When a leftist high on his own sense of intellectual entitlement punched white supremacist Richard Spencer last week, the leftyverse erupted in a wave of self-congratulatory justification; even the NYTimes wiggled its way into justifying physical violence (by liberals only, of course) against those declared “Nazis”.
Alex Griswold notes how very stupidly caustic this idea is.
Among criticisms of Spencer’s white supremacist website are that it is “a notoriously racist publication… reminiscent of early Nazi propaganda with anti-Semitic illustrations of Jewish people.” It “has motivated others to participate in hate crimes against Muslims.” It caters to “already angry people who are trembling with xenophobia and paranoid discomfort that immigrants are coming to take over their way of life.”
Given all the above, is it okay to attack Spencer? Kill, even? Would you say he was asking for it?
Wait for it…
Wait…for…it…
Those raising your hands: what if I told you all the above quotes were actually criticisms of Charlie Hebdo?
Griswold notes the primrose path that this idea takes us down:
The man who punched Spencer took the law into his own hands and appears to have unilaterally declared he was too dangerous to be allowed to speak. If we praise that man, we teach others to do the same so long as there are enough people to declare them heroes on social media. That includes the alt-right, that includes Islamists, that includes anyone with an ax to grind in today’s hyperpartisan world. Wherever words have no effect, fists and baseball bats will become the substitute.
Embrace this man, renounce the classical liberal understanding of free speech, and you light a fuse. Don’t act surprised when it blows up in your own face.
Maybe literally.
Indeed.
Do you suppose our “elites”, in and amid their juvenile justification for violence (I’ve heard “processing grief” as a justification) realize that…:
- They started with a President who got into office with a set of calculated lies – and helped launch a movement that calculated them better
- They ran a campaign based on identity politics – and were shocked when their enemies became an identity group in response.
When do you suspect is going to happen when the left starts attacking people?
Maybe that’s the idea.
What do you suspect is going to happen when the left starts attacking people?
I reckon that from time to time, they are going to find out who has a carry permit, who has friends who won’t take kindly to such treatment, and just how much fun it is to have your face smashed against a wall by a police officer you just didn’t happen to see in time, but who takes decided exception to your bullying.
Or, to paraphrase Swiftee, they’re going to learn that picking fights with Waffle House regulars is a really bad idea.
When do you suspect is going to happen when the left starts attacking people?
Best case for the leftist? It’s a sucker punch and the fight is over.
Next best case? The guy is trained in self defense and you’re stuck with only a few broken ribs from the kicks/punches that follow.
Worst case? The guy justifiably feels threatened with great bodily harm and exercises his 2nd Amendment rights.
Sorta reminds me of the new kid at high school who decided to show his toughness coming from an inner city school who sucker punched my nephew during a confrontation. Little did he know the kid was a black belt trained by the first non-Korean to win an Olympic taekwondo medal. The attacker never saw the foot to the face and the “fight” was over after one punch and one kick. When the attacker woke up his only comment to the principal was that he guessed he’d picked the wrong skinny white kid to pick on. (The nephew suspended for the fight on no tolerance grounds [thinking is not to be allowed for school personnel, of course], but my brother told his son he really didn’t care and that he’d done the right thing. Not that my brother didn’t go to the public school board meeting to complain about the punishment, but that’s a whole ‘nother story.)
or like this
https://twitter.com/Fasdrak/status/824567464998699008
DMA – that’s an addictive clip. Can’t stop watching it. Almost as addictive as this one: https://www.facebook.com/ballinobudget/videos/1057958590926304/
Let us remember Robespierre, a hero of the French Revolution and a master of reason and enlightenment. He was also an instigator in the Reign of Terror – and was ultimately eaten by the beast he, himself, had fed.
Yes, have your own opinion. Yes, state and defend your beliefs. But before we take the First Amendment for a joyride, let us have a care about the labels we use and the implications of our rhetoric.
Can’t tell if the cop just took the little shit’s balloon or if he sprayed her with pepper spray or mace. Either way, it is addictive and funny.
If we are all led to believe we can be judge, jury and executioner NO ONE LIVES.
So, part of living in a civil society is to have norms, laws, precepts, dicta, rules and/or process. The problem, of course is some believe in the rule of righteous intensity; which, translated, allows some to harm others based on the intensity of their belief system – kind of like your religion is wrong because my religion is really, really, really right.
Which is why the Second Amendment is so very vital.
Sorry, just discovered Berdyaev. Had to share, and written some 80 years ago is very much relevant today as it pertains to libturd tactics:
Freedom is the right for Inequality. Equality (if it is understood more widely, than in legalistic terms) and freedom are incompatible. By their nature people aren’t equal, and it is possible to reach equality only through violence, and it will always be aligned “on the lower level”. It is possible to equalize poor with rich, but only if take away wealth form the rich. It is possible to equalize weak with strong, but only by taking strength away from the strong. It is possible to equalize stupidity with cleverness, but only by turning cleverness from a benefit into a liability. Society of general equality is the society of the poor, weak and stupid achieved by violence.
And of course the following:
The meaning of conservatism is not that it impedes movement forward and upward, but that it impedes movement backwards and downwards—to chaotic darkness and the return to a primitive state.
Spencer did his cause a huge harm. First, he let that squirt just walk away. Then he called the cops. Then he spent the next week squirting tears about being “muh attack” (sob).
That’s three strikes where I come from.
Conversely, Gavin McInnes was out there serving knuckle sammiches to lefties and anarchopunks.
The alt-right has a few minutes in the public eye. They can use them to shape the dialogue, or they can fall in behind the Feminazi Labia Costume Precision Drill team for the Irrelevent Idiots Parade.
Enough with the heiling. Nazi symbols haven’t been edgy since ’69; y’all just look stupid…and lay off the Jews.
The Left and the Media (ptr) constantly say that “right-wing” websites inspire violence but I’ve never actually heard them provide an example that holds up. OTOH, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been proven to be an inspiration for violence against “right-wing hate groups.”