[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

it doesn't sound credible to me, sorry.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

it doesn't sound credible to me, sorry.

No apology necessary. But seriously, everyone should experience Breitbart for themselves before they dismiss the idea that Milo, a Breitbart editor, would do exactly what I described. If you had waded that swamp, even briefly, it wouldn't sound "not credible" at all...and you would be well served to know what is loose in the world and informing the President of the US.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

Alright... let's keep it funny... You've played Civ 4? Yes of course you have... so you're familiar with the diplomacy category "We just don't like you enough", and you're also familiar with the modifier "You have traded with our worst enemies!!!"

So for you, the modifiers are:
1. This war spoils our relationship.
2. You declared war on us!
3. You declared war on our friend!!
4. You have traded with our worst enemies!!!
5. You refused to stop trading with our worst enemy!!!
And so on... So it is frankly astonishing to hear you claim to not understand why I find Tim's claims more credible than yours...

 

[KmDubya]

So there's evidence on Breitbart that Milo did the following which justifies the violence used to shut him down, specifically:

1. That Milo outed transgendered students (and not the one that was already out and suing his former university)
2. That Milo outed illegal immigrant students
3. That Milo has incited his readers to perform violence against the outed transgendered and the outed illegal immigrants

It appears that producing this evidence would settle this entire argument and effectively "win" the debate for the side justifying their violence. Makes it hard to understand why the evidence is not produced.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So there's evidence on Breitbart that Milo did the following which justifies the violence used to shut him down, specifically:

1. That Milo outed transgendered students (and not the one that was already out and suing his former university)
2. That Milo outed illegal immigrant students
3. That Milo has incited his readers to perform violence against the outed transgendered and the outed illegal immigrants

It appears that producing this evidence would settle this entire argument and effectively "win" the debate for the side justifying their violence. Makes it hard to understand why the evidence is not produced.

Frankly, there's no prize available so winning isn't an issue.

I also said that it isn't the specific "Milo outed such and such person on such and such date" that's the issue. He has incited consequences for people, and gloated about it to his trollish following. That is his shtick. Much like some of the scummy people around here who will "ride the edge" to provoke a response and then act like they have no idea why they are despised and cry about how unfair everyone is, he has ridden the edge of inciting his followers and then tried to put an innocent face on it...even though he is more than happy to high five and back slap with the people he "had no intention of inciting that way." So, at the end of the day I really don't care if he has actually gotten anyone hurt or not. I despise the little scum and will cheer whatever consequences befall him.

Just like you don't really care if he has hurt anyone, only to opposite effect. You will cheer him on as long as it isn't you he harms and he manages to avoid crossing a legal line of liability. I'm more barbaric, obviously. Congratulations, you win the internet. Sure glad I don't allow people like you near my real life.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't take me as being on Milo's side -- I definitely am not. But I'm curious about one thing: Have a source?

Yeah, Breitbart. Spend a few months trolling through their comments section and meeting the real people that Milo panders to. Then get back to me.

 

[Kyriakos]

Considering that Milo lost the support of the repubs (most likely) due to being gay (or acting as gay at any rate?), i wouldn't really view any of this charade as positive. Think of all the other, non-gay Milos, which will never lose the support. Then also think of the analogous "dem" Milos, who also won't lose support. Milo's demise seems to mean nothing at all for anyone else than him.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Alright... let's keep it funny... You've played Civ 4? Yes of course you have... so you're familiar with the diplomacy category "We just don't like you enough", and you're also familiar with the modifier "You have traded with our worst enemies!!!"

So for you, the modifiers are:
1. This war spoils our relationship.
2. You declared war on us!
3. You declared war on our friend!!
4. You have traded with our worst enemies!!!
5. You refused to stop trading with our worst enemy!!!
And so on... So it is frankly astonishing to hear you claim to not understand why I find Tim's claims more credible than yours...

Hmm... not sure how you know I played Civ 4 and not any of the other variants, but well done that is in fact that only version of Civ I've played.

The reason I don't understand it is because I'm not even making any claims for you to find credible or not. Indulge me in another silly analogy...

If Tim swore that he'd seen Milo wearing a red hat, and I swore I'd seen him wearing a blue hat, and our two eyewitness accounts were the only two pieces of evidence that existed, then yes I would understand you making a choice to find Tim more credible, if you have more faith in his hat spotting abilities (or, dare I say it, honesty).

But that's not what's happening. Tim's saying he's seen Milo wearing a red hat and that he can even provide solid evidence of this, but he just isn't going to. Whereas I'm saying I have no idea what colour hat he was wearing, or if indeed he was wearing a hat at all, but in my own searches I've not been able to find any evidence to substantiate the claim that he wore a red hat. It doesn't even make any sense to talk about me being "credible" in this instance because I'm not making any positive claims at all, I'm just asking to see the evidence that he wore a red hat. Yes, you're free to blindly believe your friend's tale of the red hat without seeing the evidence if you want to, and in most cases that would be fine, but I think that if you're going to go down the road of villifying someone for wearing a red hat, and justifying violence on that basis, then it kind of behoves you to put some minimal effort into verifying that a red hat was actually worn, especially when direct evidence purportedly exists. "Nope, don't need to see the evidence, I believe my friend, let's burn things" is kind of the essence of mob mentality is it not? Hmm, I think I might have just put my finger on the whole thing...

Edit: And it's even worse than that really isn't it, because I'm not just being called not "credible", I'm actually being villified myself and painted as some sort of evil person just because I feel like I need some actual evidence before I start bringing out the pitchforks and torches. Witness Tim's reply to KmDubya up there for more of that attitude. Again, he just asks to see the evidence, or argues that it's more than reasonable to want to see it, and he gets told that he's someone who "doesn't care if people get hurt" and gets told "sure glad I don't allow people like you near me in real life". Totally uncalled for and uncivil, and the only defence offered will undoubtedly be along the lines of "I feel no need to be civil to [insert insulting term of choice] like you". Rinse and repeat.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hmm... not sure how you know I played Civ 4 and not any of the other variants, but well done that is in fact that only version of Civ I've played.

Ha! If you must know... it was your join date. Civ 4 was old-hat by that point and Civ 5 hadn't been released yet... No point in pre-joining a Civilization website in anticipation of a game you never played. See, I'm a regular Alex Cross I tells ya

As for the rest... I will indulge, thanks for asking... Your red-hat/blue-hat analogy is so spot on, thanks for making it. A more tangible/meaty example that tracks precisely, if I may... is the theist-atheist debate, where you have both sides claiming that the other side is making a claim and therefore has the burden of proof. Now I tend to lean towards the atheist's view in this regard, that the theists are the one claiming god exists... however, I recognize that I am biased in their favor, and because I recognize my own bias, I can also see that there is merit in theist claim... that atheists are also making a claim, ie that god doesn't exist. The point is, in my view, everyone should just argue/prove their own position and admit their biases, rather than trying to claim that they are somehow objective and the other side has to convince them.

So bringing it back to our current debate. I fully recognize the excellent rhetorical position you have staked out for yourself here... the ol' "You're making the claim not me, so you have the burden of proof!" argument. What I am telling you Manfred is I reject that position as nothing more than a debate tactic, rather than a substantive position. I will also point out again, that we are deep, deep, deep into the weeds of arguing the tangential... what counts as evidence, proper debate logic/format, burden of proof etc... and far off the road of substance, ie the morality of violence... just as I said we would be. I'm happy to continue along these lines... As I said I enjoy debating with you, I just wanted to verbalize what I think is happening.

"I feel no need to be civil to [insert insulting term of choice] like you". Rinse and repeat.

I'm trying to get everybody to embrace "ANOANIO" (any number of adjectives, not inherently offensive) as the proxy for this. In fairness IIRC it was actually BVBPL who coined this... Farm Boy leans towards a string of asterisks followed by an apostrophe and an "s", like this (****'s and *********'s) which I also think is sexy . Also, if we're keeping score... at this point, in this particular debate you've called me "ludicrous", "stupid" and "blind"... just sayin'.

 

[Farm Boy]

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

Eh. Scars to your beautiful I suppose.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As for the rest... I will indulge, thanks for asking... Your red-hat/blue-hat analogy is so spot on, thanks for making it. A more tangible/meaty example that tracks precisely, if I may... is the theist-atheist debate, where you have both sides claiming that the other side is making a claim and therefore has the burden of proof. Now I tend to lean towards the atheist's view in this regard, that the theists are the one claiming god exists... however, I recognize that I am biased in their favor, and because I recognize my own bias, I can also see that there is merit in theist claim... that atheists are also making a claim, ie that god doesn't exist. The point is, in my view, everyone should just argue/prove their own position and admit their biases, rather than trying to claim that they are somehow objective and the other side has to convince them.

In theory yes, everyone should argue/prove their point and admit their biases, but surely you have to agree that it isn't that simple when one person's point is just the negation of the other person's point? Not only is it not really possible to prove a negative point, but also both arguments essentially hang on the same evidence, or lack thereof. In this specific case the key evidence would be examples of Milo saying these things which are in question. Evidence which I've been told exists. Seeing this evidence would settle the question. Which is more reasonable to ask for - that the person claiming such evidence exists presents it, or that the person who can't find it trawls the entire internet and rules out that it exists anywhere? I maintain that the former is the only reasonable option. The latter isn't even really physically possible, but I can't see what else I could do to "prove" my "claim". And yes, this isn't a court of law, so there's bound to be arguments long the lines of "the burden of proof doesn't apply here", but that's just wriggling out of it. Positive claims are being made and they are being used as the basis for defending what would usually be classed as "negative" actions, so I think it's entirely reasonable to want proof before going down that road.

As for my own biases, yes, I don't believe that he has said such things, certainly not in the way claimed, so that means I just won't believe the claims without evidence. If I found it more plausible to begin with, like you do, then I would probably somewhat relax my requirement for proof. I still like to think I'd stop short of advocating lynching without double checking though. But as interesting as that it, it's academic because if the proof is actually presented, and it's as clear as is claimed, I won't have any choice but to be convinced.

Also, if we're keeping score... at this point, in this particular debate you've called me "ludicrous", "stupid" and "blind"... just sayin'.

Have I though? I may well have called your argument ludicrous and/or stupid, but I don't think I called you such things did I? And I certainly never cast aspersions on the quality of your character. Not that I'm saying you did to me either, but you know, whatever. Also the only example of "blind" I can think of is when I said "blindly believe your friend's tale", which I think is just an objective description of believing his story without needing to see any evidence, hence "blind", is it not?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here's the funny thing. If you go to a debate contest you can show up out of the blue, parse out every word, slip and slide through without any intellectual integrity, and take home a trophy. But if you join a debate club and have to go back to the same place every week you will find that no amount of cleverness can restore the credibility lost.

When I say that I've trolled through Breitbart for months, Sommerswerd finds that believable. Not because "he's my friend," but because it is consistent with what I've been saying for months. It's something consistent with pretty much everything he's ever seen me say.

When I say "I saw this there" he finds that believable. Not because "he's my friend," but because I have reported truthfully on things I've seen, consistently, through 20,000 posts. I don't hedge around just to provoke people, then backtrack to pretend that wasn't my intent, or do any of the other credibility destroying things that some people do. If people get provoked by what I say, I just tell them to stuff it.

My unwillingness to wade again through months of previously covered muck and mire and produce justifications to support my impression of what flavor the muck is just to satisfy requests from people I have no respect for can be taken by those people in any way they choose. But it should be noted that again I am being consistent. I've always castigated people who brought walls of muck sample links as if they were "proving" something. I've always laughed at people who wanted me to "prove" I was in the navy, or was educated, or wasn't "living in my mom's basement," or whatever silliness they wanted to demand proof against and stood on my consistency and credibility.

This works because this is more like a club than a contest. Credibility builds up, or erodes. If you want to cry about me having it and you not, you have only yourself to blame.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Have I though? I may well have called your argument ludicrous and/or stupid, but I don't think I called you such things did I? And I certainly never cast aspersions on the quality of your character. Not that I'm saying you did to me either, but you know, whatever. Also the only example of "blind" I can think of is when I said "blindly believe your friend's tale", which I think is just an objective description of believing his story without needing to see any evidence, hence "blind", is it not?

For reference... this statement is one example of the "credibility eroding" types of backsliding Tim is talking about above. The old "I didn't call you X, I called your argument X" trick. Yep we've all seen it, and we've all used it... but eventually, talking to the same folks about all sorts of different things over the course of time, you start to realize... If I say to someone that "their argument is X-ist"... I need to understand that they are going to feel like I am saying they are X-ist, and I need to be prepared to respond substantively to that beyond some stale rhetorical sleight of hand, otherwise I shouldn't use the adjective in the first place (Oh, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the thoughts in your brain)... I slip up on this myself sometimes... we all do, but again, its just so much more worthy of respect to just own your statements and positions, don't try to backslide and "wriggle out" as you put it. Again... weeds, weeds, weeds... where were we?

I am in the middle of something right now... I will respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yep we've all seen it, and we've all used it... but eventually, talking to the same folks about all sorts of different things over the course of time, you start to realize... If I say to someone that "their argument is X-ist"... I need to understand that they are going to feel like I am saying they are X-ist, and I need to be prepared to respond substantively to that beyond some stale rhetorical sleight of hand, otherwise I shouldn't use the adjective in the first place (Oh, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the thoughts in your brain)...

I take exception to this categorization that "we've all used it." When I call someone an X-ist and they take offense I just tell them to stop being an X-ist if they don't like being called one.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As for my own biases, yes, I don't believe that he has said such things, certainly not in the way claimed, so that means I just won't believe the claims without evidence. If I found it more plausible to begin with, like you do, then I would probably somewhat relax my requirement for proof. I still like to think I'd stop short of advocating lynching without double checking though. But as interesting as that it, it's academic because if the proof is actually presented, and it's as clear as is claimed, I won't have any choice but to be convinced.

I realized after reading the whole post that this bolded part pretty much settles it. Thanks for your candor. This has been an ongoing theme for me through this discussion in particular... the idea that we all view the problem from our pre-determined perspectives.

Let me ask you a more substantive question on this topic. Let's assume for sake of discussion that Milo is egging on people to hurt transgendered people and that his actual subjective intent for the Berkeley speech was in-fact to inspire people to act against trans folks, and hurt them physically. Would you then change your stance on violence to prevent him speaking? Or would you still feel that violence was inappropriate? If it happens to be the latter, then this whole discussion has been... how to put it...ANOANIO.

As an aside, I agree that double and in most cases triple-checking, prior to executing people is the best policy.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This works because this is more like a club than a contest. Credibility builds up, or erodes. If you want to cry about me having it and you not, you have only yourself to blame.

I honestly don't understand how you have any when you say stuff like this. Makes you look petty really. Also makes it look like you're not really paying attention as I keep saying the concept of me having any "credibility" in this case doesn't make any sense given that I'm not actually claiming anything, I'm asking to be shown the evidence. So I'm hardly crying about not having it. But, you know, carry on I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I honestly don't understand how you have any when you say stuff like this. Makes you look petty really. Also makes it look like you're not really paying attention as I keep saying the concept of me having any "credibility" in this case doesn't make any sense given that I'm not actually claiming anything, I'm asking to be shown the evidence. So I'm hardly crying about not having it. But, you know, carry on I guess.

What you clearly don't get is illustrated by your clinging to the use of "in this case."

 

[Manfred Belheim]

For reference... this statement is one example of the "credibility eroding" types of backsliding Tim is talking about above. The old "I didn't call you X, I called your argument X" trick.

I really wish you'd stop calling everything a trick. There is an actual difference between directly insulting someone and telling them you have no time for their specific argument. You also didn't respond to what I said about "blind" not even being an insult, just a description. But again, carry on I guess.

It's weird, you say you "enjoy debating with me", and to be honest I enjoy it with you too. Even though we disagree on pretty much everything, you're reasonable about it the vast majority of the time and engage with the actual points made and that's really refreshing on here. Which is why I find it weird that you then say I'm constantly pulling tricks and backpedalling and being disingenuous all the time. I don't think such things about you at all and I find it bizarre (perhaps even... ludicrous) that one could profess to enjoy debating with someone who they characterise in that way.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What you clearly don't get is illustrated by your clinging to the use of "in this case."

Well that's because I'm of the opinion that each argument, or thread, or whatever, should be treated on its own merit, not on the "reputation" of the poster in question. This isn't school anymore. Anyway, this is futile. You're making positive claims about the guy, which are the entire basis for supporting rioting to stop him talking. You refuse to provide any evidence of the claims. That's kind of all there is to it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I realized after reading the whole post that this bolded part pretty much settles it. Thanks for your candor. This has been an ongoing theme for me through this discussion in particular... the idea that we all view the problem from our pre-determined perspectives.

Let me ask you a more substantive question on this topic. Let's assume for sake of discussion that Milo is egging on people to hurt transgendered people and that his actual subjective intent for the Berkeley speech was in-fact to inspire people to act against trans folks, and hurt them physically. Would you then change your stance on violence to prevent him speaking? Or would you still feel that violence was inappropriate? If it happens to be the latter, then this whole discussion has been... how to put it...ANOANIO.

As an aside, I agree that double and in most cases triple-checking, prior to executing people is the best policy.

I don't know if I'd change my stance, I still think that there should be other options, but at the same time I would then see why people would see it as justifiable. If there's a danger of actual harm coming to people as a result of the talk then I could see why there would be more imperative to stop that from happening than if you just don't like his ideas, and why you might be compelled to go further in that case.

But that's jumping ahead again. The important thing is that if he were demonstrated to have said these things, then I would agree that he said these things. That's the bone of contention at the moment is it not?