Jump to content
Null

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I have no idea what ICHY said since he is on my ignore list. But I say baloney to what you say. Blacks have  much bigger recognition groups than white. There is the NCAAP, political to the core and not so much about equality anymore. Heck we have Black History MONTH. Do whites have even a day?

Proud is concerned whites haven't gotten enough attention in the history books.

Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's difficult to believe that this explanation is necessary for an educated adult.

And there it is. The nitty gritty rhetoric of the alt-right exposing it's ugly head. "White people are the victims here! We're not being treated fairly!" The NAACP still exists for a reason. It d

It's also disturbing the event was a sellout.

Perhaps the fact that Spencer has such a hate filled, violence inducing message is why Auburn University felt the need to cancel the event due to safety reasons. The man has called for ethnic cleansing. Is that a message that won't invite civil unrest? Auburn University also has an image to protect so when choosing between shutting down hate speech or civil unrest that could cause injury and harm, I'd say they made a wise choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 11:17 PM, icanthearyou said:

Idiotic question.  One proclaims racial supremacy, the right to dominate, espouses hate.  The other seeks equality and justice.

This isn't white versus black.  This is good versus evil.

Idiotic is simply a matter of opinion.  Pretty sure the other way around would ask who has the right to decide what is good and what is evil?  "Espousing" crimes against police is just good ol' fashioned good, eh?  Funny how free speech is such a cause to be championed until it goes against your ideology.  Keep spinning it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

Idiotic is simply a matter of opinion.  Pretty sure the other way around would ask who has the right to decide what is good and what is evil?  "Espousing" crimes against police is just good ol' fashioned good, eh?  Funny how free speech is such a cause to be championed until it goes against your ideology.  Keep spinning it. 

You just put some serious spin on that one. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

Idiotic is simply a matter of opinion. 

LOL. I think we've pretty much strained credulity to its limit here. If we can't agree on the fact that literal Nazis are worse than groups seeking to level the playing field, there's no point in going much further.

Quote

Pretty sure the other way around would ask who has the right to decide what is good and what is evil?  "Espousing" crimes against police is just good ol' fashioned good, eh?  

And has the Black Lives Matter as a whole done that? Sure, some have, and maybe the movement could do a better job policing itself, but even I am not so sure what can be done. Truth is, you can't. Just like any large movement, there will be nuts. And those nuts do not represent the movement.

If someone not affiliated at all with BLM wants to Tweet “Kill whitey cops dead! #blacklivesmatter,” who’s to stop them? How does one prevent this?

Meanwhile, folks like Spencer and his 1488 buddies have no such ambiguity in their message:

Quote

"Does human civilization actually need the Black race?"

"Is Black genocide right?"

"What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?"

Quote
Tom Brady: Aryan Avatar
Quote

Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!

Quote

Think of the concepts that are now designated “problematic” and associated with whiteness -- power, strength, beauty, agency, accomplishment. Whites do and other groups don’t.

NaziChryon.jpg

Quote

Funny how free speech is such a cause to be championed until it goes against your ideology.  Keep spinning it. 

Strawman.

ICHY has not questioned Spencer's right to believe what he believes or his right to be vocal about it. He made a value judgement that it is evil. And he's right. I can only hope you read what I posted above and share that opinion. How anyone could read those words and not be utterly revolted is beyond me.

Edited by Bigbens42
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone in here knows (and yes, this is FACT!) this so called "speech" was entirely set up under false pretenses. The speech would have never happened nor been set up in the first place if Mr. Richards hadn't used a student from another unnamed school (not UA) to call Auburn and inquire/reserve the room in Foy. Mr Richards used a student from outside the state to set up/reserve/pay for the room without reading the requirements for reserving a room at Auburn University. When it came to light via Twitter by Mr. Richards himself and the university caught wind of it they approached Mr. Richards about it and he threatened to file suit. The university followed that up with a basic "Go For It" and pulled the plug on him.

Mr. Richards knew what he was doing and he got caught. This isn't just about free speech. It's about trying to circumvent the rules. It's also about keeping the peace on campus because since Mr. Richards made his remarks about coming to AU anyway the local underground groups have made it known they are coming and violence could erupt because of it.

Free speech comes with a certain set of rules....like yelling "BOMB" or "GUN" at an airport. Mr. Richards is trying to yell "bomb" in this case.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

Idiotic is simply a matter of opinion.  Pretty sure the other way around would ask who has the right to decide what is good and what is evil?  "Espousing" crimes against police is just good ol' fashioned good, eh?  Funny how free speech is such a cause to be championed until it goes against your ideology.  Keep spinning it. 

No, in this particular case it really isn't.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

How anyone could read those words and not be utterly revolted is beyond me.

I haven't read one word of what this guy writes.  Don't even know who he is, simply pointing out that the first amendment should never be one sided no matter what side you come down on.  I believe that all men were created equal and are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights that were put forth in that blessed document.  I believe that is worth fighting for that all sides can speak their mind no matter how loathsome it may be to me.  Unfortunately we can't legislate away evil, we can only punish the result.  Praise God he gave us a way out.  My hope for contentment will never be in a man or a group (or a government).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

I haven't read one word of what this guy writes.  Don't even know who he is, simply pointing out that the first amendment should never be one sided no matter what side you come down on.  I believe that all men were created equal and are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights that were put forth in that blessed document.  I believe that is worth fighting for that all sides can speak their mind no matter how loathsome it may be to me.  Unfortunately we can't legislate away evil, we can only punish the result.  Praise God he gave us a way out.  My hope for contentment will never be in a man or a group (or a government).

So then why did you jump ICHY's case when he did not argue in favor of silencing him? He has the right to point out evil, to call it what it is when he sees it.

Did you come down here to pick a fight? Expecting one?

Now that I've quoted him directly, I'm asking you for a value judgement. What do you think?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

So then why did you jump ICHY's case when he did not argue in favor of silencing him? He has the right to point out evil, to call it what it is when he sees it.

Did you come down here to pick a fight? Expecting one?

Now that I've quoted him directly, I'm asking you for a value judgement. What do you think?

I simply stated one (of likely hundreds of) other opinion(s).  If I jumped I Can't, it was for the inflammatory "idiotic" description.  He's doing the same thing (albeit to a significantly lesser extent) that the object of his derision does.  The value judgement matters not, when dealing with the first.  It simply states a truth that all men have the right to communicate whatever it is they feel like communicating.  That's where you get lost, you let the content of what is being communicated cause your emotions to overwhelm you.  The first amendment is void of emotion.  

Edited by PowerOfDixieland
Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, based on what little I read of the direct quotes you posted, my judgment is that he needs to have a radical heart transformation similar to the one I underwent 23 years ago.  Unfortunately the media is going to continue to give him the notoriety he craves.  In all likelihood he will likely get what he is looking for and it will come in the form of more hatred and contempt. There is absolutely no value in that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

I simply stated one (of likely hundreds of) other opinion(s).  If I jumped I Can't, it was for the inflammatory "idiotic" description.  He's doing the same thing (albeit to a significantly lesser extent) that the object of his derision does.  The value judgement matters not, when dealing with the first.  It simply states a truth that all men have the right to communicate whatever it is they feel like communicating.  That's where you get lost, you let the content of what is being communicated cause your emotions to overwhelm you.  The first amendment is void of emotion.  

Who's getting strident and emotive here? You're projecting. I argued in favor of letting him speak. 

I know how the 1st works, and it works both ways. We are all perfectly within our rights to call it what it is. I'm simply asking. Nothing is keeping you from answering. It is perfectly possible to have good contempt for his beliefs while supporting his right to have them. 

Edited by Bigbens42
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was never about free speech. He can speak whenever he wants too..  He just can't rent whatever venue he wants to rent. Hell, if this guy's right to free speech is infringed so is 2 Live Crew's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 11:06 PM, icanthearyou said:

It's difficult to believe that this explanation is necessary for an educated adult.

Seriously.... If I were a parent and I had a kid go to the university, I would not want them to have anything to do with this guys seminar. The university made the right move and thank God that they did. 

Edited by logan adams
Link to post
Share on other sites
"In an effort to update the campus community regarding the recent cancellation of the Richard Spencer event, it is the university’s understanding that — despite our requests for him not to attend — Spencer may still appear on Auburn’s campus at some point today," the statement reads. "While the University does not know the specifics of if and when this event might unfold, the safety and security of the campus remains our highest priority. Students, faculty, and staff should remain aware of their surroundings and report any unusual or threatening activity to the Auburn Police Division (334-501-3100). The University is working closely with law enforcement to monitor the situation and any new developments."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice if all of this was not going on but I do recall that someone when defending the right of the school to not provide a venue, pointed out that his free speech right was not affected .....and he could go elsewhere ....some place in the area that was not a school provided venue....so looks like that's what he is doing. 

Hoping the AU students let him come and go without drama....which is mostly what he is seeking I expect.  Does not appear that he has any actual followers,,,,so still wondering who the people are who are a threat to cause violence....students, faculty, people from out of town? 

Edited by AU64
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Nice if all of this was not going on but I do recall that someone when defending the right of the school to not provide a venue, pointed out that his free speech right was not affected .....and he could go elsewhere ....some place in the area that was not a school provided venue....so looks like that's what he is doing. 

Hoping the AU students let him come and go without drama....which is mostly what he is seeking I expect.  Does not appear that he has any actual followers,,,,so still wondering who the people are who are a threat to cause violence....students, faculty, people from out of town? 

Let's just hope fate keeps this idiot, any other idiots he might have brought with him and the ANTIFA idiots away from each other and we get out of this without incident.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is sad is the cowards who claim they support "free speech " when you know damn well what this guy is speaking on. Hell just admit you support his BS. It's pretty easy to see through you. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the guy's message but I think he has the right to speak.  I prefer idiots like him to be in the open rather than in hiding.  Let's put all our cards on the table.

I would have scheduled a thoughtful, intelligent counter-speaker either at the same time or right after him.  Not some Antifa dipshit, but someone who can match wits with him and undercut his points with facts, logic, reason, and rhetoric.

I also like the idea cole had of minorities showing up to observe who was there in support of him.  I'd have worn a t-shirt saying, "I'm just here to find out who my friends are."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I hate the guy's message but I think he has the right to speak.  I prefer idiots like him to be in the open rather than in hiding.  Let's put all our cards on the table.

I would have scheduled a thoughtful, intelligent counter-speaker either at the same time or right after him.  Not some Antifa dipshit, but someone who can make wits with him and undercut his points with facts, logic, reason, and rhetoric.

I also like the idea cole had of minorities showing up to observe who was there in support of him.  I'd have worn a t-shirt saying, "I'm just here to find out who my friends are."

I worried the extreme left would show up and all hell break loose. I think that is what this guy wants anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...