U of F president: Richard Spencer hoping for violence to build movement

Look at all the empty seats at the auditorium. That is the correct way to deal with Spencer and his ilk. No need to spend a half-million dollars on security, just ignore him and he will go away. Let the fives of people that want to listen to him do so in peace. If you feel the need to counter him, have another event at another time or another location that is anti-white nationalism. It is the people who violently oppose speakers that result in the huge waste of money on security for these events.

 

It is also those people who give the white nationalists exactly what they crave: violence and media attention.

 

If that trend continue, great. But schools aren't about to give up security for any speaker whose intent is to spread racism, white supremacy views and hope for confrontation. That's not just a security risk, but a financial risk with lawsuit waiting to happen. It is irresponsible to assume nothing would happen. The blame for the security cost is first and foremost on Spencer.

 

There's your white privilege.

 

The issue is, there isn't an actual fire. If everyone ignore Spencer, he has no power. He isn't setting policy. He isn't secretly killing people (so far as I know). He is giving talks that the vast supermajority of people don't agree with. It's more like someone saying from the stage they sure would like there to be a fire in the theater and a few people saying that is a terrible idea and then beating up 3 people that are there just to watch the play. There is absolutely no need to panic because of anything Spencer says, nor is it a natural reaction, like it would be if there were a fire in a crowded place.

Yep, it must be my white privilege that allows me to react to white nationalists with measured calm instead of irrational violence. That or my superior intellect.

 

lol....

 

Yep, the protesters, Antifa, etc. are following the playbook of those who unsuccessfully opposed MLK. They meet words with violence, and in doing so do more to help the cause of their opponents than themselves. The southern racists would have been more successful opposing the Civil Rights movement if they had not responded to marches with violence and instead just ignored King and the Freedom Riders. Following the tactics of Bull Conner doesn't lead to success. The marketplace of ideas should determine whose views win out, not who destroys the most property, who cracks the most skulls, or who shouts down more of the other side's speakers. You went a ways back for that one Sam, but yes, people can still be photographed in public (in case you were wondering).

 

White nationalist shot at protesters after Richard Spencer speech in Florida, police say

 

Smh, the 3 white nationalists involved are from Texas.

 

Psshaw, the superior intellect to deflect from racists who aren't targeting you. The superior intellect to ignore and deflect from the systemic racism that I've presented to you repeatedly. The epitome of your white privilege on display.

White nationalist shot at protesters after Richard Spencer speech in Florida, police say

 

The Antifa red herring, right out of the Trump playbook. The marketplace of ideas where civil rights laws are unconstitutional and you advocate for everyone to deny service based on race of whatever else they feel like. Your 19th century America.

 

If protesting gets violent white nationalists off the streets and in prison, then, by all means, keep protesting.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-richard-spencer-speech-20171020-story.html

 

Did you read where the protester "used a baton to hit the rear window of the vehicle." Like in all the other times when violence has erupted following one of these speeches, it started with the protesters. Obviously pulling out a gun and shooting at people for hitting your car with a club is not the proper reaction, but this is hardly proof that violence is the inevitable result of the speech. Violence was a choice by those opposed to the speech.

see above

The stated goal of Richard Spencer is a white ethno-state. He has specifically said he is not calling for violence in the one interview I watched with him. The only violence I have seen actually associated with him was when he got sucker punched while talking to some reporter. I'm no fan, and I certainly would not be surprised if he has advocated for violence at other times, I am just saying I haven't seen it. The KKK and the Nazis have certainly committed acts of violence (duh) the Nazis to a much greater extent than the KKK. How many people have died at the hands of communists BTW. Are they allowed to have events on campuses?

The event itself is not a fire in a crowded theater. People make a choice to show up and protest, and some percentage of those people protest violently (actually breaking the law, as opposed to the speech in question). Richard Spencer giving a speech is not at all like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Nor is Farrakhan giving a speech, or the Westboro Baptist Church people, holocaust deniers, radical islamic clerics, communists. or anyone else expressing a political opinion, however unpopular.

At least you are willing to acknowledge that.

No more than any of the other garbage people I mentioned above.

I don't agree with the concept of hate crimes. Actions are crimes, not thoughts. It makes no difference to me if you beat someone because they are black or because they are a Yankees fan or because you want their wallet.

I highly doubt every act of racist vandalism is a precursor to violence.

Ignoring him will take away a significant amount of his power. The only power he has is as an influencer, and that only comes with exposure. Do you think he gets more exposure when he is protested and there is violence, or when he speaks without incident to 80% empty rooms?

I would imagine books and other media. The same places most people get their ideas.

I think everything has an effect, large or small. I also think in a country that values free speech, any idea can be put forward into the marketplace of ideas and people can accept or reject them as they choose. Right to liberty and all.

I was against Antifa before Trump ever mentioned them. Antifa is a violent communist "group" that thinks people who believe in things like capitalism are evil and should be destroyed.

The marketplace of ideas where I can advocate that civil rights laws are unconstitutional (they obviously are on their face) and people should be allowed to deny services on whatever basis they like (they should, it is their property/labor being provided) and you are free to advocate for whatever ideas you like. No one should be allowed to stab me or shoot at me or attack my car with a baton because of my ideals, nor you for yours.

 

After their car stopped and started harassing the people, shouting racist nazi slogans at them. It isn't okay to hit the car with a club, but that doesn't excuse the trying to kill someone.

 

Do what they do in Europe, every Nazi that shows up people donate 10 or 100 dollars to BLM, American Jewish Committee and LGBT causes.

Have a big banner when they show up saying what they are doing, when they leave the event have a big banner saying "Thanks! You helped raise $20,000 for Jewish, Black and LGBT communities."

 

Nazism and the Klan have been removed from the marketplace of ideas. They're terrorists. The only difference here is that a bunch of you apologists aren't targets for the Nazis and the Klan so you're more than happy to appease them in the name of a 19th century version of freedom that you'd like to see return from the dumpster of history in order to reinforce a tyranny of the majority. It's appalling.

 

I think hate for people is a thought or emotion that is occurring in someone's head. I don't think we should prosecute thoughtcrime. If someone paints a swastika on your house, they can be arrested for vandalism. If someone attacks you because you are gay, they can be arrested for battery. If someone burns your car because you are black, they can be arrested for arson. If someone paints "You suck!!!" on your house, they can be arrested for vandalism. If someone attacks you because you cut in front of them at the checkout line, they can be arrested for battery. If someone burns your car because you are parked over the line, they can be arrested for arson. The acts are already criminalized, and your house, body, and car are suffering the same, regardless of the motivation.

Genocide starts with violence. It is violence. There are plenty of groups that hate each other and just keep on living their lives.

It may well be, as I said, I just have not seen Spencer himself directly issue a call to violence. Maybe it is my limited exposure to him.

There is a marketplace of ideas for all ideas. There are not some group of ideas that you don't agree with that are off limits to talk about. People can be racists, xenophobes, religious zealots, flat earthers, concerned about the illuminati or reptillians, or any other idea. The appropriate response to any of these ideas is never violence.

From the article, they resorted to violence when they were subjected to violence. Obviously their response was not proportional (hence their arrest), but it was a response to violence.

Why must they be fought? What happens if you let Richard Spencer speak at every event to which he is invited and everyone else just goes about their day? Why can't the response be a second event that debunks his ideas? Fighting them IS playing into their hands. Any form of identity politics is playing into their hands.

That sucks, I hope they caught the vandals and arsonists. I very much doubt they were driven from their neighborhood by a public speaker though. What you describe are three independent criminal acts, not the natural consequences of a speaker being unopposed by violence.

It's the people that react to the hate groups with violence that are instigating the violence. Words should be battled with words. No one that reacts to someone giving a speech about any topic by beating people, destroying property, or doing something to prevent the person from speaking is in the right, even when the speaker is in the wrong.

The Klan is not an idea. Nazism can be debated just like anything else. No idea cannot be discussed.

There are tons of terrorists whose ideas are discussed. ISIS's ideas are discussed, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, etc. The fact that ideas are held by terrorists doesn't prevent discussion of those ideas. I would have no issue with someone speaking at a college campus about Israel oppressing the Palestinians, the British oppressing the Irish, the relative merits of Sunni or Shia Islam, etc. Even though I disagree with them, that doesn't mean they cannot put their ideas into the marketplace.

I'm the target of ISIS. I'm the target of radical Mexican separatists in California. I'm the target of black nationalists. I'm the target of the ELF. I'm the target of the radical left. I support their rights to speak anyway, because the values of freedom are more important than the content of what they are saying. Just like the values of property rights are more important to me than the fee fees of those excluded from the enjoyment of other people's private property. Your worldview is as appalling to me as mine is to you.