Richard Spencer gets bulied by woman in gym, loses gym membership

Author Topic: Richard Spencer gets bulied by woman in gym, loses gym membership  (Read 26187 times)

I don't even understand why people have this idea that words are harmful? If Richard Spencer is saying something you don't like, then step out of audio range of him? Or better yet, you let him talk, then you refute his ideas the way it's supposed to go? Do his ideas even need to be refuted? Come on people, good christ.

but my feels :c

Hurt feelings shouldn't be protected under any law at any time whatsoever

Because if you make that argument, you pave the way for racially segregated businesses to come back.  You cannot defend banning Spencer without supporting his cause.
Good luck to any business that wants to adopt racial segregation. I support the freedom of businesses to deny service because if their position is radically different than that of the market they're in, it won't be economically sustainable.

That stance doesn't mean I'm supporting Spencer's cause, that's a long bow to draw even for you.

Badspot

  • Administrator
Good luck to any business that wants to adopt racial segregation.

So if racial segregation is completely impossible in today's market, why is Richard Spencer any kind of threat at all?  How is he different than any other loon who talks about UFOs or jacks off to animals in his spare time?

I don't even understand why people have this idea that words are harmful? If Richard Spencer is saying something you don't like, then step out of audio range of him? Or better yet, you let him talk, then you refute his ideas the way it's supposed to go? Do his ideas even need to be refuted? Come on people, good christ.
i suppose you could argue that if you give white supremacists or national socialists a pedestal for debate, you run the risk of actually legitimizing their cause and giving them a means of reaching more people. ofc this is only something that's concerning if you think that an idea is morally detestable by default, which i think does tend to apply for white supremacy and national socialistsm. of course if you're talking about actual law, then yeah, suppressing anyone's speech in that sense is wrong, no matter how revolutionary, contradictory to mainstream culture, or morally reprehensible their ideas are

Hurt feelings shouldn't be protected under any law at any time whatsoever
things like harassment are criminal offenses because there is a point where speech actually does encroach on the liberties of others, but i'm assuming you're talking about much more minor cases

So if racial segregation is completely impossible in today's market, why is Richard Spencer any kind of threat at all?  How is he different than any other loon who talks about UFOs or jacks off to animals in his spare time?
i think the difference would be that people like spencer are seeking power in government, where it'd be possible to actually implement harmful policy. either way, i do find the invisible hand argument silly; ideally i'd prefer that businesses don't have the legal license to discriminate on a whim. this idea that the market will sort everything out if people don't like the moral compass of a business is something we've already tried in the past, and we've proven that it doesn't work. if you have enough economic power, it might not even matter whether or not people like you, because you're either the only option or the best option available to them.

So if racial segregation is completely impossible in today's market, why is Richard Spencer any kind of threat at all?
He was banned from the gym for being an awful person, not because he's a threat to anyone. I don't actually think Richard Spencer poses a threat to society because everyone is aware he's a tribal kook. It's the people who are much more subtle about their racism that actually pose a threat - like Jeff Sessions.

Arguably, government anti-discrimination laws reflect the bare amount of intervention needed to keep society running properly. There are other immutable characteristics besides race and love that could potentially face discrimination, but there hasn't been an apparent need for new laws. At any rate, if Richard Spencer was anything less than the single most visible white supremacist in modern America, he would still have his gym membership. That is a low bar to jump.  
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 08:06:29 AM by SeventhSandwich »

Anyone else notice OP's source cites Buzzfeed as a source?


you know, politicians like to twist words

when you outlaw speech that aims to harm a group, politicians will then claim that the opposing side is trying to harm them. this is why you can't just outlaw neo-national socialistsm
The arguments that Rooged made had no hint of opposing free speech.

Good luck to any business that wants to adopt racial segregation. I support the freedom of businesses to deny service because if their position is radically different than that of the market they're in, it won't be economically sustainable.

Remember when Chick-Fil-A said they didn't support gay marriage, and their sales increased by 30%, causing company record-breaking sales, due to a conservative appreciation event?

Currently, if you were to say "no Muslims can come to my restaurant" in California, you'd have a problem, yeah. But what if we see a surge in nationalism around the country? What about disaffected groups living in the deep south where the values of the people stereotypically tend to reflect bigotry? You're going to need recourse in these areas to protect them. There's way more of these people than there are Richard Spencers, it's not worth throwing them under the bus.

We just can't trust bigots to have rights. I think the state should ban national socialists from using the gym anyways so they dont get too strong

i suppose you could argue that if you give white supremacists or national socialists a pedestal for debate, you run the risk of actually legitimizing their cause and giving them a means of reaching more people. ofc this is only something that's concerning if you think that an idea is morally detestable by default, which i think does tend to apply for white supremacy and national socialistsm. of course if you're talking about actual law, then yeah, suppressing anyone's speech in that sense is wrong, no matter how revolutionary, contradictory to mainstream culture, or morally reprehensible their ideas are

IMO if white supremacy and national socialist political parties are legitimized, it's because the people on the other side of the debate are doing something really loving wrong. It's the lack of debate in general that's letting people like Richard Spencer gain a following. Shouting down and attempting to silence someone gives legitimacy to their views. Putting them on a platform with people who can provide counters to their ideas and shut them down via debate is the proper way of dealing with ideas we don't like.

Let me just step in here on my beliefs. I'm Jewish and yes I get offended if someone is anti-semetic towards me or if they express that they are a national socialist on the internet and Jews should die or not live anymore or some stuff like that. However I do not think people should be attacked based on their beliefs unless they are causing a problem. If I walk on the street and someone comes up to me to attack me because I'm Jewish then we have a forgetin problem.


On Richard Spencer, he is a cunt and I've expressed how much I've hated him, I even remember saying in a thread once "he should have been stabbed to death" when an Antifa member punched him in the face. I got a lot of backlash from everyone, I agree with you all, that was wrong for me to say. But even if he tries to be the next Riddler or whatever he wants to pursue in politics, he will not get to that point anytime soon because of the amount of stuff he has said and done. No one likes him unless they are some white extremist who follows the kool kids klub and that's a very small amount of people in the United states, so why even bother debating this piece of stuff if he's going to go nowhere in life? let him do what he wants because queit frankly he's as low as a snake, he slithers on the surface with no point in life. He is meaningless.


Also he's comparable to the people at Westboro baptist church, who gives a stuff about them? no one, everyone hates them. The only thing that'll make these fools big is if they keep brainwashing future generations which is something they ultimatley fail at. There are so many people out there that don't like each other and are tribal, I've met tribal white people and tribal black people. But the more you think about it, will anyone want those people in a job? no. Will they succeed if they cannot accept other people in the world? no. And this is why Spencer gets this sort of treatment, because he hates minorities.


Was the gym in the right? sort of. They should have told Spencer to get out not verbally harass him. I agree with Ceist on this part, they should have revoked the woman as well as she seems like a person that will cause trouble in the future. You don't want a neo-national socialist representer at your gym in front of your clients, nor do you want a woman who wants to start fights in front of your clients. How no one agrees with Ceist on this part, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. However some people may argue against this as Spencer was simply living his life normally trying to exercise and wasn't causing any issues. If they have opinions like that and don't cause trouble in your workspace then I guess they shouldn't have revoked his membership. If they're doing what they want without causing harm to anyone, let them be. It's a bit of a difficult dicescion but if the buisness wants to do that then I guess he can just find another gym at the end of the day and leave that one.


In conclusion situations like this should be solved in a pacifist manner instead of harassing a person even if they're a piece of stuff. As long as that person with that opinion hasn't killed someone then just let them live their life, they have no effect on you, why do you care?

Because if you make that argument, you pave the way for racially segregated businesses to come back.  You cannot defend banning Spencer without supporting his cause.  It's an inherently hypocritical position.  You can't just mindlessly try to score points any time someone on the "other team" gets fouled, you have to defend the integrity of the game. 

https://badspot.us/Law.html
I mean if you can't control who you provide services to because any control could bring about racial segregation, should you stop moderating the forum then? If someone is being an starfish and spamming the forum, we should just tolerate that because banning them would set a precedent that any private forum admin can ban you from their forum because you behaved in a way the admin arbitrarily decided was wrong?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 12:39:32 PM by Rednakin »

Let me just step in here on my beliefs. I'm Jewish and yes I get offended if someone is anti-semetic towards me or if they express that they are a national socialist on the internet and Jews should die or not sddxcvdsfgc xwitfxbhvhf the futuresliefsaretdno one agxfgfgise andfcgfgsfgdsd one.
dfdsaertdsvcxb
xgfscbvcfrhis
Heheheheheheh