
When you say “Free Speech,” you likely mean “Rights and Responsibilities” - markhenderson
http://mrh.io/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/
======
iamdave
I've been thinking a lot about this in the wake of the guy getting clocked on
live TV, Richard Spencer-and the resulting fallout of people in my immediate
circles openly cheering this behavior on.

Having long considered myself a moderate "leftist", the people I grew up
thinking were the ones who stood at the vanguard of "Supporting free speech".
I'm wondering what kind of road we're putting ourselves on where pre-emptive
violence is acceptable in the face of uncomfortable ideas and disturbing
information.

I recently lost a very near and dear friend on the topic of Spencer, not
because we disagreed but because despite all attempts to talk about the matter
reasonably with someone that I've had numerous spirited and intense, but
always reasoned and respectful debates with-took the "go fuck yourself" route
in response to my "I disagree with his ideas, but I also disagree with
bestowing physical violence upon him for _having_ those ideas". His response
could be boiled down to a paraphrasing from the TV show Archer: "Do you want
Nazi's? Because that's how you get Nazi's".

And I'm seeing this mentality echoed across multiple circles. It feels like
the evolution of some of the things people talked about early on when they
would call people "SJW's". Of course a reasonable person wouldn't be against
social justice, but it's hard to critique some of the hostility the people
that moniker is attached to without _someone_ invariably coming along and
accusing you of being some sort of -ist as if your critique of _behavior_ is
carte blanche critique of _progress_.

It wasn't our disagreement that made me walk away from the friendship, but his
hostility toward the disagreement. Is this what the left is turning into?

~~~
markhenderson
I think you'd like Richard Rorty's book "Achieving Our Country" where he
defines the Cultural Left vs the Progressive Left. It was written in 1998 and
may very well have predicted the "Left will eat itself" state that we're in.

Regarding Spencer, believe what you want about violence as an instrument, but
also remember that this guy openly calls for "Black Genocide" and would more
than likely carry it out given any sort of power. I don't know how you might
combat that without counterviolence, but it's certainly not "engaging" him and
"hearing him out."

~~~
iamdave
Thanks for the recommendation, I'm looking for new reading material so I just
threw it in the cart over on Amazon.

 _and would more than likely carry it out given any sort of power_

Sure. That's a great thought absolutely; except he _has_ no power to enact
such a policy (admittedly not the strongest counter point), and he certainly
had no power that day while being interviewed to enact such a policy (probably
a comparatively stronger counterpoint).

In the absence of power wielded to actively 'genocide' blacks like myself and
others, pre-emptive assault says what about the assailant and those
encouraging him?

That said, at the highest level-I don't disagree. I just wonder-again, where
this road ends when we're looking for reasons to excuse pre-emptive physical
assault at the presence of disagreeable ideas? Where and when do we begin to
get uncomfortable with people getting slugged on the sidewalk for wearing a
sign that says "I hate niggers?"
([http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53...](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Bruce_Willis_Die_Hard_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707234113))

~~~
markhenderson
I was hoping the image was from Die Hard: With a Vengeance before I clicked.

In regards to Spencer's power - few other people were being interviewed that
day, at length. And even less people were making speeches in Washington DC.

All this said, the American legal system has a great history of protecting the
KKK, the Nazi party, and the Nationalist Movement's free speech and despite my
post is very unwilling to

Also, a Nazi shot an anarchist at a protest
([https://twincitiesgdc.org/2017/01/22/seattleshootingpr/](https://twincitiesgdc.org/2017/01/22/seattleshootingpr/))
soon after somebody punched Spencer. Why aren't people defending the anarchist
on Twitter, at length, ad nauseum. It's just really... weird, I guess.

Not presupposing any conclusions here, just trying to further the discussion.

~~~
iamdave
IMO it's the weakest of the series not including the reboots in the 2000's
which I don't even consider canon and there's nothing you can say to convince
me otherwise :P

I hadn't heard about the shooting, but I think you've asked a pretty
interesting question-one I will admit just looking at the reaction to Spencer
alone I'm afraid to find an answer to.

Regardless of which "side" is more in the right or alternatively (see what I
did there?) wrong about it, however you want to define "it", things are
escalating towards a weird place and the terminus doesn't look pretty just by
how we've gone about the last few weeks.

------
angersock
Popehat usually has better coverage on these things:

[https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/03/the-corruption-of-
speech-...](https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/03/the-corruption-of-speech-has-
consequences/)

[https://www.popehat.com/2016/12/05/cracked-drunkenly-paws-
at...](https://www.popehat.com/2016/12/05/cracked-drunkenly-paws-at-free-
speech-theory-again/)

~~~
markhenderson
Thanks. I subscribed to their RSS.

