

Sort of thinking like this:
Person A is alt-right.
Person B is against alt-right.
Person A and person B clash at the gym, and in that instance, person B is the bad guy.
Therefore, person A is the good guy.
Therefore, the views of person A are correct.

This thinking does not remove A's responsibility for being alt-right, but it makes B partly responsible for others taking A's side.

[Anakin McFly]

That would suggest that those others were already inclined towards the alt-right to begin with. If some obnoxious Jewish dude were to come in right now and yell at me incoherently and punch me in the face for no reason, it wouldn't make me the least bit more sympathetic to Hitler unless I was already a budding Nazi.

[aels]

I had a well-crafted response to this thread last night but then I had to go to dance class and then I was too tired to post it when I got home and then I went to bed and forgot everything. So. This will not be that. Which is a pity, because it was a pretty good response and not this rambling heap of nothing. Okay, go:

I would argue that Richard Spencer was, in fact, bothering someone, and that one need not be actively engaging in hate speech for someone to be bothered by you. I would be *profoundly* uncomfortable sharing a room with the leader of a fascist organisation, even if they were not currently doing a fascism, in the same way that I would have been profoundly uncomfortable sat in a room with Ted Bundy, even if he was minding his own business. Richard Spencer is a hateful man associated with a violent ideology and has gone to some lengths to make himself the public figurehead of a movement and I do not believe he can be easily separated from his political identity even when he is not 'on'.

In the interests of equality, I am also comfortable with the idea of public figureheads on the left (IDK, Bernie Sanders?) being subject to public criticism for the political stances they have publicly leashed themselves to. If someone who hates Bernie Sanders saw him mowing his lawn and decided to say 'Hey Bernie, you're a fuckhead and I hate you', they would be being rude, but I don't know that I would consider it a moral evil. I would add that Bernie Sanders is *not* associated with a hate group and has never advocated for genocide, so I am even less bothered by the idea of someone being uncivil to Richard Spencer. You can be rude and disruptive to Nazis. Genocide is rude and disruptive. If she was violent, threatening, or gave Richard Spencer cause to feel fear then she is breaking the law, but just telling him he's a shitty person with shitty beliefs doesn't bother me.

I am also fine with someone going to gym management and saying 'Either you kick this guy out or I leave your gym'. You're allowed to withdraw or threaten to withdraw your custom from a business and you're allowed to set conditions on it. The gym decided they didn't want to be the gym of Nazi fuckheads, good, they're allowed to do that, being a Nazi fuckhead isn't a protected class and they are within their rights to decide they don't want that kind of publicity.

I *loathe* this notion that the onus is on the left to tolerate bigots because anything else would be rude or hypocritical or a prohibition of their freeze peach, and I loathe the notion that the left actively condemning bigots is somehow contributing to the bigot problem (you can see my yelling on the last Richard Spencer thread for more details on my views). You don't create white supremacists by being impolite. Hitler's problem wasn't that someone wouldn't let him sculpt his guns in peace. You don't owe Nazis shit and telling a Nazi to fuck off does not make you just as bad as a man who gives Nazi salutes and wants PEACEFUL ETHNIC CLEANSING.

I have spent the weeks leading up to the election calling the Tories and the people who vote for them all kinds of rude names and if someone in my circle calls me out on it (not at the gym, lol, I don't go to the gym), I'm going to have to take my lumps on that just the same.

P.S. I'm going to Godwin it here: would you be comfortable with the idea of someone going up to Hitler in a gym and telling him he's a nasty piece of work and that he should be ashamed of himself? Is it okay to yell at Hitler? Can you refuse to go to the gym any more unless they rescind Hitler's membership? Would doing so make you just as bad as the Fuhrer? I have no idea where the lines are any more. When was telling off Nazis verboten?


tl;dr: 'so much for the tolerant left', she said in a sarcastic high-pitched voice

[aels]

That would suggest that those others were already inclined towards the alt-right to begin with. If some obnoxious Jewish dude were to come in right now and yell at me incoherently and punch me in the face for no reason, it wouldn't make me the least bit more sympathetic to Hitler unless I was already a budding Nazi.

This. Jesus Christ. If you needed so little motivation to become a terrible person, maybe the terrible person was inside the house all along *spooky noises*

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I was going to write my reply, but aels did it so much better...so yet another case of a guy stealing something a woman made.

Aside from freeze peach. Don't know what frozen fruit has to do with anything.

[aels]

I was being facetious, I meant 'free speech'.

[Derived Absurdity]

Wow. So much for the so-called "tolerant" left.

edit: lol aels beat me to it already

[Gendo]

While it's hard to disagree with anything Aels actually said, are we also ok with taking that to the logical conclusion, which is more or less that we should just murder Spencer and be done with it? I mean, if everyone decides to act as the gym did, then Spencer will no longer be able to purchase food, etc. We are at that point basically saying that he forfeits all rights to live in our society... which might be true. (*Clarification in last paragraph)

But then the other issue is, who gets to decide which views are ok? Aels brought up the example of telling Bernie Sanders off, does that mean that if companies as a whole become extreme conservatives, they should have the right to deny Bernie any access to any goods or services? Or what about a much more unclear example, what about someone like Donald Trump? Pretty sure he's done and will do far more harm to our society than Spencer. Should assassination be a valid moral and legal option?

I just don't know how we can decide where to draw the line here. Maybe we're just saying "the normal rules of allowing political discourse must have an exception in the case of nazis". In which case, fine, we can just put an exception on that one particular thing. But if we're saying "denying goods and services to a person is a perfectly valid way to express disagreement with evil political views", then we must remember that every person has a different idea of which political views are evil.

Finally, there's the fact that gym membership isn't life or death. I didn't actually get from Aels post whether she'd be fine with denying more important things to Spencer. I made that assumption in my first sentence, sorry. So are we only talking about denying him gym membership, or does this extend to hospital services as well?

[aels]

Noooo, I am not saying that Richard Spencer should just be murdered. I am saying that it is not even close to the realm of grievious physical or emotional harm for *one* gym to revoke Richard Spencer's membership. I think it's a drastic escalation from 'I think Richard Spencer should experience minor inconvenience and social stigma as a result of endorsing genocide' to 'This man must die in a gutter, on fire'. I mean, I won't be sorry if he does but I'm not encouraging it. I'm British so I believe it is a moral necessity that everyone should have access to medical services (I LOVE YOU, NHS).

It is already legal to refuse services to people for reasons other than their membership of a protected class so I don't think this is the slippery slope that will lead to political intolerance.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

While it's hard to disagree with anything Aels actually said, are we also ok with taking that to the logical conclusion, which is more or less that we should just murder Spencer and be done with it? I mean, if everyone decides to act as the gym did, then Spencer will no longer be able to purchase food, etc. We are at that point basically saying that he forfeits all rights to live in our society... which might be true. (*Clarification in last paragraph)

But then the other issue is, who gets to decide which views are ok? Aels brought up the example of telling Bernie Sanders off, does that mean that if companies as a whole become extreme conservatives, they should have the right to deny Bernie any access to any goods or services? Or what about a much more unclear example, what about someone like Donald Trump? Pretty sure he's done and will do far more harm to our society than Spencer. Should assassination be a valid moral and legal option?

I just don't know how we can decide where to draw the line here. Maybe we're just saying "the normal rules of allowing political discourse must have an exception in the case of nazis". In which case, fine, we can just put an exception on that one particular thing. But if we're saying "denying goods and services to a person is a perfectly valid way to express disagreement with evil political views", then we must remember that every person has a different idea of which political views are evil.

Finally, there's the fact that gym membership isn't life or death. I didn't actually get from Aels post whether she'd be fine with denying more important things to Spencer. I made that assumption in my first sentence, sorry. So are we only talking about denying him gym membership, or does this extend to hospital services as well?

I would argue just as he expects us to adapt, then he should do the same. With the advent of services like Blue Apron and Amazon, there are plenty of ways to live in seclusion away from the minorites and women he wishes to be separated from. His right to live isn't being taken away.

And I would also argue that gym membership in general is an exclusive privilege contingent upon the clientele the gym wishes to attract (especially when the gym employees are mostly people he speaks against). Walking into a grocery store is accessible to the public during its business hours and outside of price range, there is nothing barring anyone using the services, unlike what you would need to access a gym. Similar stance goes for medical services. Doctors already take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, and outside of affordability, it is accessible to the public and not considered exclusive.

So I would say we are talking about denying him things that provide exclusivity if that exclusiveness ends up conflicting with his views. And working out alongside minority members and trainers I would say counts towards that conflict..

[Blade Azaezel]

Although, let's be fair... every nazi on the planet could fucking starve and die and we'd actually be better off for it. Same with a Trump assassination

[aels]

where is the lie

[Blade Azaezel]

The cake is a lie

[Anakin McFly]

If someone who hates Bernie Sanders saw him mowing his lawn and decided to say 'Hey Bernie, you're a fuckhead and I hate you', they would be being rude, but I don't know that I would consider it a moral evil.

Well, see, I would be perfectly happy if someone did that to Richard Spencer. I would also be happy if that person were to conclude by punching him in the face. For some reason I find that more morally justifiable than being able to go up to gym management and saying "this person is a Nazi, pls remove his membership" and management agreeing just like that.

Which I realise is a weird position to take, since physical assault should be worse than not being able to go to a gym. (which I don't do, and am fine without). So I think my objection boils down to two points:

1) What Gendo said - where do we draw the line? Not just with Spencer, but other people. If Trump gets impeached and President Pence decides that LGBT people are no longer a protected class, would this mean that people can start denying services to them on a moral basis?

(I don't particularly like the idea of whether or not someone is a 'protected class' defining whether they can be denied services, because that designation itself is political rather than moral, and rights shouldn't be subject to debate or the political climate of the day. Also because LGBT people are not a protected class here and businesses can discriminate and deny services with impunity, which makes the whole thing always seem very arbitrary to me.)

2) I just really don't like that woman and the whole "look at me, Heroic White Person standing up for the poor minorities and their white allies (like me) forced to share a gym with a Nazi!" Not least because she implies that the harm he causes to "white allies" to be similar with that caused to non-white people. But this is just subjective personal bias and probably has misogyny in there somewhere.

I would argue that Richard Spencer was, in fact, bothering someone, and that one need not be actively engaging in hate speech for someone to be bothered by you.

but yeah good point there. Although I'd still question her need to confront him at all. Why not go directly to management then? Why the need to make a scene that risked him erupting in a volcano of hatred over all the other people in the gym, who until then might have been having a perfectly okay day?

[phe_de]

I would argue that Richard Spencer was, in fact, bothering someone, and that one need not be actively engaging in hate speech for someone to be bothered by you. I would be *profoundly* uncomfortable sharing a room with the leader of a fascist organisation, even if they were not currently doing a fascism, in the same way that I would have been profoundly uncomfortable sat in a room with Ted Bundy, even if he was minding his own business. Richard Spencer is a hateful man associated with a violent ideology and has gone to some lengths to make himself the public figurehead of a movement and I do not believe he can be easily separated from his political identity even when he is not 'on'.

I disagree. As long as Spencer was minding his own business, he wasn't bothering anyone.
But even if the sole presence of a person bothers people: What if people get bothered by two people of the same gender holding hands? Or a mixed-racial couple? A person wearing a cross or a David's Star? Where do we draw the line?

I am also fine with someone going to gym management and saying 'Either you kick this guy out or I leave your gym'. You're allowed to withdraw or threaten to withdraw your custom from a business and you're allowed to set conditions on it. The gym decided they didn't want to be the gym of Nazi fuckheads, good, they're allowed to do that, being a Nazi fuckhead isn't a protected class and they are within their rights to decide they don't want that kind of publicity.

This also makes me uncomfortable. Say, a gay couple is in a bakery and asks for a wedding cake. Then, some fundie Christian who happens to be a regular customer starts harassing first the couple with the usual Christian drivel, and then shouts at the baker: "If you make a wedding cake for them, I'll take my business elsewhere, and I'll make it known in the whole area." Would you be ok with the baker then refusing to serve the gay couple?
And the concept of "protected class" is flexible. What is a protected class today may not be one tomorrow.

Others on this thread have already made similar points.

[phe_de]

Finally, there's the fact that gym membership isn't life or death.

Neither is a wedding cake.

[the_dork_lord]

> As long as Spencer was minding his own business, he wasn't bothering anyone.

Spencer's politics lead to lives being ruined. Why is he entitled to the peace he wants to deny from the majority of the population of Earth?

> What if people get bothered by two people of the same gender holding hands? Or a mixed-racial couple? A person wearing a cross or a David's Star?

Gay people and Jews aren't advocating for genocide.

> What is a protected class today may not be one tomorrow.

Let's hope "Nazi" is never a protected class.

[Cassius Clay]

I'm all for tolerance, but as a tolerance absolutist, that means we should also be tolerant of intolerance. Because if we don't also tolerate intolerance, then that means we have to use our own values, judgement and common sense to decide when the tolerance principle is applicable and when to take a stand. That makes me very uncomfortable because I lack common sense. If we aren't tolerant of intolerance, doesn't that make us hypocrites? And If we have to pick and choose where and when the principle is applicable, who decides? Where do we draw the line???

- phe_de, probably

[Cassius Clay]

I think he means that when you say this woman's actions create monsters, you're removing, or at least discounting, the agency and responsibility of monsters for being monsters.

Like anti-SJW's aren't monsters because they're shitty people who don't give a damn about the oppressed and just want to continue enjoying their privilege, they're just monsters because crazy white ladies go looking for glory on misguided vendettas. It's letting them off the hook.

*edit*. And while I was typing that Troy beat me to to the punch, with a much simpler explanation.

I'd say you put it better than I did.

[phe_de]

I'm all for tolerance, but as a tolerance absolutist, that means we should also be tolerant of intolerance. Because if we don't also tolerate intolerance, then that means we have to use our own values, judgement and common sense to decide when the tolerance principle is applicable and when to take a stand. That makes me very uncomfortable because I lack common sense. If we aren't tolerant of intolerance, doesn't that make us hypocrites? And If we have to pick and choose where and when the principle is applicable, who decides? Where do we draw the line???

- phe_de, probably

I don't remember ever saying this, but the bolded italic part is hopefully true, and if it is, I am proud of it.
Common sense is another word for prejudice.

[Cassius Clay]

I lack common sense and I'm proud of it.

-phe_de, definitely

[Cassius Clay]

This is part of your problem. I've spoken about this before...you fetishize logic and "objectivity" to an ironically unreasonable point...to the point of meaninglessness.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I would argue that Richard Spencer was, in fact, bothering someone, and that one need not be actively engaging in hate speech for someone to be bothered by you. I would be *profoundly* uncomfortable sharing a room with the leader of a fascist organisation, even if they were not currently doing a fascism, in the same way that I would have been profoundly uncomfortable sat in a room with Ted Bundy, even if he was minding his own business. Richard Spencer is a hateful man associated with a violent ideology and has gone to some lengths to make himself the public figurehead of a movement and I do not believe he can be easily separated from his political identity even when he is not 'on'.

I disagree. As long as Spencer was minding his own business, he wasn't bothering anyone.
But even if the sole presence of a person bothers people: What if people get bothered by two people of the same gender holding hands? Or a mixed-racial couple? A person wearing a cross or a David's Star? Where do we draw the line?

I am also fine with someone going to gym management and saying 'Either you kick this guy out or I leave your gym'. You're allowed to withdraw or threaten to withdraw your custom from a business and you're allowed to set conditions on it. The gym decided they didn't want to be the gym of Nazi fuckheads, good, they're allowed to do that, being a Nazi fuckhead isn't a protected class and they are within their rights to decide they don't want that kind of publicity.

This also makes me uncomfortable. Say, a gay couple is in a bakery and asks for a wedding cake. Then, some fundie Christian who happens to be a regular customer starts harassing first the couple with the usual Christian drivel, and then shouts at the baker: "If you make a wedding cake for them, I'll take my business elsewhere, and I'll make it known in the whole area." Would you be ok with the baker then refusing to serve the gay couple?
And the concept of "protected class" is flexible. What is a protected class today may not be one tomorrow.

Others on this thread have already made similar points.

We draw the line at no longer being silent while someone who holds vile views regarding their fellow human expects to live without experiencing consequences. We draw the line before your examples because those with the cross or same sex PDA's aren't expressing their hatred for someone different. This idea that we need to remain silent and let these fuckers alone just because they don't want to be bothered is ridiculous.

And since the concept of protected classes bothers you, let's just take away that aspect. They would have still have been discriminated against for being part of a specific demographic. That in itself is illegal. However, a private business could refuse service to a gay person who advocated that we should cleanse the country of Christians. There is a difference from being barred based on a group you fall in and being barred because your views do no match that of the owners.

Furthermore, I made a point about exclusivity in an earlier post. If a bakery were to take on a members only model in which customers paid a fee to allow for the privilege of buying pastries, then the owners could make clear that the bakery is intended to in part support a church and its members. In this case, due to the exclusive nature in addition to the clientele, the bakery could indeed turn down making a cake for a gay couple.

[phe_de]

I lack common sense and I'm proud of it.

-phe_de, definitely

Indeed.

Let's look at some examples of common sense.
Dana Rohrabacher called it "Common Sense" to prohibit gays from joining the Boy Scouts. After all, it's common sense that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, right?
Heather Mac Donald called it "Common Sense" that black students are more lkely to be disruptive. After all, blacks are more likely to be criminals, right?

Both Rohrabacher and Mac Donald are not fringe extremists. Rohrabacher was even elected into office.

I am definitely glad to lack common sense.

EDIT: So glad that I decided to update my signature.

[phe_de]

We draw the line at no longer being silent while someone who holds vile views regarding their fellow human expects to live without experiencing consequences. We draw the line before your examples because those with the cross or same sex PDA's aren't expressing their hatred for someone different. This idea that we need to remain silent and let these fuckers alone just because they don't want to be bothered is ridiculous.

But was Spencer promoting his politics while being at the gym? No he wasn't. He even denied being Richard Spencer.

In my opinion there's a time and place to put Nazis in their place. Organized peaceful rallies or support groups that organize them. Talk back to Nazis at political conventions (or have people who are versed in rhetorics talk back to them). And importantly: Don't vote for Nazis.

But harassing people in everyday life situations is just as bad as celebrity stalking. Like people who harass celebrities, try to get photographs, or harass them for autographs in everyday life; and then complain about celebrities being so detached from the public because they decide to live in secluded mansions.
Celebrities are people first, and have human rights. And human rights even apply to those who wish to take away human rights from others (like Spencer possibly does; I had never heard of him before reading this thread). It's the job of decent people to ensure that nobody gets their human rights taken away from them. Meaning among others: Make sure that Nazis don't come to power, and let celebrities be people.

[phe_de]

This is part of your problem. I've spoken about this before...you fetishize logic and "objectivity" to an ironically unreasonable point...to the point of meaninglessness.

Are you talking to me? If yes, then I disagree with this.

In my opinion objectivity is the notion that observations can be made without an observer. And I find that notion ridiculous.
Meaning: There is no objectivity available to humans, because human experience is always subjective.

[the_dork_lord]

> But was Spencer promoting his politics while being at the gym? No he wasn't. He even denied being Richard Spencer.

Why does he deserve a peaceful life that he would deny to the majority of humanity?

People like Richard Spencer should have no peace in life, ever. They should not be able to step foot out of their homes without being harangued, challenged, assaulted (verbally and physically). Going to the gym, walking down the street, buying a coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, going to the movies ... everybody who confronts him in public should let him know that his brand of criminality is not welcome in our world. Even outside of public spheres, it would be awesome if people surrounded his home so he can't even have a moment of peace in his house.

If he had his way, he'd put me on a train car. I don't see why I should defer to allow him to enjoy a gym membership while millions of people live in fear of folks like him every moment of their lives. He doesn't have to be advocating politics to be disturbing us, so he doesn't have to be advocating politics for us to fight back.

[the_dork_lord]

> Celebrities are people first

[Cassius Clay]

I lack common sense and I'm proud of it.

-phe_de, definitely

Indeed.

Let's look at some examples of common sense.
Dana Rohrabacher called it "Common Sense" to prohibit gays from joining the Boy Scouts. After all, it's common sense that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, right?
Heather Mac Donald called it "Common Sense" that black students are more lkely to be disruptive. After all, blacks are more likely to be criminals, right?

Both Rohrabacher and Mac Donald are not fringe extremists. Rohrabacher was even elected into office.

I am definitely glad to lack common sense.

EDIT: So glad that I decided to update my signature.

I'm sure you don't actually think I'm suggesting that one should be some sort of common sense absolutist. But if you really do lack good common sense, as I implied, then your bizarre/extremist interpretation of the concept would be expected.

[Cassius Clay]

This thread has made me realize that I should be uncomfortable with locking people up for murder. If we lock people up for things just because we think they're wrong, we must remember that other people have different ideas of what wrong is. Where do we draw the line? What if people just start locking us up for arbitrary things they consider wrong? Seems like a dangerous slippery slope to me.

[CashRules]

"Where do we draw the line?" is an odd question to ask when the line is already clear - it's drawn between those who infringe upon the rights of others and those whose rights as human beings are being infringed upon.

[the_dork_lord]

Even if we grant that there are gray areas, we should all be able to agree that fucking Nazism isn't one of them. Nor is there any evidence of slippery slope; loads of countries ban hate speech and haven't become goose-stepping dictatorships.

[the_dork_lord]

This is a rant from Reddit. I take no credit for it.

Let people live their lives in peace and let them believe whatever nonsense they want to believe.

As a German, I find myself groaning whenever I see this discussion come up.

You seem to start with the assumption that these are fringe beliefs that forever stay on the fringe when left unchecked and never, ever have an impact on anyone else. This is simply not so. The ban on holocaust denial was instituted on a nation literally filled with Nazis. Every village, every city, every school, every government insitution - Nazis everywhere. The suppression of Nazi ideology was absolutely vital to rebuilding the country.

And it's not like there wasn't precedent about just how harmful letting a conspiracy theory run free can be. Are you familiar with the Dolchstoßlegende? It was a right-wing conspiracy theory circulating in Germany after WW1 that said that the German army hadn't truly lost the war but were "stabbed in the back" by cowardly revolutionaries (read: The Jews) at the home front - revolutionaries who went on to found the new democratic Weimar Republic. This conspiracy was widely believed by the German people as it fed into their victim complex and was one of the key tools with which the Weimar goverment's legitimacy was undermined - which allowed the Nazis to take power.

Speech has consequences. And sometimes, those consequences are so much more harmful than the consequences of outlawing it. Your rights end where harm to others begins. I see such unbelievable naivety about this matter from the Freeeeee Speeeeeech advocates.

I'm of the opinion that the best way to expose a dumbass is show it off. Dismantle them violently and thoroughly. Deleting comments and questions arbitrarily and not on a case by case basis (don't have a problem nuking copypasta) doesn't do anything constructive.

Conspiracy theorists are not rational. If they could be swayed by facts and reason, they would not believe shit that even the most minor bit of fact checking would reveal to be untrue. Allowing them to spew their bullshit freely doesn't make them seek out people who'd disabuse them of their notions, it makes them seek out other people who share their beliefs - and who radicalize them further. We see the echo chamber effect right here on reddit. Whether or not the holocaust happened is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Making up your own facts is called lying. And when your lies are so malicious and harmful that they actually pose a threat to other people or the nation itself, then yes, that should absolutely be punishable. It's no different than slander or libel. What value is there to allowing holocaust denial? Serious question. And I don't mean appealing to the slippery slope of how it leads to other worse prohibitions. There's a lot of arguing for Free Speech for its own sake - that Free Speech is the highest virtue in and of itself that must never, ever be compromised, for any reason, and that this should be self-evident. But I ask, what's the harm in not allowing holocaust denial, specifically? What is the benefit in allowing it?

There is none.

Nothing good will ever come out of someone spewing holocaust denial. Ever. You won't get a thoughtful debate beneficial to both parties. They're wrong, simple as that. The "best" outcome you'll get out of it is that you can convince a denier or someone on the fence that they're wrong. Great. The best outcome involves suppressing it. There are, however, a hell of a lot potentially bad consequences in that their stupidity can infect others and shift the Overton window their way.

The reason that the vast majority of modern Germans look at the Nazi flag and feel nothing but revulsion whereas a sizable portion of US southerners actually fly the confederate flag and defend it ("Heritage, not hate", "It was about states' rights, not slavery", "Slaves weren't treated so bad") is because Germans were forbidden from telling each other comforting lies about their past.

[phe_de]

"Where do we draw the line?" is an odd question to ask when the line is already clear - it's drawn between those who infringe upon the rights of others and those whose rights as human beings are being infringed upon.

Good luck telling this to a free-speech absolutist.

[phe_de]

This thread has made me realize that I should be uncomfortable with locking people up for murder.

Only if you are an anarchist.
Laws reflect the ethics of a society, and ethics are socially agreed upon. And unless I am mistaken, murder is illegal in the USA.
Richard Spencer is allowed to walk free. Apparently, he has not broken any US laws (a line also used by Christine Fair).

If we lock people up for things just because we think they're wrong, we must remember that other people have different ideas of what wrong is.

That is true. However, what is relevant is what the majority thinks. There may be people who believe that murder is permissible under certain circumstances; but as long as they don't become mainstream, it doesn't matter.

Where do we draw the line? What if people just start locking us up for arbitrary things they consider wrong? Seems like a dangerous slippery slope to me.

If by "people", you mean random people on the street without legal mandate, then you are right. But this might only happen in an anarchy.

Conclusion: If your post was an attempt to mock the opinion of people who disagreed with Christine Fair, you failed.