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

[Kaleredar]

Oh no!! Not 1 person!! Wait. Remember that BLM supporter that shot some cops?

Or was that self-defense pre-emptive racism?

Remember when you guys were all like "Wow that Terrorist doesn't speak for everyone else like him" yet now are like "wow 1 guy killed 1 chick, they are all like that!"

Hypocrisy thy name is you.

Well you see the nazis and white supremacists have this history of violence...

[TheDestinatus]

Well you see the nazis and white supremacists have this history of violence...

Vs what? black crime statistics?

[OrcsRLame]

Kinda reading it as declaring a state of emergency ahead of white nationalist speech - so that state law enforcement can protect the nazis.

As much as I hate both the Nazis and the communists, as American citizens they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wrapped up in that is the right to not be butchered by an angry mob. A large police presence will ensure the safety of the Nazis and the anti fascist protesters that will inevitably show up.

[grexly75]

The one thing you have to ask yourselves which side is worse.. Since usually those who are against the event happening are just as bad if not worse than the ones organizing the event..

Because at the moment you got those on the left, naming and shaming those who "wrong think" among other things.. Could end up seeing countries like the USA/Canada/UK/Western Europe/Australia become like the Soviet Union during the cold war years.. And believe you me it is heading that way with the way thing are going at the moment..

[OrcsRLame]

The glaring difference here is that there's no such thing as a good white nationalist, or white supremacist, or neo-Nazi. It's an oxymoron. So it takes many less steps to connect the person to the movement.

Sadly, Palpatine was right when he told Anakin that good is a point of view. Show me the chemical composition of evil and that that chemical composition exists within all of the groups you named and I will agree with you.

Until that day though, in order for society to not burn to the ground, we have to operate on universal principles instead of Garnier Fructis's definition of evil, or Laurcus's definition of evil, or Richard Spencer's definition of evil. You're reasoning like a child. Grow up.

[ati87]

Ahahaha. BLM and Antifa riot through streets and destroy shit, "It's free speech!!". White Nationalist goes to give a speech. "OMG STATE OF EMERGENCY!!!"

These people clearly have mental issues.

just for argument sake (because antifa as a organization doesn't exist) , neither of those 2 are protesting with the intention of murdering people.
These nazi's goal is to murder people or ''peaceful ethic cleanings'' if you want the PC term.

Morally they aren't the same, one side actual goal is violence while the other side is protesting violence and the only people that make these two sides morally equivalent are nazi apologist or nazi's themselves.

[Garnier Fructis]

Sadly, Palpatine was right when he told Anakin that good is a point of view. Show me the chemical composition of evil and that that chemical composition exists within all of the groups you named and I will agree with you.

Until that day though, in order for society to not burn to the ground, we have to operate on universal principles instead of Garnier Fructis's definition of evil, or Laurcus's definition of evil, or Richard Spencer's definition of evil. You're reasoning like a child. Grow up.

And what are these universal principles?

[Cyberowl]

Ahahaha. BLM and Antifa riot through streets and destroy shit, "It's free speech!!". White Nationalist goes to give a speech. "OMG STATE OF EMERGENCY!!!"

These people clearly have mental issues.

Or maybe even the Republican governor sees a bigger threat coming from white nationalists than he sees from BLM and antifa?

Sorry not even one of your guys doesn't care about your snowflake feelings, though. Must be tough.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Can I get in on the ground floor of what's going to be some gold-winning mental gymnastics to defend Spencer and "white nationalism" while also claiming to not be defending Spencer or white nationalism?

Also,

To the contrary, you should counter protest at every available opportunity, lest you lead them and others to believe those ideas are okay.

Mental gymnastics? There is a person giving a speech and they met all the legal requirements.

[Deleted]

Ahahaha. BLM and Antifa riot through streets and destroy shit, "It's free speech!!". White Nationalist goes to give a speech. "OMG STATE OF EMERGENCY!!!"

These people clearly have mental issues.

They don't destroy "shit", they beat up neo-nazis. The only people who have a problem with this are neo-nazis.

[Orbitus]

Oh no!! Not 1 person!! Wait. Remember that BLM supporter that shot some cops?

Or was that self-defense pre-emptive racism?

Remember when you guys were all like "Wow that Terrorist doesn't speak for everyone else like him" yet now are like "wow 1 guy killed 1 chick, they are all like that!"

Hypocrisy thy name is you.

No, because it DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN. How many fucking times do I have to explain it to you guys. That guy that you keep claiming was a BLM member, was kicked out of BLM for being too fucking radical. But you casually forget that shit because it goes against your fucking narrative.

[OrcsRLame]

And what are these universal principles?

Judging by how you phrased your question, you seem to have grossly misunderstood what I was getting at. I was not advocating for a set of ideas to have supremacy. I was not talking about oughts. I was making an observation about how societies actually function.

Societies use universal principles for governance because that is the only way for society to have stability. What these principles are varies from culture to culture. In America, it's called the law. It's universal, because it applies to everyone. It's a principle, (set of principles technically) because it puts a negative value judgment on actions. Murder is against the law. That is a universal principle that all members of society follow. To break that principle, is to no longer be part of society.

You could set as a universal principle, don't be a Nazi, but then you're moving from objective principles to subjective ones. What counts as being a Nazi? Is it joining a Nazi group? Thinking Nazi thoughts? Owning Nazi paraphernalia? Societies have tried to use, you must be an x, or you must not be an x as universal principles before. I could list a dozen or so examples if you want. In every instance, no matter how seemingly righteous at the time, using don't be an x as a universal principle has in the short term resulted in barbaric tyranny and in the long term caused the collapse of what was the current status quo.

Having a principle like, don't murder people, is much less subject to abuse, as it is more difficult to mistake someone for a murderer than it is to mistake someone for an x or not an x when the x correlates with belief instead of action.

Read John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for a more in depth explanation of how not to create a tyrannical society that implodes on itself.

[Kaleredar]

Vs what? black crime statistics?

I'm not really sure how black crime statistics are relevant. People don't choose to be black, and whether you think that predisposes someone to be violent is irrelevant.

People who choose to be nazis and white supremacists do so knowing fully well the wholesale murder that those groups not only conducted but supported.

[A dot Ham]

Even the majority opinion in the case you linked says that it is not absolute, and cites Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

I'd really appreciate it if you stop purposely taking that out of context. Its one thing to play the devil's advocate and its another to be intellectually dishonest.

Thus, according to Justice Douglas, "freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."

So if by allowing the nationalist speech to occur, and the thought was that the attendees would then be incited to commit property damage, and acts of violence. Then yes the speech could be prevented.

However, what we are talking about are protesters, those that would oppose the message in the speech, committing acts of violence against, those at the event and/or innocent bystanders.

The purpose and scope of this ruling would actually prevent the "protesters" (the supposed good guys here) of assembling in the first place because their counter protest is likely to create a "clear and present danger" and not the speech itself.

In every case study regarding this ruling where "free speech" is allowed to be censored. It is a "clear and present danger" committed by those in support of or rather those voluntarily attending being incited to violence, and NOT a secondary party committing crimes simply because they are in opposition of its message.

[FreaknRhinos]

Who gives a shit, the more attention you give these assholes, the more they spout bullshit. When this shit is ignored like a street corner preachers, then we will know that America has moved on. We ain't there yet. Hopefully soon.

[kail]

Any other Gators on here?

Orange and blue!

[Total Crica]

Who gives a shit, the more attention you give these assholes, the more they spout bullshit. When this shit is ignored like a street corner preachers, then we will know that America has moved on. We ain't there yet. Hopefully soon.

Pretty much. Unless they are actually DOING something to someone, what they say doesn't matter.

Want to keep up with what they are saying and planning to actually DO?

Infiltrate their ranks, pretend to be one of them, and if any action is planned, take 'em out right as they attempt to enact their plans!

[Katie N]

They don't destroy "shit", they beat up neo-nazis. The only people who have a problem with this are neo-nazis.

You can't go beating up people just because you don't like them, that makes you a criminal.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'd really appreciate it if you stop purposely taking that out of context. Its one thing to play the devil's advocate and its another to be intellectually dishonest.



So if by allowing the nationalist speech to occur, and the thought was that the attendees would then be incited to commit property damage, and acts of violence. Then yes the speech could be prevented.

However, what we are talking about are protesters, those that would oppose the message in the speech, committing acts of violence against, those at the event and/or innocent bystanders.

The purpose and scope of this ruling would actually prevent the "protesters" (the supposed good guys here) of assembling in the first place because their counter protest is likely to create a "clear and present danger" and not the speech itself.

In every case study regarding this ruling where "free speech" is allowed to be censored. It is a "clear and present danger" committed by those in support of or rather those voluntarily attending being incited to violence, and NOT a secondary party committing crimes simply because they are in opposition of its message.

You misinterpreted me. Fear of the protestors is why Rick Scott declared the state of emergency. I'm saying that the UF president should have refused in the first place and tried to argue that Spencer's speech could incite violence from his supporters, without mentioning protestors.

- - - Updated - - -

Judging by how you phrased your question, you seem to have grossly misunderstood what I was getting at. I was not advocating for a set of ideas to have supremacy. I was not talking about oughts. I was making an observation about how societies actually function.

Societies use universal principles for governance because that is the only way for society to have stability. What these principles are varies from culture to culture. In America, it's called the law. It's universal, because it applies to everyone. It's a principle, (set of principles technically) because it puts a negative value judgment on actions. Murder is against the law. That is a universal principle that all members of society follow. To break that principle, is to no longer be part of society.

Laws are changed, created and removed all the time. Society clearly operates on some set of principles other than the law itself. Regulations routinely pop into existence because some company did something perfectly legal that society, and more importantly congress, deemed to be wrong or evil.

So trying to ground good and bad in terms of legality, as you seem to be doing, actually misses how society operates.

You could set as a universal principle, don't be a Nazi, but then you're moving from objective principles to subjective ones. What counts as being a Nazi? Is it joining a Nazi group? Thinking Nazi thoughts? Owning Nazi paraphernalia? Societies have tried to use, you must be an x, or you must not be an x as universal principles before. I could list a dozen or so examples if you want. In every instance, no matter how seemingly righteous at the time, using don't be an x as a universal principle has in the short term resulted in barbaric tyranny and in the long term caused the collapse of what was the current status quo.

The dire consequences you listed really only follow if you insist that universal principles = laws. Mind you, society at large has for decades deemed the KKK and Neo-Nazis to be evil without outlawing it. And what barbaric tyranny have we experienced so far? And how much longer must we go before the current status quo collapses, whatever that actually means?

Having a principle like, don't murder people, is much less subject to abuse, as it is more difficult to mistake someone for a murderer than it is to mistake someone for an x or not an x when the x correlates with belief instead of action.

We've had a fair number of reports of people being wrongfully accused of white supremacy and/or being a Neo-Nazi. Meanwhile, states like Texas have been wrongfully sentencing and executing innocent people for murders for decades. It's totally plausible, but I'm not actually convinced that it's more difficult to abuse 'don't murder people.'

Read John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for a more in depth explanation of how not to create a tyrannical society that implodes on itself.

I think we need to step back and reflect on how the hell we went from what should have been a totally innocuous statement (there is no good white supremacist or neo-nazi), which would not have been controversial pre-Trump, to a discussion about Mill and Locke.

[OrcsRLame]

Laws are changed, created and removed all the time. Society clearly operates on some set of principles other than the law itself. Regulations routinely pop into existence because some company did something perfectly legal that society, and more importantly congress, deemed to be wrong or evil. So trying to ground good and bad in terms of legality, as you seem to be doing, actually misses how society operates.

The issue is that some people are acting as if their personal beliefs are law. It's a substitution.

The dire consequences you listed really only follow if you insist that universal principles = laws. Mind you, society at large has for decades deemed the KKK and Neo-Nazis to be evil without outlawing it. And what barbaric tyranny have we experienced so far? And how much longer must we go before the current status quo collapses, whatever that actually means?

I am specifically talking about governance and action. Society has deemed the KKK and Nazis to be evil, but we have clearly deemed them less evil than murderers, because murder is against the law while being a member of the KKK is not. The fact that it's not a crime means that it's allowed. People may not like it, but they're free to do it. When you use violence to try and coerce people that hold these beliefs, you are making one of two statements, depending on how you view your actions. 1. I am not part of society as I do not respect its rules. 2. The rules of society do not apply to my target. When I say rules, I am specifically referring to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you shift the rules of society, (the law) to make it illegal to hold certain beliefs, that is when the consequences I am talking about manifest. That's how you get the Spanish Inquisition. It's illegal to be a heretic. As for what the collapse of the status quo looks like... How many countries does Catholic Spain currently occupy? That should be everything you need to know.

We've had a fair number of reports of people being wrongfully accused of white supremacy and/or being a Neo-Nazi. Meanwhile, states like Texas have been wrongfully sentencing and executing innocent people for murders for decades. It's totally plausible, but I'm not actually convinced that it's more difficult to abuse 'don't murder people.'

Texas executed 544 people between 2014 and 1982. In one year in Massachusetts, in a relatively small area, 20 people were executed for the crime of witchcraft, and many more died in jail. In the Spanish Inquisition, ~5000 people were executed for the crime of heresy. Tell me, how many of those 544 murderers were not really murderers? How many of the people that died in the Salem Witch Trials were actually witches? Do you see the problem with conflating belief and action with regards to punishment yet? Do you see how one of these things is not like the fucking other?

[quote]I think we need to step back and reflect on how the hell we went from what should have been a totally innocuous statement (there is no good white supremacist or neo-nazi), which would not have been controversial pre-Trump, to a discussion about Mill and Locke.[quote]

Pre-Trump we didn't have gangs of masked lunatics going around calling everything that breathes a Nazi and trying to hit it. It's the context that matters. In bygone days, everyone knew Nazis and Klansmen were bad, but people weren't generally seeking extrajudicial justice against them while simultaneously calling everyone that supports the rule of law a Nazi sympathizer.

I don't like Scientologists. The best of them are stupid or mentally ill people being taken advantage of. The worst of them are predators. It's a pretty repugnant organization from my point of view and I have no issues saying that. If mobs start hanging Scientologists in the street, I am going to speak in defense of the Scientologists that I despise, and I am going to interpret anti-Scientologist statements made as rebuttal to that defense as tacit support of the violence and the undermining of the rule of law.