[RD] Berkeley Riots

[caketastydelish]

I'm having difficulty convincing people that they shouldn't firebomb third-parties. I don't think my persuasive talents are up to calling for the abolition of the state, at least not on 6:30 on a Friday.

Grand theft auto is fun. And besides, you forget that he lives in a different time zone.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

EDIT @Manfred Belheim - You're moving the goalpost now, so meh... regardless, I understand (and disagree with) your point(s), so we (I) can move on from the Confederate flag discussion. I also readily admit that I can't remember any instances of you directly calling for people to "smash things up and set things on fire".

As to your last point... I don't think that negates what I said at all... in fact it just confirms it, for the reasons I've already stated. But that's just a feedback loop, so again, its clear that we are not going to agree on that point either.

What goalposts am I moving? I don't deny that I might be as this is an exchange that's gone on over several days or more and I'm not reviewing things each time, so I may well be being inconsistent or missing something, but I don't believe I am and certainly don't intend to.

I don't get your latter point at all, but again you're not elaborating. You're basically saying "why should anyone be sceptical of these claims" I think? I think that's a ludicrious position to hold when these claims are the very basis for attacking someone and for justifying violence. Checking the veracity of those claims is of the utmost importance. And yet me saying that confirms what you said?! What?!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't get your latter point at all, but again you're not elaborating. You're basically saying "why should anyone be sceptical of these claims" I think? I think that's a ludicrious position to hold when these claims are the very basis for attacking someone and for justifying violence. Checking the veracity of those claims is of the utmost importance. And yet me saying that confirms what you said?! What?!

It isn't so much about "being skeptical of the claims." The issue to me is that Milo himself has made the claims. He is all denials when directly confronted, but he openly gloats about the damage he has done. Until he went a step too far and had to resign from Breitbart he was regularly mugging smugly for his fans and more than eager to congratulate them for their actions that he denies having incited.

There are situations where I might actually agree with what is being said, and even generally like the person saying it (this not being one of them). That doesn't change the fact that if the person saying it is saying it with the self proclaimed intent to provoke someone they have no room to cry about it when that someone gets provoked. "But when I intentionally provoked them I didn't think they would actually do anything" really just cuts no ice with me.

Now, you are welcome to say "but Tim, you haven't proven that Milo did that!" You are right, I haven't, and I'm not going to. Wading in the swill that is Breitbart is a price I pay for keeping myself informed on the actions and motives of my enemies...and make no mistake they are my enemies and most likely yours as well. If you choose not to keep an eye on them I don't blame you a bit, because wading in swill sucks, frankly. But don't expect me to drag out bits and pieces for you to make my case just because you aren't concerned enough to keep tabs on them yourself.

 

[Kyriakos]

When will Milobart be launched?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When will Milobart be launched?

As soon as Trump puts up the funding.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What goalposts am I moving? I don't deny that I might be as this is an exchange that's gone on over several days or more and I'm not reviewing things each time, so I may well be being inconsistent or missing something, but I don't believe I am and certainly don't intend to.

I don't get your latter point at all, but again you're not elaborating. You're basically saying "why should anyone be sceptical of these claims" I think? I think that's a ludicrious position to hold when these claims are the very basis for attacking someone and for justifying violence. Checking the veracity of those claims is of the utmost importance. And yet me saying that confirms what you said?! What?!

On the goalposts... You initially asked for "evidence" which I gave, to which you responded that, no, that wasn't sufficient, you wanted "an indication" or "direct advocacy"... raising the specter of exactly what I forewarned... a tangential argument about the nature and quality of "evidence". This just puts us in a "Yes it is!, No its not!" feedback loop which I hope you will agree is pointless. We disagree, that's fine. We both made our points. We disagree all the time Manfred, let's move on to the next issue.

On the second point... again... You have seen me in action on these threads to know that if I feel that a debatable point has been raised I am willing, often, to battle to the beaches and into the sea on it. So please accept my word for it that on this issue we are past that point. I am satisfied that your response in no way refuted my original argument. If it did, you know I would respond. You disagree, I get that, but again... "No it doesn't! Yes it does and you're ludicrous!" is pointless. We disagree. Plenty of other things on this topic to disagree about. I like debating/discussing things with you Manfred, so I don't want to get into a pointless "You're ludicrous! No YOU'RE ludicrous!" feedback loop with you.

 

[BvBPL]

So then you agree, the violence itself is ultimately not what is problematic, but rather the thing the violence was brought to bear in response to.

You asked me why we are discussing the riot at Berkley and not a riot following a sporting event. The answer is not about the violence itself, which is problematic in either case, but the audience. The protest at Berkley is an issue important to the audience. People care more about that protest then they would about a sport riot. That makes them more interested in collateral topics, like the violence at the protest. The choice of the Berkley protest was a means to engage the audience.

Does your definition of violence only encompasses physical contact, either by hand or through instrumentalities (guns, bombs etc)?

I’d say that for the sake of this discussion we should probably limit it to physical violence against other people. Physical violence against other people outside of agreed upon terms, if we want to leave the door open for enjoying the sweet science.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I’d say that for the sake of this discussion we should probably limit it to physical violence against other people. Physical violence against other people outside of agreed upon terms, if we want to leave the door open for enjoying the sweet science.

So that excludes flipping over cars, and generally smashing "things" up, assuming those "things" aren't actual peoples bodies, right?... that would also mean that molotovs against the side of buildings, windows, police cars, etc are excluded for the sake of this discussion, correct? Overall, threats of violence/menacing behavior-without -actual-contact are excluded from this, right?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It isn't so much about "being skeptical of the claims." The issue to me is that Milo himself has made the claims. He is all denials when directly confronted, but he openly gloats about the damage he has done. Until he went a step too far and had to resign from Breitbart he was regularly mugging smugly for his fans and more than eager to congratulate them for their actions that he denies having incited.

Eh? He's openly claimed to have outed transgender and/or undocumented students, and congratulated his fans for assaulting them? Citation?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

On the goalposts... You initially asked for "evidence" which I gave, to which you responded that, no, that wasn't sufficient, you wanted "an indication" or "direct advocacy"... raising the specter of exactly what I forewarned... a tangential argument about the nature and quality of "evidence". This just puts us in a "Yes it is!, No its not!" feedback loop which I hope you will agree is pointless. We disagree, that's fine. We both made our points. We disagree all the time Manfred, let's move on to the next issue.

Well... what you cited wasn't evidence. So I didn't move any goalposts at all. I've never said anything about supporting people who go around starting fires and rioting. Not in the slightest. "You stuck up for people who want to fly a flag once" is so tangential as to be almost shooting off into a 4th dimension. You also keep putting "evidence" in quotes for some reason. Not sure what that's about.

On the second point... again... You have seen me in action on these threads to know that if I feel that a debatable point has been raised I am willing, often, to battle to the beaches and into the sea on it. So please accept my word for it that on this issue we are past that point. I am satisfied that your response in no way refuted my original argument. If it did, you know I would respond. You disagree, I get that, but again... "No it doesn't! Yes it does and you're ludicrous!" is pointless. We disagree. Plenty of other things on this topic to disagree about. I like debating/discussing things with you Manfred, so I don't want to get into a pointless "You're ludicrous! No YOU'RE ludicrous!" feedback loop with you.

This is pretty low. I gave a pretty clear argument as to why nailing the veracity of these claims down is important, given the seriousness of the things being advocated for, or excused, on the back of them. I've also told you that I'm unable to find any evidence to back them up at all and they appear to be entirely spurious. I've ALSO said why the burden of proof should be on the people making the claims in the first place anyway. You're the one who's basically only said "no you're wrong", and not even slightly elaborated as to why I'm wrong. Or what, as you claim, what I said just backs up what you said. So yeah... pretty low to accuse me of doing that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eh? He's openly claimed to have outed transgender and/or undocumented students, and congratulated his fans for assaulting them? Citation?

Now, you are welcome to say "but Tim, you haven't proven that Milo did that!" You are right, I haven't, and I'm not going to. Wading in the swill that is Breitbart is a price I pay for keeping myself informed on the actions and motives of my enemies...and make no mistake they are my enemies and most likely yours as well. If you choose not to keep an eye on them I don't blame you a bit, because wading in swill sucks, frankly. But don't expect me to drag out bits and pieces for you to make my case just because you aren't concerned enough to keep tabs on them yourself.

Was there some more effective way I could have said that?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

People making accusations are usually expected to put at least some vague effort into backing them up. "Don't expect me to back up my case"... you expect anyone to respect that at all?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People making accusations are usually expected to put at least some vague effort into backing them up. "Don't expect me to back up my case"... you expect anyone to respect that at all?

Don't really care. "He deserved it" wouldn't stand up in court even if every point was demonstrated in triplicate. In a "court of public opinion" such as this there is no real consequence to "lack of respect." If you were actually interested you could investigate for yourself. Breitbart isn't members only. But you don't really want to know, which is fine. You are no more likely to protect Milo from me than I am to encounter him on the street, so what would be the point of this dissection of the minutia?

 

[Sommerswerd]

People making accusations are usually expected to put at least some vague effort into backing them up. "Don't expect me to back up my case"... you expect anyone to respect that at all?

Actually, I respect it, because I consider Tim credible. So from my perspective, on the one hand, I have you claiming that you find the claim spurious based on your research and on the other hand, I have Tim claiming that he finds the claim accurate based on his. So I choose to believe Tim in this regard, one because I am biased towards the SJW point of view on this issue and two because I find him more credible on this issue. Part of the reason I find him more credible is exactly the evidence that I already mentioned to you. Your credibility on these types of issues was/is shaky from my perspective... the "I'm not American" excuse was just one reason.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, I respect it, because I consider Tim credible. So from my perspective, on the one hand, I have you claiming that you find the claim spurious based on your research and on the other hand, I have Tim claiming that he finds the claim accurate based on his. So I choose to believe Tim in this regard, one because I am biased towards the SJW point of view on this issue and two because I find him more credible on this issue. Part of the reason I find him more credible is exactly the evidence that I already mentioned to you. Your credibility on these types of issues was/is shaky from my perspective... the "I'm not American" excuse was just one reason.

Thanks. While I don't care about the "respect" from any particular individual I do take pains to maintain my credibility overall.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would have figured you more for being a fan of giving them. Mostly from taking your word on matters.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Taking pains is a figure of speech. Giving pains is more of a hobby.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Don't really care. "He deserved it" wouldn't stand up in court even if every point was demonstrated in triplicate. In a "court of public opinion" such as this there is no real consequence to "lack of respect." If you were actually interested you could investigate for yourself. Breitbart isn't members only. But you don't really want to know, which is fine. You are no more likely to protect Milo from me than I am to encounter him on the street, so what would be the point of this dissection of the minutia?

Sorry... you really expect me to trawl the internet to try and find evidence to back up your claim? Of course I'm not going to do that, that's just silly. Don't act like I'm the one who doesn't want to know though. I asked. You're the one who has no interest in showing me, so there we go.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry... you really expect me to trawl the internet to try and find evidence to back up your claim? Of course I'm not going to do that, that's just silly. Don't act like I'm the one who doesn't want to know though. I asked. You're the one who has no interest in showing me, so there we go.

Nope. I actually expected you to take my word for it, since I have trawled through that particular batch of slime. But it really doesn't bother me that you don't, and I don't intend to make any effort to get you to.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Actually, I respect it, because I consider Tim credible. So from my perspective, on the one hand, I have you claiming that you find the claim spurious based on your research and on the other hand, I have Tim claiming that he finds the claim accurate based on his. So I choose to believe Tim in this regard, one because I am biased towards the SJW point of view on this issue and two because I find him more credible on this issue. Part of the reason I find him more credible is exactly the evidence that I already mentioned to you. Your credibility on these types of issues was/is shaky from my perspective... the "I'm not American" excuse was just one reason.

Oh dear lord. I'm not American. It's not an "excuse" (yes I can use quotes too) it's the truth. Therefore it would be silly to expect me to have any sort of emotional investment in an American flag.

Seriously... look at what you're saying. Someone's making a POSITIVE claim about someone, saying "he definitely said this thing, or did this thing". The person saying it is actively refusing to show any evidence to back this up whatsoever. You find this "credible". On the other hand all I've said is that I have looked and been unable to find any such evidence, and when someone says they have some, I ask for it. You find me "not credible". What does that mean, you think I have found some evidence and that I'm denying it? That I'm lying about looking? Remember that all I'm claiming is that I haven't been able to find anything, I'm not the one claiming I've got some definite proof to show. That is seriously stupid and I'd have expected better from you frankly.