[RD] Berkeley Riots

[metalhead]

The facts that violence by a minority will overshadow the peaceful conduct of the majority and that violence will rob a demonstration of its rectitude mean that all parties in a demonstration like what occurred at Berkeley must commit to nonviolence. It is incumbent upon those who recognize the power of nonviolent demonstrations to educate their seeming allies who may not understand the importance of nonviolence to embrace that principle, else violence overtake the message of the demonstration.

So then you were ascribing the blame for the violence to the entirety of the protesters. I don't know why you fought me on this point, only to admit it a few posts later.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know why

I do... its similar to "I never said those words, plus you're twisting my words, because I didn't say it at all and when I said it I was joking so its very disrespectful for you to treat my words as a joke, but I never said anything about it, only it was said to me by others and I was just reporting what was said, so I didn't bring it up, you brought it up when you asked me about what I said..." (GOTO start).

 

[BvBPL]

So then you were ascribing the blame for the violence to the entirety of the protesters. I don't know why you fought me on this point, only to admit it a few posts later.

Failing to advise another against poor conduct is an error distinct from the conduct itself.

 

[aelf]

Yeah, just like non-violent Muslims are to some extent responsible for the violence of ISIS and such. It's a staple of conservative rhetoric and blame science.

 

[Lexicus]

Calling upon people to commit to nonviolence is not an accusation of past violent conduct, but rather an invitation to embrace a powerful, moral means to change the world for the better.

Again, it obviously is. That you don't like the logical implication doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Again, it obviously is. That you don't like the logical implication doesn't mean it isn't there.

Hmm. Presumably this means you don't agree with "teach men not to rape" then?

 

[Farm Boy]

Like sommer's already covered, it's not the how it's the what. How is just penis measuring. Triply so if we're inclined to think people just lie anyways. Then it's just bragging about your dick while being unwilling to whip it out.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm only giving you a conditional pass on that, Sommer.

Bear in mind I presume you're accustomed to a mental paradigm where one argues, forcefully, whatever it is one is paid to argue. The mental abilities have laid themselves out for compensation from power. I don't think the paradigm is necessarily always appropriate! But yes, if we think people/a person are/is inclined to lie or mislead for advantage, then everything they type can effectively be summed up as horse****.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think you are talking about this post (different thread). In any case I agree that ultimately its about the what, not the how. If you think the police are heroes and the claims of justice-system-mistreatment are overblown, it doesn't matter how quiet (or how loud) the outcries/protests of the police are... you are going to find them irritating...because you don't want to hear it, at all. Now of course the louder, more disruptive, etc., the protest is, the more its going to irritate you, but ultimately, it all irritates you... unless you don't have to hear about it. So what opponents truly want is a "protest" that they don't have to hear about, and doesn't affect them in any way... and of course the best way to accomplish that is not protesting at all.

But the problem with that, from the perspective of the aggrieved party, is that you want to raise awareness of your cause for grievance. You want their attention... so you are at cross purposes. They want to ignore you, and they want you to make it as easy for them to ignore you as possible. You on the other hand, don't want to be ignored, and you want to make it as hard for them to ignore you as possible. That means, raising hell, disrupting their lives/status quo and making them uncomfortable, with the means available to you... so say, for example... by electing a candidate they despise, and are deeply uncomfortable with. In that sense, this past election is a good example of a form of protest.

One important distinction, is that "means available to you" part... protest-via-election is a tool that is only available to aggrieved groups that can achieve majority (or near majority) numbers... If you are not in that bracket, you have to find alternative ways to raise-all-holy-hell... but make no mistake, you must raise hell or you will be ignored... which is precisely why your opponents want your protest (or vote) to be quiet and orderly and respectful of the status quo... so they can ignore you.

 

[Farm Boy]

People get what they pay for. Change is often expensive. It's also one of the reasons I frequently tune out university protests. Especially ones at good institutions. Those students are winning, their instructors are winning. It's almost more about cache than issues, it feels to me, at times. Even when they have good points, I think they tend to lack the dedication and they tend to lack the moral authority. They had more on the line when they were getting drafted. Protests in "bad neighborhoods" are typically much more worthy of attention. They're much harder to keep up, for one thing. Those people get fired when they don't show up for work. No syllabus attendance policy to argue, either.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

One important distinction, is that "means available to you" part... protest-via-election is a tool that is only available to aggrieved groups that can achieve majority (or near majority) numbers... If you are not in that bracket, you have to find alternative ways to raise-all-holy-hell... but make no mistake, you must raise hell or you will be ignored... which is precisely why your opponents want your protest (or vote) to be quiet and orderly and respectful of the status quo... so they can ignore you.

That's only one explanation for one group of people. Other people can just be against rioting and mindless vandalism because it's inherently the wrong way to behave (in their opinion). You might see it as "raising awareness", but they just want you to stop smashing stuff up and go away. Not because they fear you are getting column inches for your political cause, but because you're annoying and they don't like what you're doing.

 

[BvBPL]

But the problem with that, from the perspective of the aggrieved party, is that you want to raise awareness of your cause for grievance. You want their attention... so you are at cross purposes. They want to ignore you, and they want you to make it as easy for them to ignore you as possible. You on the other hand, don't want to be ignored, and you want to make it as hard for them to ignore you as possible. That means, raising hell, disrupting their lives/status quo and making them uncomfortable, with the means available to you...

Which is amply possible without resorting to base violence. Or bass violins. Or to the extent that we define things by tenor, violas. There's not room for that sort of stuff in contemporary democracy.

But there is always room for cello.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's only one explanation for one group of people. Other people can just be against rioting and mindless vandalism because it's inherently the wrong way to behave (in their opinion). You might see it as "raising awareness", but they just want you to stop smashing stuff up and go away. Not because they fear you are getting column inches for your political cause, but because you're annoying and they don't like what you're doing.

I understand what you are trying to say, but keep in mind that the characterization "rioting and mindless vandalism" is subjective, and has a tendency to hinge upon how you view the goal or the subjects themselves... Here is a great example:

(and to save you some time, here is the Snopes article on the same subject)

Sometimes it can even be a subconscious thing, you may not even realize that you are subconsciously predisposed to see certain groups in a negative light. To quote a common refrain "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", ergo one man's "mindless rioting vandal" is another man's "freedom fighter"... If I said "The SWAT team bust through my front door and smashed through my windows like a bunch of mindless rioting vandals"... someone else might say "well that's different because... blah blah, reasons blah blah." Like Farm Boy said... it all goes back to the what (or who), not the how.

Which is amply possible without resorting to base violence. Or bass violins. Or to the extent that we define things by tenor, violas. There's not room for that sort of stuff in contemporary democracy. But there is always room for cello.

Even if its promoted by Bill Cosby?

 

[BvBPL]

Like Farm Boy said... it all goes back to the what, not the how.

The how is the relevant topic. It was the tactics of violence and terror used at Berkeley that is objectionable.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The how is the relevant topic. It was the tactics of violence and terror used at Berkeley that is objectionable.

Again, both are relevant, all three in fact... how, what and who... because again, what makes the tactics objectionable is in my argument... is the fact that you (the royal you) don't like the who (so-called SJW's) and the what (the liberal causes they are fighting for).

As the President said (comparing the US to Putin/Russia) "You think we're so innocent?". Similarly, I'm sure that Kim Jong Un would (and does) decry the "violence and terror" perpetrated by the US. You cannot divorce that from his perspective. He hates the US, so he will criticize what we do, regardless. I am suggesting that the same is true with many conservatives and so-called SJWs.

I am not asking you to agree with my argument. I know that's impossible. However I would like to hear whether you understand the argument.

 

[BvBPL]

I am not asking you to agree with my argument. I know that's impossible. However I would like to hear whether you understand the argument.

I understand your argument. It just isn’t any good because when it comes to the use of violence, point of view doesn’t matter. Violence is wrong. It isn't a valid way to get what you want. Doesn’t matter what position you are attempting to promote, if you are using violence towards that end you are in the wrong.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not going to follow you all the way down that path. If I want somebody out of my house, and they are refusing to do it, I'm cool with 2nd Amendment rights being applied with some measures of necessary discretion.

The "who" and "what" is relevant here. This being a protest at an institution that claims to foster academic discourse and exchange of ideas, the who being students and employees of such an institution very much impacts the moral authority they have for the what of violence. My sympathy level for them, should they be swept off the street with counterforce is much diminished because of who they are.

If instead the who is a bunch of black-shirted pseudo terrorists instead of merely students overexhuberant, that different who may actually change my opinion and lead me to hope we track and incarcerate them instead of disperse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Violence is wrong. It isn't a valid way to get what you want. Doesn’t matter what position you are attempting to promote, if you are using violence towards that end you are in the wrong.

Is violence in self defense wrong? EDIT:x-posted w/Farm Boy... Exactly.

 

[metalhead]

Daniel Tosh seems relevant here. Sorry there's no video.

"There’s no excuse for domestic violence." It sounds like a challenge. I mean, does everything have to be so black-and-white in this kindergarten country of ours? What if you come home from a long day at work and your wife has drowned two of your kids - she’s about to dunk the third one. Can you run over and pop her then? "Unfortunately no, there’s no excuse. You’re going to have to let her drown that third one."

 

[BvBPL]

I’m quite certain what I said was clear.

Even if you accept that violence may be justifiable, the riot in Berkley fails on analysis of justifiable violence. Violence is justifiable, if at all, only to prevent a greater immediate harm and only then once all nonviolent means have been exhausted. At Berkley, the nonviolent means were not exhausted, nor was the violence geared towards preventing immediate harm.