[RD] Berkeley Riots

[metalhead]

I’m quite certain what I said was clear.

It was.

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.

It doesn't matter if the position I'm promoting is is that I'm opposed to my family being murdered. Violence is wrong, and isn't a valid way to get what I want, i.e. for the intruders not to murder my family.

 

[BvBPL]

An absolute commitment to nonviolence isn’t required to see the error in violence for a social cause.

 

[metalhead]

But violence has a track record of success in furthering social causes, and is demonstrably more efficacious at achieving social change than nonviolence. You might not agree with one's calculus in the value of the social change sought versus the harm that the violence, even if aimed solely against property, does, but come on. We live in a country where a sports team winning a championship is seen as a cause worth some moderate property damage, rioting, and fire-setting. In that context, I think you badly overstate the real damage that is done when people decide to kick in a couple windows and set a couple of fires (assuming those fires aren't set in buildings). And drastically overstate culpability for people who decide to have a peaceful protest without using any and all means to prevent people from carrying out the destruction of property (assuming such a thing is possible, which of course it's not).

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

Whew... this reads like a section out of a legal treatise... its the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from some self-righteous, ivory tower, SJW, liberal, graduate student. "Actually... according to Prosser on Torts, Revised 6th Edition, 1996 annotated... violence is justifiable, if at all... under the following circumstances..."

C'mon man, that's not how people's minds work, especially not a bunch of teenage college kids. Nobody engages in Constitutional Law Professorial analysis when deciding whether to use violence... except maybe the Sec of State and Sec of Defense in the War room when they are deciding whether to drone strike somebody. And if you watch "Eye In the Sky", you'll be screaming at the screen halfway through... "Ugh! Are you serious?!?! More legalese and legal analysis?!? Just blow the terrorists up already before its too late!"

 

[BvBPL]

C'mon man, that's not how people's minds work, especially not a bunch of teenage college kids.

That's why people need to be told that violence is not acceptable.

 

[BvBPL]

But violence has a track record of success in furthering social causes, and is demonstrably more efficacious at achieving social change than nonviolence.

Nonviolence is also effective.

You might not agree with one's calculus in the value of the social change sought versus the harm that the violence, even if aimed solely against property, does, but come on. We live in a country where a sports team winning a championship is seen as a cause worth some moderate property damage, rioting, and fire-setting.

Basing an ethical argument on a game of sport seems a bit of a stretch.
For that matter, bringing in self-defense a justification for violence is a bit of a stretch for this discussion about violence at a demonstration about social issues. The violence unacceptable by even a relaxed standard, and throwing in issues about whether or not violence is acceptable in self-defense is a distraction because this obviously wasn’t self-defense.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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:

K. Guess that's relevant to what I said. Somehow.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's why people need to be told that violence is not acceptable.

The implication being that "the state" and "people" are distinct and non-overlapping categories?

It seem to me that, in discussion of non-violent protest, nobody ever bothers to define violence, which means everyone defines violence as they please, as suits themselves and their argument. That's not really good enough, not when we're talking about who is entitled to cub other people over the head, and who has to get clubbed and like it.

 

[BvBPL]

The state, people, churches, the press. The message is the same to all the estates.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is no state without violence. Not one that'd we'd recognise as such, at any rate.

 

[BvBPL]

Not yet.

 

[metalhead]

Nonviolence is also effective.

SPF2 is effective, but an Irish lass going to the beach is probably going to reach for the 40.

Basing an ethical argument on a game of sport seems a bit of a stretch.

Why? It's an instance where violence happens, mainly directed at property. Nobody seems to get upset about it. Certainly there aren't CFC OT threads started about them, right? Why is that? I'd wager it's because Farm Boy is right - the who and where matter a great deal when people decide what episodes of violence to condemn, and which to tolerate. Sure, nobody condones a sports riot, but they aren't taken particularly seriously either. So that circles back around to the question - what is really the issue here that people have a problem with? It doesn't seem to be the violence itself, because that outrage is quite selective as I've pointed out. The violence seems to be a convenient excuse to denigrate the protests as a whole.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not yet.

What?

 

[BvBPL]

What?

There’s no nonviolent state yet. Doesn’t mean we can’t conceive of one just as Asimov conceived of rules for artificial intelligences long before they were in existence. And just a Asimov’s rules inform people developing self-driving cars, contemporary discussion of imagined nonviolent states will inform development of future states.

Why? It's an instance where violence happens, mainly directed at property. Nobody seems to get upset about it. Certainly there aren't CFC OT threads started about them, right? Why is that?

Firstly, there is no presumption of an virtue in a riot after a sport game. No one is claiming the high ground for the riot. There’s no moral justification for the behavior.

Secondly, as you said, the destruction following sporting events is generally limited to vandalism against property, rather than violence against people. There generally aren’t fire bombs being tossed at the police.

Thirdly, there haven’t been a lot of riots around sport events that I am aware of that have occurred since the Punch a Nazi thread was published wherein people advocated for violence as a political / social tool. That’s really what it comes down to. The topic is timely because people are coming out following that punch saying it is acceptable to be violent to advance their social goals. In discussing the how, who, and where, the when is also relevant as the concept of violence as a means to effect social change is a timely topic.

Post Script. Additional, railing against violence following a sporting even does little to persuade anyone of anything. Nearly everyone here would say "yup, they shouldn't do that," and wag their virtual fingers. Because it isn't divisive, a discussion of violence following a sporting event wouldn't cause anyone here to change their behaviors or principles. It would merely amount to everyone agreeing with each other.

 

[Traitorfish]

There’s no nonviolent state yet. Doesn’t mean we can’t conceive of one just as Asimov conceived of rules for artificial intelligences long before they were in existence. And just a Asimov’s rules inform people developing self-driving cars, contemporary discussion of imagined nonviolent states will inform development of future states.

I mean, conceive away, but you can't simultaneously advocate universal non-violence and a violent state.

 

[Sommerswerd]

K. Guess that's relevant to what I said. Somehow.

The relevance is that you (the royal you) might refer to the actions of people you like, or who's goals you support as "behaving properly and within sound moral parameters", while simultaneously referring to a different group doing the same or similar acts as "engaging in rioting and mindless vandalism" or similar, precisely because you don't like them and don't support their goals.

I get that you feel that you personally aren't doing that. I get the sense that you feel that you (the royal you) are condemning behavior you feel is objectively bad, with no conscious concern whatsoever to any negative feelings you harbor towards the actors, personally, or their goals personally. My response to that position (assuming I'm not strawmanning here) is that to extent your anti-SJW bias (for example) is subconscious, your negative reaction is automatic, beyond your control and you aren't subjectively aware of it... which is why you feel that its not there. To the extent that your personal bias is conscious, it is naïve to deny that it impacts your position on their methods. It's naïve for a referee who admits that he despises Manchester United and loves Liverpool, to claim that he can objectively call a game between Liverpool and Manchester United. I mean he can say it, but its clear that he is deluding himself.

 

[BvBPL]

I mean, conceive away, but you can't simultaneously advocate universal non-violence and a violent state.

I'm not advocating for a violent state.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For that matter, bringing in self-defense a justification for violence is a bit of a stretch for this discussion about violence at a demonstration about social issues.

Wait... You did the OP for this thread and introduced this topic by lamenting the Berkeley students protesting Milo Yiannopoulos, right? Didn't a number of people immediately point out that Milo Yiannopoulos was known for outing transgendered students and agitating violence against them? I know that was discussed in this thread earlier... so there is a self-defense element here, as well as a defense-of-others element, right? I mean you can argue that its not convincing to you... but that's just argument. You're not the one being threatened. Again, I'm sure this has already been discussed, I just wanted to curtail the erroneous line of argument that self defense isn't an issue here. It's already been established that it is an issue.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is no state without violence. Not one that'd we'd recognise as such, at any rate.

Well, Violence happens to be the brother of State. (Kratos and Bia ). And, of course, they are both titans. Moreover they were the guards of Prometheus.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's already been established that since it isn't BvBPL-defense it is not an issue to BvBPL. That's pretty much the standard from the whole "violence isn't justified" crowd. As long as the people getting their lives ruined by Milo are other people that crowd sees no reason to get in Milo's way.