informationgeek: (djpon3)
[personal profile] informationgeek posting in [community profile] scans_daily
Neo Nazi and human bobo doll Richard Spencer continues to be terrible...

Bleeding Cool covered the little tale here about what old Spencer posted to his Twitter account...


To quote a comment on Bleeding Cool:
Well if people would just stop standing up for themselves we wouldn't have to go to more extreme methods of pushing them down.
Well, sadly, he just has the kind of face you'd like to hit.

Date: 2017-02-04 03:08 pm (UTC)
lamashtar: Jesus Troll (jesustroll)
From: [personal profile] lamashtar
"He dressed talked like he asking for it, your Honor."

Date: 2017-02-04 05:29 pm (UTC)
beoweasel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] beoweasel
Oh god, it's Redpanels, excuse me while I vomit uncontrollably.

Date: 2017-02-04 05:39 pm (UTC)
janegray: (Default)
From: [personal profile] janegray
In a discussion about Spencer, somebody who works in a shelter for victims of domestic violence described it as "classic abuser logic." If you don't fight back when they beat you, it means nothing is wrong and their behaviour is perfectly fine and they can continue and escalate. If you do fight back, it means you hurt them which means they are perfectly justified in beating you """"""in self-defence.""""""

For context, this is a quote that Richard Spencer published on his website years ago, part of an article titled "Is Black Genocide Right?": for too long now, when we consider questions of race, especially questions concerning the Black race, we have been framing things in completely the wrong way. Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, 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?” With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.

So, yeah. Dude is an actual, genuine, legit, pro-genocide, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-concentration camps, pro-Hitler, 100% Nazi, and has been for a long time. Nothing will change his mind, neither punches not civil debates, but punches make him less likely to go out in public to incite crowds to commit hate crimes.

Date: 2017-02-04 05:43 pm (UTC)
captainbellman: It Was A Boojum... (Default)
From: [personal profile] captainbellman
What the hell happened to Jeff Smith?!

I'm guessing ....

Date: 2017-02-05 09:21 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] 7dialsmystery
...he discovered he was "alt right".

Date: 2017-02-05 10:48 am (UTC)
dc2houseofmystery: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dc2houseofmystery
It's a shame this unnamed artist is aping such an iconic style as Jeff Smith's to promote a hideous ideology.

Date: 2017-02-04 07:20 pm (UTC)
commodus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] commodus
My only consolation in this whole sorry mess is that as people have actually lived through it before, we know Nazis when we see them. We can identify them, see through their word-games and attempt to shut them down.

There can't be any civilised dialogue with such people, because such people are not civilised. If you tolerate them, they will worm their way in to whatever power structure they can find and attempt to pervert it.

Which, worryingly, is what has happened in both Washington and here in the UK with the Brexit movement :/

Date: 2017-02-04 08:54 pm (UTC)
icon_uk: (Default)
From: [personal profile] icon_uk
Yeah, it's not the people who can recognize Naxi's that are the problem, it's the people who are acting like Nazi's but don't see it, or worse, see it and convince themselves that they aren't.
Edited Date: 2017-02-04 08:54 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-02-04 11:44 pm (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
See, this is your problem: you say we cannot tolerate Nazis, and that sounds reasonable enough, but then you define all your political opponents as Nazis. How is it being a Nazi to want Britain out of the EU? How is it being a Nazi for Americans to want restrictions on immigration and protective tariffs? I guess you think Alexander Hamilton was a Nazi.

One could just as easily say that we cannot tolerate communists either, considering how many millions of people they murdered, and therefore you cannot be tolerated.

Date: 2017-02-04 11:54 pm (UTC)
commodus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] commodus
Actually, not ALL my political opponents - just those who foster racism and xenophobia. Are you from the UK? Do you understand the climate here? Outside of London, racism is rampant, and it extended to Eastern Europeans, too. The leader of the Brexit movement, Nigel Farage, repeatedly demonised Poles and Romanians, used a poster reminiscent of Nazi propaganda to vilify Syrian refugees and is now cavorting around America praising Trump for his treatment of Muslims.

We have seen a sharp rise in hate crimes. A Polish man was killed. Cards were given out labelling Polish immigrants "vermin". An MP was killed by a Nazi terrorist screaming "Britain first!"

I am sorry, but it has nothing to do with people not agreeing me, and everything to do with their behaviour. If you act like a Nazi, I will treat you like a Nazi.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:15 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
I am not from Britain, and I don't know everything going on over there. The incidents you are describing are horrible, and the perpetrators ought to be punished, but is there one shred of evidence that any but a tiny fringe minority of Brexit supporters have anything to do with them?

Date: 2017-02-05 10:54 am (UTC)
dc2houseofmystery: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dc2houseofmystery
In response to commodus:

Correct correct correct. Fellow Brit here, based in Leicester, one of THE most multicultural cities in the country.

Simply put: Brexit emboldened racists.

And unfortunately that's nothing special in the world right now.

Right wing contingents are stoking unease and encouraging the result. Same in France, nearly the same with Austria (thank goodness they didn't win that vote), and clearly in the US too.

This is the way of the world right now and the way to combat it is to call Nazis Nazis and make sure their rhetoric is always challenged.
Edited (Clarified who response was directed at ) Date: 2017-02-05 10:55 am (UTC)

Date: 2017-02-05 12:48 am (UTC)
lamashtar: My crap writing senses are burning! (crapwriting)
From: [personal profile] lamashtar
I hate illegal immigration and even I know that everything you brought up is straw man arguments.

Try again.

Date: 2017-02-05 07:45 am (UTC)
commodus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] commodus
Who are you talking to?

Date: 2017-02-05 03:13 pm (UTC)
lamashtar: Shun the nonbelievers! Shun-na! (Default)
From: [personal profile] lamashtar

Date: 2017-02-04 08:55 pm (UTC)
icon_uk: Sad Nightwing (Sad Nightwing)
From: [personal profile] icon_uk
That's so grotesque I can barely describe it, beyond "You need to be a special kind of sick in the head to find this funny".

Date: 2017-02-04 09:04 pm (UTC)
reveen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] reveen
There's something hilariously wimpy about how the alt-right is shaping up to be. Like, Richard Spencer got punched by someone who doesn't know how to throw a good punch! A couple of ATMs got wrecked! The end of rational discourse is upon us!

Nevermind how the riots of the 80s and 90s were on average five fucking times more intense. Or how the punk scene used to involve ass kickings of neo-nazis as a regular occurrence. Or how crowds still flip over cars because they won a sports match. This is truly the end of civilization because one fucking guy got smacked and didn't even get a black eye from it.

It's like, the entire point of being a far right reactionary ideologue is to eventually be able to take your people to the streets and start fucking up undesirables, and when 20 something middle glass white girls with coloured bangs and glasses seem scary and badass than you, you have a problem.
Edited Date: 2017-02-04 09:05 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-02-05 12:39 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Sure, people are being shot for being suspected of being white supremacists because they were in the vicinity of a campus by a libertarian, and people are being beaten in the streets of Berkeley with metal poles by masked rioters. That's no big deal. So whiny to complain about that.

Date: 2017-02-05 12:50 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
Wait, are you talking about this shooting, where the shooter was a Trump/Yiannopoulos fan and the victim was a pro-labor socialist? Because, like, I have my doubts about the shooter's proclaimed motives.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:17 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
I know he was not a white supremacist. That's why I said he was shot for being suspected of being a white supremacist. As for the motives of the shooter, the same article you linked says that the shooter believed the man he shot to be "some type of white supremacist". But maybe when all the facts about that particular case have come out, I'll be wrong about that case, and I'll admit that.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:25 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
I think it's incredibly disingenuous of you to use a Trump fan shooting a socialist as an example of violence against right-wingers, particularly when you claim further down that there's no violence from the right against the left.

I mean, okay, no one else knows for sure what was going on in the shooter's head, by you're allowed to use common sense and say that he was probably lying about his motivations.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:36 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
It was not disingenuous. It was a mistake, possibly. We do not have all the facts yet. I had not seen the reports about him being a Trump supporter. I will point out that the article you linked to has him saying that he was defending himself. That may not be true either. But let's say you're completely right: let's say it was a Trump supporter who decided he felt like shooting a leftist. Then he belongs in prison for a long time, and I will readily retract my statement that the violence has all be one-way. It remains true that that is one incident, by one person, compared to multiple incidents of mass violence by the left against the right.

Date: 2017-02-05 12:57 am (UTC)
lamashtar: Dear god, make everyone die. Amen. (makeeveryonedie)
From: [personal profile] lamashtar
I read some individual research on the bizarre way sports riots are totally ignored versus protest riots..but I can't find it, so here's the next best one I could find:

Date: 2017-02-04 10:31 pm (UTC)
q99: (Default)
From: [personal profile] q99
He literally was calling to put people in concentration camps when they were nice to him.

Date: 2017-02-04 11:10 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
The problem with permitting violence against politics and opinions we find abhorrent is that it won't remain confined to opinions we disapprove of.

Everyone has some group or opinion they despise, and they may not be the same group or even overlap much. It like lighting just the cloakroom of your house on fire and expecting the fire to stay there.

Date: 2017-02-04 11:43 pm (UTC)
janegray: (Default)
From: [personal profile] janegray
You are making the very flawed assumption that refraining from permitting violence against them would result in them not enacting violence against us.

Obama was nothing less than a saint about them. Constantly, tirelessly, respectfully treating everybody with dignity. And the result? White supremacists infiltrated law enforcement en masse with the explicit goal of attacking black people from a position of power as revenge over the very idea of a black man being in charge of the country.

They want (and, given the tiniest chance, they absolutely WILL) commit violence against POC, because they think POC are already guilty of the crime of being POC, and they think that crime deserves the death penalty. Whether you punch them or not is as irrelevant to them as whether a guy on death row for being a serial killer stole people's wallets or not before butchering them.

Btw, did you know that fighting fire with fire is a real thing? Firefighters will sometimes intentionally set up fires in order to weaken a more dangerous one. A controlled burn of a strip of forest will create a barrier to an oncoming forest fire as it will use up all the available fuel.

Date: 2017-02-05 12:33 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Nothing less than respectful? What are you talking about? Was telling Republicans to "sit in the back" respectful? Was telling McCain "the election is over" respectful? Was he treating everyone with dignity and respect when he said that a Cambridge police officer who was just doing his job acted stupidly? Was he treating everyone with dignity and respect when he said that he could only imagine Donald Trump giving the State of the Union on a Saturday Night sketch?

And that article you linked to about white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement? The two organizations it listed were the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs Association. The Oath Keepers are now white supremacists? This is an organization that opposes police brutality against people of all races: This is a group that calls on its members to refuse to obey orders to conduct warrantless searches, to refuse to obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants, and refuse to obey orders that would infringe on the rights of free speech or assembly. And the Constitutional Sheriffs Association? Are they white supremacists? A group that opposes state and federal asset forfeiture programs? A group that awards a black sheriff their "Constitutional Sheriff of the Year" award? Is this a white supremacist group?

Now, the article that you linked to did itself link to an article in the Intercept that cited some actual examples of white supremacists in law enforcement: Those examples included a Los Angeles sheriff's department back in 1991, a police officer in Chicago who was prosecuted in 2008, a number of police officers in Cleveland back in 1999, and two police officers in Texas who were fired in 2001 after it turned out that they belonged to the KKK. Three of these four incidents all happened many years before Obama became President, and could not possibly have had anything to do with him. There is certainly no evidence of "en masse" infiltration of law enforcement by white supremacists. I suspect that that is why Janet Napolitano, no right winger, disavowed the 2009 report on this, or why the man authored was pushed out of the agency.

The only politically motivated violence in this country is from the left against the right. Rightwingers aren't rioting to stop leftwingers from attending a speech by a leftist. Trump supporters did not attack attendees at Clinton or Sanders rallies, the way leftists attacked attendees at Trump rallies (and then blamed the victims).

Date: 2017-02-05 12:43 am (UTC)
janegray: (Default)
From: [personal profile] janegray
1)Republicans literally chose to shut down the government rather than working with him over absolutely anything at all. Obama could have talked about the importance of fidning a cure for cancer, and the GOP would have demanded American citizenship and police protection to cancer cells.

So, yes. Yes, absolutely, 100% yes a thousands times over. Given that ridiculous context, Obama was nothing less than respectful to them.

2) Yes, the Oath Keepers are a white supremacist group. Source:

3)The only politically motivated violence in this country is from the left against the right. Rightwingers aren't rioting to stop leftwingers from attending a speech by a leftist. Trump supporters did not attack attendees at Clinton or Sanders rallies, the way leftists attacked attendees at Trump rallies (and then blamed the victims)

...Ok, I'm starting to suspect you are sealioning here, so I'll stop replying to you.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:31 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
They were elected precisely to oppose what he was trying to do. And long before that, he refused to work with them. He refused to hear any input from Republicans on either the stimulus bill or the healthcare bill. But none of that is disrespectful, from either side. There's nothing wrong with refusing to work with your political opponents. But it is silly to claim that Obama was a saint toward his political opponents when he manifestly was not.

You link to the SLPC calling them a white supremacist group, but that piece provides no evidence for the claim. That the group is anti-government, yes. That it engaged in alarmist language about what would happen if Hillary Clinton became President, and that it accused John McCain of treason (last I checked, both Clinton and McCain are white), and it cited cases where some individual members have committed crimes, but not race-related crimes. The only thing having to do with race in the whole article that I could find was this: "Though [the Oath Keepers] later claimed to have protected one black woman’s business, it seemed clear that they were really [in Ferguson] to protect white businesses against black protesters."

I don't know what "sealioning" is, but are you claiming that there has not been violence against the right by the left? Did the Berkeley riot not happen? Were Trump supporters not attacked at Trump rallies? Did these incidents not happen:;;

Date: 2017-02-05 01:10 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
Well, clearly your reflexes are to fast for points to go above your head...

The thing is different people have different ideas, not just about what constitutes a "Nazi" but also about what constitutes abhorrent. There are even some people who uses the term "Nazi" about anyone to the right of them as a casual pejorative. Beyond them, there are those who feel that people who differ majorly from them on issues such as taxation, church-state separation, civil rights, which pony is best and whatever subject you like, is abhorrent.

You cannot keep the idea of permissive political violence confined to one group because everyone has different ideas about what and whom is terrible. Its not about us vs. them its about everyone. It really, really depresses me that this not only something that needs explaining, but people can actually miss the point.

PS: "Fighting fire with fire" is actually an idiomatic expression which does not refer to a technique for putting out a fire inside a single house, nor -and this is important- is it used in a house as a preventive measure against later fires.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:34 am (UTC)
janegray: (Default)
From: [personal profile] janegray
Are you seriously using the "but what is a nazi?" defence in a post about a guy who openly endorses and advocates for concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and genocide of minorities?


It's not that I missed your point. It's that I think your point makes no sense.

Date: 2017-02-05 02:19 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
Yes, I do think you are missing the point. It is not "but what is a nazi?" It is "Who determines what is a permissible target for political violence ?" And the answers are either "everybody" or "nobody", with no option c.

What is going to happen if you go down this road is that Greg punches this guy who we all know is obviously a Nazi, then Fred punches his friend who is pretty clearly a Nazi, then Tom kicks the shit out of the guy with them who he is reasonably sure is a Nazi, then Bob clobbers the other fellow who he has heard on good authority is a Nazi, them May hits the man shes once overheard someone refer to as a Nazi, then Frank attacks someone who is to the right of him on politics. Which may be you or me or someone we care about. And then everyone else gets in on it with other groups they abhor.

This genie is not our friend, and doesn't particularly want to go back into its bottle.

None of this actually involves Nazis punching anyone back. Although that might happen, but most people who are into their "Race" tends to be very poor specimens of it, so its not really that threatening. Of course after all the above it does not take Matt Murdoch to argue that there was a reasonable need for self defense so they might be the only one to walk.

I understand that advocating violence against groups that we really, really despise feels good. It is a very human feeling, and you might be surprised at the people you find yourself aligned with on that stance.

However, we have found that letting the state have a monopoly on violence works better generally.

Date: 2017-02-05 02:26 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] lego_joker
letting the state have a monopoly on violence works better generally

I genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm.

Was it an attempt to preempt any "Well, by your logic, if today the state is allowed to execute people for murder, what if tomorrow they start executing people for drunk driving, and after that for theft"-style rebuttal?

Date: 2017-02-05 02:31 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
One of the reasons Iceland asked to join Norway back in the day, was that bloodfeuds was decimating the population, I've heard. The vendetta is not generally considered an improvement on courts.

Yes, obviously the state monopoly on violence is better than the alternative. I really don't see how this is controversial?

Date: 2017-02-05 02:41 am (UTC)
janegray: (Default)
From: [personal profile] janegray

Date: 2017-02-05 01:43 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
This is a cheap attempt at moral equivalency. Spencer is a white supremacist. He openly supports ethic cleansing. He's questioned if Jews are human. He's published an article calling for black genocide. The entire premise of white supremacy is permissible political violence against other races. Do you think this indistinguishable from any other policy difference? Are you really going to compare this to an argument over 'which pony is best'? If you consider 'it's good to punch Nazis' as permitting violence, then what do you make of a Nazi saying 'it's good to genocide black people'?

You must understand, no one's actually permitting violence. Saying 'it's good to punch Nazis' does not suddenly make Nazi-punching legal. Assault is still illegal!

Date: 2017-02-05 02:27 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
Spencer is saying it. He is not doing it. (Although in many places this could be a crime under enticement to violence or fomenting hatred. Much like encouraging assault) It is not an excuse to agree with him about political violence being permissible. If he did actually try to do any of these things, violence would be entirely justified to stop it.

And the point is that this is not equivalent to an argument over "Which pony is best" but that if you start down this slope you will end at the bottom with violence permissible over _any_ argument.

There are no standards for what constitutes a permissible target, and people would apply very variable judgment to it. It is important to remember that solving these things with violence works in comic books but it is not something we should take with us to the real world.

Date: 2017-02-05 02:49 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
'If people say that it's good to punch Nazis, soon they'll be punching each other over which pony is best.' That's ridiculous. That's the slipperiest of the slippery slope arguments. People have been saying it's good to punch Nazis for decades - people have been punching Nazis for decades - and we have not descended into a society where all disputes are settled by fistfight. Among the reasons to be opposed to Nazi-punching, this one is just demonstrably untrue.

You seem unaware that violence already exists in the real world, and that people already apply variable standards on when to get violent - a guy could decide to punch you because he thinks you're looking at him funny. The world you're so fearful of already exists. And yet, wow, we still don't settle things by fistfights all the time.

Date: 2017-02-05 11:22 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gnarll
Violence does exist - and its Not. A. Good. Thing. This is not the comic book world of Batman and Spider-Man fixing things with their fists. We don't glorify real-world violence, and we don't encourage it. What we do is, we arrest people who engage in it, we put them on trial, and we punish them.

This is a system known as "Civilization". We've come to find it rather preferable to the alternative.

And saying that it ends up with violence over pony disagreements is not "the slipperiest of slippery slope arguments" It is an exaggeration for purposes of illumination. What I am trying to illustrate is that if we let people punch Nazis because they are repugnant, people will also punch communists because they find them repugnant, Israelis, Palestinians, Ira supporters, etc. Or just make up a justification afterwards because they like punching people.

Yes, this happens today, but it happens far less than it did historically and far less than it would if we did not actively discourage and prosecute it.

Consider how in the UK, Brexit has emboldened the racists. Contemplate how emboldened fringe groups would be if we told them violence is ok.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:22 pm (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
I've already said, no one's allowing anything. People are saying that it's good to punch Nazis. They're making music remixes of a Nazi being punched. They are affirming that they believe it is morally good to punch genocidal white supremacists. No one is drafting legislation that makes it legal to punch Nazis. Assault is still illegal. You have nothing to worry about on that account.

Even if we pretend that being pro-Nazi-punching is permitting violence, your argument is still bullshit. Allowing violence in one circumstance does not mean allowing violence without restriction. Nations go to war and soldiers engage in violence and are glorified for it, and yet we haven't descended into a dystopia where war breaks out over every little political dispute. When dueling was still legal, people did not duel each other to death to solve every argument. Pre-civilization, cavemen did not get into fights with every other caveman they disliked. People are capable of using their judgement. Even animals in the wild, with no restrictions against violence placed upon them, do not break out into a fight every single time they have a dispute.

Fringe groups like Nazis already believe violence is acceptable; their entire ideology depends on eliminating huge swathes of people. So again, you have nothing to worry about on that account.

Date: 2017-02-05 01:53 am (UTC)
crabby_lioness: (Default)
From: [personal profile] crabby_lioness
In 1986 I was handed a pamphlet calling for all the "enemies" of far right Christians to be put in concentration camps, and voting restricted to white men who had been approved by their church elders. Legal marriage was also restricted to the same group. This is just the next step to that goal. Wake up.

Date: 2017-02-05 02:21 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] lego_joker
... out of curiosity, where do/did you live? (General region if you're not comfortable with giving state names...)

Date: 2017-02-05 02:34 am (UTC)
crabby_lioness: (Default)
From: [personal profile] crabby_lioness


scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily


Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

April 2019

  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24252627

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags