[RD] Berkeley Riots

[aelf]

I disagree with all violence, not just at protests.

That's a facile and at best tangential response to what I said. I don't think you can honestly support protests at all as long as they're liable to result in violence.

I do. And emphatically so. For they are not peaceful at all.

The usual "peaceful protest" of a campus event of Mr. Yiannopoulos involves...

..."protesters" outnumbering attendees of the event, sometimes by an order of magnitude...
... efforts to block access to the site...
... precipitous use of petty assault commited against the attendees to that end (poking, shoving, spitting, things of that nature)...
... gratuitous hate speech, that would have to be called sexist and racist in any other context...​

...the proclaimed purpose of all of that being denying politically conservative students (you know, white supremacist groups like, say, campus Republicans) their rights regarding free speech, assembly and political participation.

In short: These protests are about creating a chilling effect for the sake of partisan politics.
That's not "peaceful".
You know, your general disdain for there being young Republicans at all (with which i can certainly sympathise) notwithstanding.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that peaceful is not the same as non-violent? Or are you saying that there were no non-violent protesters?

If it's the first, then I wonder why you're so fanatical about free speech. White supremacist speech doesn't have a chilling or intimidating effect on people?

 

[metatron]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that peaceful is not the same as non-violent? Or are you saying that there were no non-violent protesters?

If it's the first, then I wonder why you're so fanatical about free speech. White supremacist speech doesn't have a chilling or intimidating effect on people?

Well, you are unduly raising the bar here with making it exclusive but basically i am saying the latter.
Of course there are not "no non-violent" protesters at these events. Of course there are some. But the general character of these protests is not "peaceful".
And they are systematically not "peaceful". Their purpose, systematically, is to insult the attendees of these talks, to commit verbal violence - as the protesters would characterise it if anyone but them was doing it - and to - if at all possible - make the event impossible by physically blocking access and commiting petty violence against the would-be-attendees.

Now i can surely see, how this behovior might feel justified if it is aimed to block the political participation of some absolutely horrible group. And you may feel free to argue that campus Republicans are just that. But if that's the protesters assertion they are in essence persueing an overthrowing of the political system in the United States starting with banning the Republican party.
I'm not sure if that is what they are arguing. Are they?

Anyway, i think a comparison i would like to make here is with "pro life" protesters at abortion clinics. Who in my view are vile and wrong and on the margins of the definition of domestic terrorism.
This strikes me as similar. If your political opposition can't have a campus event, in a closed room, not in public, mind you, while you yourself very much dominate public space with your political speech on campus, then democratic discourse is over. You're basically in a state of civic strife now, revolution, civil war, whatever you want to call it.


Now you may say campus Republicans are ok-ish. But their choice to invite Yiannopoulos is horrible. How would one stop the event from happening in the first place.
Well, just shame them.
But campus liberals in the US can't do that. They can't pressure campus Republicans to abide by some commonly agreed upon political decency, largely because they themselves have waved all such decency in their own action for years.
And this now, is exactly the reason they got criticised by other liberals for doing that, liberals who happened to be older than 22, and you know, not morons who can't strategise until effin next week.

 

[aelf]

Well, you are unduly raising the bar here with making it exclusive but basically i am saying the latter.
Of course there are not "no non-violent" protesters at these events. Of course there are some. But the general character of these protests is not "peaceful".
And they are systematically not "peaceful". Their purpose, systematically, is to insult the attendees of these talks, to commit verbal violence - as the protesters would characterise it if anyone but them was doing it - and to - if at all possible - make the event impossible by physically blocking access and commiting petty violence against the would-be-attendees.

Can you decide whether you want to talk about the violent protesters or non-violent protesters? Your equivocation of "verbal violence" and acts of "petty violence" isn't helping to make your case clear. And again I note the irony of your complaining about "verbal violence" against racial provocateurs.

 

[BvBPL]

That's a facile and at best tangential response to what I said. I don't think you can honestly support protests at all as long as they're liable to result in violence.

I’m not sure if you’re saying that you cannot support the small number of protests that are liable to result in violence, or that you cannot support any protest because some fraction of protests are liable to result in violence.

The latter pretty much fails right away because most protests are not liable to result in violence. Even when logistical difficulties, like the large crowds, create the potential for safety concerns, a little bit of organization and coordination with the authorities can go a long way to keeping everyone safe.

 

[Lexicus]

The latter pretty much fails right away because most protests are not liable to result in violence.

By what measure?

coordination with the authorities

I feel like you don't really get the point of protesting

 

[metatron]

You're aware of the concept of a person using quotes to make it clear that they disagree with how someone else used a term, do you?

For they are not peaceful at all.

The usual "peaceful protest" of a campus event of Mr. Yiannopoulos involves...

Like this.

This is extremely straight forward. No equivocation.
I'm claiming that the protests of Yiannopoulos's events, in Berkeley and elsewhere are generally not peaceful in character and that you are mislabeling them when you (and Ryan Holiday too), in essence, claim that the other protesters are peaceful.

We may get back to the article here:

Someone like Milo [...] doesn’t care that you hate them—they like it. It’s proof to their followers that they are doing something subversive and meaningful. It gives their followers something to talk about. It imbues the whole movement with a sense of urgency and action—it creates purpose and meaning.You’re worried about “normalizing” their behavior when in fact, that’s the one thing they don’t want to happen.

I'm pretty sure you understand where trying to sabotage an event by blocking access and/or commiting petty violence (and verbal violence too, not the point) against attendees files in the context of this paragraph.
That's the problem with using violence against people while styling that as righteous, vigilant political "self defense" of sorts (which can apply, i'm not saying it never does).
To people who don't subscribe to your premises it may just look like hate.

Again:
I'm saying that Holiday is correct to disagree with "peaceful protesters", as you put it.
And i'm saying that both you and Holiday himself shouldn't call the protesters "peaceful" to begin with.

I am not saying that their petty violence is the end of the world or that you have to go out of your way to call them "violent protesters". Just call them "protesters" who "tried to disrupt or prevent" this, that or the other event of Mr. Y.
That's appropriate language that leaves it perfectly open for the two of us to disagree on and debate whether they are a) justified or b) effective.

And again I note the irony of your complaining about "verbal violence" against racial provocateurs.

It's an accusation and a diagnosis, not a complaint, primarily about physical, however admitedly minor, violence.
Any noting of irony regarding reference of verbal violence has to ring awfully hollow, for said supposedly peaceful protesters are very much the same people who purposefully eroded the distinction between verbal and physical violence.

 

[Nexlev]

Moderator Action: As a reminder, this is an RD thread. Keep your responses to each other civil. Also, no public accusations or insinuations that a poster is a DL - take that up with the mods in private by reporting posts or by PM.

What is a DL? downlow?

 

[Kyriakos]

What is a DL? downlow?

Democrat leader?
Deranged loon?

Spoiler :

in reality... "double login" And yes, it is a bad idea to accuse people of that in a thread

 

[Nexlev]

thanks.

 

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, DL = double login = alternate account or sockpuppet.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Sockpuppet"
But wouldn't that really need for both the original account and the dl to be there at the same time/interacting?

X: I think that so and so is true.
X's sockpuppet: you are utterly right, X!

 

[NovaKart]

I don't object to voluntary trigger warnings in theory but especially if they are "enforced" as someone posted or expected there are some real problems.

What are you supposed to do if someone is triggered? Is it simply a warning there is uncomfortable material?

If there's an English literature class and they're studying the Faerie Queen and students are triggered by the rape in the book are they supposed to be given an alternate text?

It can also be difficult to anticipate what would be triggering to people. Someone with an eating disorder might be upset about discussions of weight.

It looks like people are so subjective now about things that make them feel unsafe to the point that someone can shut down an uncomfortable discussion because he or she feels uncomfortable and this is stretched to mean unsafe.

 

[aelf]

You're aware of the concept of a person using quotes to make it clear that they disagree with how someone else used a term, do you?


Like this.

This is extremely straight forward. No equivocation.
I'm claiming that the protests of Yiannopoulos's events, in Berkeley and elsewhere are generally not peaceful in character and that you are mislabeling them when you (and Ryan Holiday too), in essence, claim that the other protesters are peaceful.

We may get back to the article here:

I'm pretty sure you understand where trying to sabotage an event by blocking access and/or commiting petty violence (and verbal violence too, not the point) against attendees files in the context of this paragraph.
That's the problem with using violence against people while styling that as righteous, vigilant political "self defense" of sorts (which can apply, i'm not saying it never does).
To people who don't subscribe to your premises it may just look like hate.

Again:
I'm saying that Holiday is correct to disagree with "peaceful protesters", as you put it.
And i'm saying that both you and Holiday himself shouldn't call the protesters "peaceful" to begin with.

I am not saying that their petty violence is the end of the world or that you have to go out of your way to call them "violent protesters". Just call them "protesters" who "tried to disrupt or prevent" this, that or the other event of Mr. Y.
That's appropriate language that leaves it perfectly open for the two of us to disagree on and debate whether they are a) justified or b) effective.


It's an accusation and a diagnosis, not a complaint, primarily about physical, however admitedly minor, violence.
Any noting of irony regarding reference of verbal violence has to ring awfully hollow, for said supposedly peaceful protesters are very much the same people who purposefully eroded the distinction between verbal and physical violence.

So you think the distinction between the verbal and the physical is blurry?

And do you also agree with the notion that we have to fight violent or racist ideology with reasoned argument only, or by simply ignoring it?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was going to post a new thread for this, but then I remembered we already had a "Analyzing Protest" thread...

There was a "Day without Immigrants" protest on Thursday Feb 16, ostensibly to make the economic impact of the absence of immigrant workers felt. As part of the protest, people no-showed to work. Apparently some of the protesters were fired as a result of them not coming to work.

Twelve Latino employees from the I Don’t Care Bar and Grill in Tulsa, Okla. told Fox 23 News they were fired over text message because they didn’t show up for their shift and failed to let their employers know about their absence. The employees told the station they expected to be reprimanded, but not dismissed.

The firings led to an outcry in the community.

My thought on this is that part of protesting is provoking a (potentially harsh) response in order to raise awareness and build sympathy for your cause. If there is no risk to protesting, then the value/sacrifice and therefore the moral high-ground is undermined.

I know some of you may have thoughts.

 

[zxcvbob]

I was going to post a new thread for this, but then I remembered we already had a "Analyzing Protest" thread...

There was a "Day without Immigrants" protest on Thursday Feb 16, ostensibly to make the economic impact of the absence of immigrant workers felt. As part of the protest, people no-showed to work. Apparently some of the protesters were fired as a result of them not coming to work.



My thought on this is that part of protesting is provoking a (potentially harsh) response in order to raise awareness and build sympathy for your cause. If there is no risk to protesting, then the value/sacrifice and therefore the moral high-ground is undermined.

I know some of you may have thoughts.

What did the people promoting this think would happen?? Of course the promoters are not the ones being hurt, so if they thought of it at all they didn't care. THAT should be the message. Heartless so-called progressives exploiting poor people to further their politics.

 

[NovaKart]

You should at least let your employer know that you're not going to be there that day.

 

[metalhead]

What did the people promoting this think would happen?? Of course the promoters are not the ones being hurt, so if they thought of it at all they didn't care. THAT should be the message. Heartless so-called progressives exploiting poor people to further their politics.

Are you serious? Nobody forced them to participate. This hardly qualifies as "exploitation." Do you even know what the term means?

Given the harsh response in the community, I suspect the restaurant may rethink the firings.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't want to eat at a place that fires employees, rehires them only after public outcry, and has those same people prepare stuff for me to eat out of sight.

 

[metalhead]

As a coastal liberal elite, I would never deign to leave my ivory tower to visit a place called I Don't Care Bar and Grill. Well, unless they had killer barbecue.

 

[Farm Boy]

Probably helps keep unintentional semen consumption to a reasonable level.

+1.