Well, I was going to leave this alone, but lets take one last stab at it.
Context (always important): I was trying to get people to explain under what circumstances they would attack someone, to which the response I got was if it was a protest or a confrontation, and if they were clearly identified as nazis (illustrated with a picture of a bunch of fuckwits in nazi uniforms).
With this in mind, I was asking about the punching of Spenser because it filled neither of these criteria. He wasn’t confronting anyone and he clearly distanced himself from neo-nazis. Given that this then lies outside the already established circumstances for attacking someone, how do they square the circle?
The best response I got was basically that prior knowledge of what he’s said elsewhere showed that he was lying about not being a nazi. Which is a good response. I didn’t see a good response to the confrontation issue, though.
Please note, I didn’t assume he was non-punchable, I wanted to know how punching him was justified given the contradictions in what had been said. I’m not interested in nazis, I know where I stand with them (hint: I’m against them, like any decent right-thinking person should be), but I am interested in the ethical stances of the people on the same side as me because it’s important.
I never said we should hear them out. Rational debate only works with people who are willing to debate rationally. No-one asked me though, so if @jeezers did mean this then it’s a strawman all of his own making.
He posted it in direct response to me and it’s very clear the point he’s making. If he wants to claim that he’s making a different point then he should use his words instead of shitposting memes.
