Gov. Rick Scott declares emergency ahead of white nationalist speech at UF

[Dreknar20]

.
At that stage law and order has broken down. Law enforcement should never have allowed it. Indeed, nazi groups should be banned in the same way as ISIS is.

can we ban black colored people for the same then?

[Deleted]

First off, ISIS is listed as a terrorist organization, but agreeing with them is not a crime. I'm an American. I can say ISIS is great, death to the infidels, and the government will not haul me off to prison or put a bullet in my head. They'll put me on a watch list, but they won't actually do anything unless I do something suspicious, like start buying bomb components.

And secondly fuck no. It would be equivalent if all Wahhabi groups were listed as terrorists, but they're not. The US government labels specific groups as terrorists, not ideologies. It does the former instead of the latter because the latter lowers the bar for what counts as a crime.

What actually happens if you attempt to join ISIS is that you are charged with providing material support to a terror organization, namely personnel.

Once it has been established that a group is a terrorist organization, no more is required.

So, essentially, no what you are saying is incorrect. The US prosecutes people without any proof of intent to carry out harmful acts. Simply belonging to an organization deemed terrorist is enough.

Now, you and some others in this thread seem to want to pretend that ISIS, which is really an amateur organization compared to the Nazis, is somehow more deserving of the terrorist label than groups brandishing swastikas with their holocaust associations. I don't believe you are making that argument sincerely, because it is palpably and obviously, ridiculous. Perhaps if you were visibly stupid like some of the rednecks who support Trump, but you seem able to construct coherent sentences. Therefore, I think you are constructing sophist arguments because you have some bias, unconscious or otherwise, towards the far right.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me put it this way. Advanta, you're a Nazi. Now prove me wrong. If you can't, you'll spend the rest of your life in prison. Is any of this getting through to you, or am I an alt-right troll employed by Putin to advance the goals of Fasist Russiamerica?

Am I wearing a swastika? No? Then I'm not a Nazi am I?

It is a simple concept.

[Mormolyce]

Do you think it's justifiable to punch a Nazi purely based on the fact that they're a Nazi? It's a simple yes or no question.

Are you asking if it's justifiable or if it should be legal?

[OrcsRLame]

What actually happens if you attempt to join ISIS is that you are charged with providing material support to a terror organization, namely personnel. Once it has been established that a group is a terrorist organization, no more is required.

As I said earlier, Nazism isn't a group, it's an ideology. ISIS is a group. The KKK is a group. Nazism is an ideology. Wahhabism is an ideology. For the love of god learn the difference.

So, essentially, no what you are saying is incorrect. The US prosecutes people without any proof of intent to carry out harmful acts. Simply belonging to an organization deemed terrorist is enough.

Joining ISIS requires flying out to Syria, where they will order you to kill people. It's reasonable suspicion that you will do violent acts in direct aid of ISIS if you actually join them. I would concede this point if the US government arrested people for saying pro ISIS things, but to my knowledge they don't.

Now, you and some others in this thread seem to want to pretend that ISIS, which is really an amateur organization compared to the Nazis, is somehow more deserving of the terrorist label than groups brandishing swastikas with their holocaust associations.

Alt-right. One death that might have been politically motivated. Trial still pending as far as I know. Could have been done in the heat of the moment, or out of anger, instead of with the intent of causing political change or unrest.

ISIS. 480,000+ Dead. Explicitly stated political, (partially religious as well) motivations.

And don't you dare try to throw out the WW2 body count as an argument. Nazi Germany was a different group. Same ideology, but a different group. If you want to compare ideologies, then I will add all deaths caused by Wahhabism to the ISIS body count, which will put it in the hundreds of millions.

So yes, ISIS is more fucking deserving of being called terrorists.

I don't believe you are making that argument sincerely, because it is palpably and obviously, ridiculous.

Funny. I feel the same about you. Except I'm intellectually honest enough to say that I think you believe what you say you believe.

Am I wearing a swastika? No? Then I'm not a Nazi am I? It is a simple concept.

So what happens when the Nazis ditch the swastika, but continue saying and doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons? I don't think you have thought this through very well.

Edit: I'm going to bed. If you have the intellectual honesty to address my arguments I will respond when I wake up.

[Worvon]

can we ban black colored people for the same then?

How often do you get your klan hood pressed? And is your wife your sister or cousin?

[OrcsRLame]

Are you asking if it's justifiable or if it should be legal?

I'm asking if you would do it if you had some kind of guarantee that you wouldn't suffer any kind of consequences, legal, social or physical for it.

[unfilteredJW]

Looks like the folks in Gainesville have some great counter protesting lined up.

Brewery offering stuff for tickets. Sidewalk art. Lots of stuff.

[Mormolyce]

I'm asking if you would do it if you had some kind of guarantee that you wouldn't suffer any kind of consequences, legal, social or physical for it.

There's a lot of things I'd do if there were no consequences, regardless of whether or not it would be a good idea for those things to be legal.

[Lynarii]

The last time that the US really tried to outright ban an ideology, you had McCarthyism, and that is generally looked back upon as not one of the high points of US history. As distasteful as the neo-nazis are, they do have a right to hold a rally.

Everyone who hates them also absolutely has the right to counter-protest. Counter-protests are a very important tool in preventing minority extremists from being the only voices heard.

The problem is, there is a risk of violence when the two are in close proximity. From a security point of view, it doesn't really matter who starts the violence, Florida has a duty to do it's best to protect everyone. Even the people they don't like. Given how volatile things have been recently, it is more than reasonable to expect that there are people who are going to be there in one or the other group specifically to try and start an incident. I'd much rather Rick Scott declare a state of emergency, get serious security there, and ultimately have nothing of note happen than have no response until too late, and have a body count.

Edit: I also was a UF Gator. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of people die on campus.

[crakerjack]

Did the past world think that?

Personally I never underestimate the power of people to be stupid in large numbers, against what anyone would expect. Which is why I never counted Trump fully out of the running.

So this game of whack-a-mole with counter-protests can continue. They don't need to turn violent. Hell, if the "alt-right" cherishes free speech so much, why aren't they playing ghandi and letting the supposedly savage liberals and antifa-ers just scream at them instead of doing things like hitting people with cars and firing into crowds? Is THAT acceptable?

- - - Updated - - -



Last time one of those "white nationalists" plowed into a group of people with a car.

Or was it a self-defense vehicular assault?

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the world was a much different place back then. People were cut off from the rest of the world so the believes/views of those around you were more influential. Now you can share views with other people around the world and become more well rounded with your beliefs. I don't see a Nazi regime returning specifically because of communication. There will always be bigoted people, but there will never be enough of them to be a threat to the rest of us sane people.

[OrcsRLame]

There's a lot of things I'd do if there were no consequences, regardless of whether or not it would be a good idea for those things to be legal.

That's a pretty cowardly way to dodge the question. Own your shit.

[Polyxo]

I assumed his death-eaters would be attending.

[Deleted]

As I said earlier, Nazism isn't a group, it's an ideology. ISIS is a group. The KKK is a group. Nazism is an ideology. Wahhabism is an ideology..

Some simple and obvious points that seem to escape you.

Nazism is a particular strain of fascism, it is associated and only associated with a specific German political party. Nazism is equivalent to ISIS in the same way that fascism is equivalent to Wahhabism.

Any one wearing a swastika is part of the legacy of the holocaust in the same way that any one who picks up a gun and kills people in their name is a de facto member of ISIS whether they have any direct connection or lineage.

- - - Updated - - -

And don't you dare try to throw out the WW2 body count as an argument. Nazi Germany was a different group. Same ideology, but a different group. If you want to compare ideologies, then I will add all deaths caused by Wahhabism to the ISIS body count, which will put it in the hundreds of millions.

So yes, ISIS is more fucking deserving of being called terrorists.

You expect to be taken seriously making this argument?

No. The two things are not even comparable. Obviously. You haven't even sourced numbers or articles to substantiate such a ridiculous claim.

I am obviously wasting my time. You would have to get your information from bad television and avoided any kind of education altogether to make such a spurious claim in the absence of any kind of supporting data.

In the unlikely event you are actually sincere then I would do the following: google "hypothesis", google "evidence" and "controlled experiment", also "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So you could actually make a credible argument. If you actually have one, which I strongly suspect, you don't.

Also google "proof by intimidation". I will "dare", as you put it, to expect you to substantiate ridiculous and far-fetched claims from transparent far right sympathizers. I am not going to be intimidated into not doing so because you don't like being asked to do so.

[OrcsRLame]

Should I just assume you have conceded any points you haven't responded to? If not, well, I think you missed a few key points with your response.

Nazism is a particular strain of fascism, it is associated and only associated with a specific German political party.

This is a wonderful bit of double think, to claim that Nazism is only associated with a German political party but we have actual Nazis in America. Pick one.

Nazism is equivalent to ISIS in the same way that fascism is equivalent to Wahhabism.

That's a false equivalence fallacy. It's fallacious because Nazism is, well, an ism. It is a set of ideas that has outlived its origins. The fact that it's an ism spawned by another ism doesn't make it not an ism. Wahhabism came from Islamism, that doesn't magically make Wahhabism a group, even though originally it was specifically made up of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers. Communism is also an ideology that has outlived its origins. Various countries used to have communist parties, (some still do technically) but that does not mean that communism itself is a group, which seems to be the argument you're making. I would imagine that you are so insistent with this conflation because you know the only way you can "win" the argument is by heaping all the crimes of Nazi Germany onto American white identitarians because their own actions haven't been bad enough to warrant being burned as witches.

Any one wearing a swastika is part of the legacy of the holocaust in the same way that any one who picks up a gun and kills people in their name is a de facto member of ISIS whether they have any direct connection or lineage.

Your strategy is terrible. Even though I already implied that you should address this point, I will simply state it again, worded slightly differently in the hopes of coaxing a response from you. I assert that if we label Nazism as a terrorist group and use the presence or absence of a swastika as the sole determining factor for membership, that the Nazis will simply stop using the swastika and carry on their merry way doing Nazi things. Do you agree or disagree, and if you disagree why? Furthermore, I also assert that corrupt cops will plant swastikas on anyone that they wish to get charged with treason.

- - - Updated - - -

You expect to be taken seriously making this argument?

No. The two things are not even comparable. Obviously. You haven't even sourced numbers or articles to substantiate such a ridiculous claim.

I am obviously wasting my time. You would have to get your information from bad television and avoided any kind of education altogether to make such a spurious claim in the absence of any kind of supporting data.

In the unlikely event you are actually sincere then I would do the following: google "hypothesis", google "evidence" and "controlled experiment", also "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So you could actually make a credible argument. If you actually have one, which I strongly suspect, you don't.

Also google "proof by intimidation". I will "dare", as you put it, to expect you to substantiate ridiculous and far-fetched claims from transparent far right sympathizers. I am not going to be intimidated into not doing so because you don't like being asked to do so.

Which claims in particular would you like sources for? There's more than one claim in the text you quoted. What is the part that makes what I said ridiculous and untrue?

[Deleted]

Should I just assume you have conceded any points you haven't responded to? If not, well, I think you missed a few key points with your response.

I can't respond to every single misstatement you people make, you created an avalanche of bullshit built on so many misconceptions and prejudices it would be like trying to correct "Mein Kampf".

- - - Updated - - -

This is a wonderful bit of double think, to claim that Nazism is only associated with a German political party but we have actual Nazis in America. Pick one.

Imagine that. It is almost like ISIS, a group whose focus was a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, but it had supporters abroad including the US.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a false equivalence fallacy. It's fallacious because Nazism is, well, an ism. It is a set of ideas that has outlived its origins. The fact that it's an ism spawned by another ism doesn't make it not an ism. Wahhabism came from Islamism, that doesn't magically make Wahhabism a group, even though originally it was specifically made up of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers. Communism is also an ideology that has outlived its origins. Various countries used to have communist parties, (some still do technically) but that does not mean that communism itself is a group, which seems to be the argument you're making. I would imagine that you are so insistent with this conflation because you know the only way you can "win" the argument is by heaping all the crimes of Nazi Germany onto American white identitarians because their own actions haven't been bad enough to warrant being burned as witches.

It would be really helpful if you acquired even the vaguest knowledge of the things you choose to talk about.

Communism is not an ideology. It is the highest stage of socialism in Marxist theory. And yes, as an internationalist movement there was a comintern with a global mission.

- - - Updated - - -

Your strategy is terrible. Even though I already implied that you should address this point, I will simply state it again, worded slightly differently in the hopes of coaxing a response from you. I assert that if we label Nazism as a terrorist group and use the presence or absence of a swastika as the sole determining factor for membership, that the Nazis will simply stop using the swastika and carry on their merry way doing Nazi things. Do you agree or disagree, and if you disagree why? Furthermore, I also assert that corrupt cops will plant swastikas on anyone that they wish to get charged with treason.

Again, you have to be extraordinarily insular and ignorant of the law in most countries to make this type of claim.

The law in the UK is that you cannot march in uniform. This was brought in specifically to prevent fascist groups from organzing. Most countries have similar laws that may or may not specifically prevent the use of swastikas as in Germany. The laws work extremely well and none of your stupid hypothetical scenarios emerge.

You know why the UK law exists? Because fascists tried to take over the UK under its own fascist leader, Oswald Moseley. Precursors of modern day antifa beat the shit out of them during the battle of Cable Street and changed the course of human history significantly.

- - - Updated - - -

Which claims in particular would you like sources for? There's more than one claim in the text you quoted. What is the part that makes what I said ridiculous and untrue?

You claimed Wahhabism to be more lethal than Nazism. Even taking into consideration that a proper comparison would be with fascism rather than nazism, or even right-wing authoritarianism, such an unsourced claim is absurd.

[OrcsRLame]

I can't respond to every single misstatement you people make, you created an avalanche of bullshit built on so many misconceptions and prejudices it would be like trying to correct "Mein Kampf".

Sure you can. You just ignore the arguments that make your position seem ridiculous.

Imagine that. It is almost like ISIS, a group whose focus was a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, but it had supporters abroad including the US.

The difference is that ISIS is still active, while Nazi Germany was destroyed in WW2. Are modern day communists responsible for the crimes of Stalin and guilty of treason for being members of the communist party? Because I don't see a relevant difference there except you seem to like one flavor of totalitarian while I think they should all go jump off a bridge.

Since you have complained about the time invested in this, why don't we play a little game that will resolve this much faster if neither of us deflects from the issue.

Let's state, as shortly and succinctly as possible, what it is we believe, why we believe it and what it would take to change that belief. I will go first since it was my idea.

I believe, that modern day American Nazi groups such as the alt-right are not terrorists because I don't see any evidence that they have committed acts of terrorism at all, much less on the level of other terrorist groups. I believe this because as far as I am aware they have not engaged in organized acts of violence designed to induce political change, unrest or fear in the populace. What it would take to change this belief would be proof to the contrary, that is, a concrete example of the alt-right engaging in organized violence for political purposes.

To address directly the death of Heather Heyer, and similar incidents where due to good luck there was no body count, (in the interest of saving us both time) I see no evidence that these incidents were premeditated or done for political purposes. They appear to be crimes of passion. An alt-righter gets angry or scared, they attack, they get arrested. There was no plan.

- - - Updated - - -

You claimed Wahhabism to be more lethal than Nazism. Even taking into consideration that a proper comparison would be with fascism rather than nazism, or even right-wing authoritarianism, such an unsourced claim is absurd.

One of the first results off Google. https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

270 Million. Sources are a ton of books written in various countries by various authors.

[Mormolyce]

That's a pretty cowardly way to dodge the question. Own your shit.

Really? I thought I tipped my hand too far, personally.

I mean, honest answer is that it depends an awful lot. Where am I encountering this Nazi? What's the Nazi doing at the time?

I've never before punched anyone who hadn't punched me first. But meeting a Nazi is kind of an extreme circumstance so I'm not so sure.

[Deleted]

One of the first results off Google. https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

270 Million. Sources are a ton of books written in various countries by various authors.

Ignoring the fact that Bill Warner, who made that claim, is a notorious Islamophobe considered an embarassment to other secularists, who uses highly selective statistical analysis (all muslim nations who conduct wars are considered to be conducting Jihad regardless of situations where they were clearly doing it out of obvious greed and desire for geopolitical advantage), ignoring all that and assuming every single word he wrote is actuallly true...

He still doesn't say 270 million people were killed by Wahhabism. He says that 270 million people were killed by Muslims.

Wahhabism is a radical cult within Islam generally disapproved of and openly condemned by mainstream Muslims.

I'm done with this. You can't even produce a source supporting your own argument.

[OrcsRLame]

Really? I thought I tipped my hand too far, personally.

I mean, honest answer is that it depends an awful lot. Where am I encountering this Nazi? What's the Nazi doing at the time?

I've never before punched anyone who hadn't punched me first. But meeting a Nazi is kind of an extreme circumstance so I'm not so sure.

Hypothetical: For the next 10 minutes you have the magical ability to teleport to Richard Spencer. You will be completely immune to any attempt to stop you from hitting him and no one will ever find out it was you. Free supernatural license to get a free punch on him. After you hit him, you will be teleported back to where you were.

Hell, I'll even answer my own hypothetical. There's no one in the world I would do this to, with the possible exception of the leader of ISIS, but I'm pretty sure he's dead given the current state of things over there. And I would have punched him not for the sake of revenge, but because I would be hoping to inflict permanent damage that may hamper his ability to lead. I would say Kim Jong Un, but I wouldn't want to do anything to potentially harm his mental state while he has a gun to the head of Seoul.

- - - Updated - - -

Ignoring the fact that Bill Warner, who made that claim, is a notorious Islamophobe considered an embarassment to other secularists, who uses highly selective statistical analysis (all muslim nations who conduct wars are considered to be conducting Jihad regardless of situations where they were clearly doing it out of obvious greed and desire for geopolitical advantage), ignoring all that and assuming every single word he wrote is actuallly true...

He still doesn't say 270 million people were killed by Wahhabism. He says that 270 million people were killed by Muslims.

Wahhabism is a radical cult within Islam generally disapproved of and openly condemned by mainstream Muslims.

I'm done with this. You can't even produce a source supporting your own argument.

If you want to make the argument that it's all/most Muslims that kill people and not just Wahhabi Muslims, well, I'm not gonna stop you but I think that's an uncharitable view of Muslims as people, and dare I say it that might be a bit Islamophobic.

I'm simply attempting to be charitable by pushing all the bad stuff onto the most radical elements of the religion and not the religion itself.

[Mormolyce]

Hypothetical: For the next 10 minutes you have the magical ability to teleport to Richard Spencer. You will be completely immune to any attempt to stop you from hitting him and no one will ever find out it was you. Free supernatural license to get a free punch on him. After you hit him, you will be teleported back to where you were.

Hell, I'll even answer my own hypothetical. There's no one in the world I would do this to, with the possible exception of the leader of ISIS, but I'm pretty sure he's dead given the current state of things over there. And I would have punched him not for the sake of revenge, but because I would be hoping to inflict permanent damage that may hamper his ability to lead. I would say Kim Jong Un, but I wouldn't want to do anything to potentially harm his mental state while he has a gun to the head of Seoul.

And this ability is definitely not transferable to say, Michael Bay?

Eh, can't say I'm that tempted, I've already had the amusement of watching Richard Spencer getting punched in the face. Is he doing anything in particular in this scenario? Or just watching TV in his underwear?