[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Manfred Belheim]

Surely there are limits to when those actions are appropriate. Would you extend hospitality to a known pedophile and allow him to spend the night in your house with your children? Or heck, just to someone your roommate or spouse doesn't like and doesn't want in your house? Or to a stranger that knocks on your door in the middle of the night?

There are few actions beyond the most basic level of politeness and kindness which aren't in need of some level of justification. Absolutes are very difficult to find.

Okay so now I have to justify the concept of being kind to strangers? I'm not willing to go further down this rabit hole.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Palpable irony

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I attempted to get us off that tangent by suggesting that if the actors subjectively believe that the self-defense/defense-of-others justification is present, then they are morally covered, whether the justification actually exists or not. Manfred is stumped by this, and as he can't bear to give any quarter to the SJWs, he is claiming righteous indignation and tapping out.

Really? You think I'm "stumped" by that? I tapped out because it's absolute hogwash. You're basically saying that people can act as horribly as they like to other people, as long as they hold a belief that justifies is. Even if that belief is unfounded, and they have wilfully avoided making any effort to verify it at all, they are still "morally covered"? If you watch an old Frankenstein film, do you thing the baying mob of villagers with the torches and the pitchforks are the heroes or something? The only thing I'm "stumped" by is how you can possibly hold that belief and how it would even be possible to try and reason with you on any related topic when you hold such a fundamentally immoral stance.

And how is it fair to accuse me of taking this discussion on a "tangent" by trying to establish the actual facts of the pertinent case, whereas you can start talking about the "nature of belief" and spawn of discussions about how it's not always correct to be kind to strangers and somehow this doesn't count as tangential at all?

 

[metalhead]

Okay so now I have to justify the concept of being kind to strangers? I'm not willing to go further down this rabit hole.

I was merely making the point that things that sound good, like offering hospitality, are no more inherently virtuous than things which sound bad, like violence, are inherently bad. Context always matters.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Really? You think I'm "stumped" by that? I tapped out because it's absolute hogwash. You're basically saying that people can act as horribly as they like to other people, as long as they hold a belief that justifies is. Even if that belief is unfounded, and they have wilfully avoided making any effort to verify it at all, they are still "morally covered"? If you watch an old Frankenstein film, do you thing the baying mob of villagers with the torches and the pitchforks are the heroes or something? The only thing I'm "stumped" by is how you can possibly hold that belief and how it would even be possible to try and reason with you on any related topic when you hold such a fundamentally immoral stance.

Nice try, you basically took Lex's substantive response and are trying to pass it off as your own. If you thought of this at the time you would have said it instead of declaring that you were "done with this" and "The end" and all that other melodrama.

Anyway, that doesn't change that its a completely valid rebuttal to my point... which I realized and admitted when Lexicus pointed it out. So in response I will say that Lexicus is right and I guess that it goes back to behaving reasonably under the circumstances. And I think that if the circumstances are that you have a credible, reasonable belief that Milo is going to cuase your classmates harm, that it is moral to protest him to keep him away. And if the administration is not responding and you escalate the protest damaging some property in the process, that might be justified as well.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're changing the subject away from your point that we should disregard someone's accumulated credibility, by virtue of treating each post atomically.

Well we already have 17 tangential discussions going on at once, what's one more? Neither of these statements are what I actually wanted to talk about, and they don't contradict each other, so what's the problem?

 

[BvBPL]

And I think that if the circumstances are that you have a credible, reasonable belief that Milo is going to cuase your classmates harm, that it is moral to protest him to keep him away. And if the administration is not responding and you escalate the protest damaging some property in the process, that might be justified as well.

The tricky issue is whether it is permissible to use violence to keep others from harm.

 

[Lexicus]

So in response I will say that Lexicus is right and I guess that it goes back to behaving reasonably under the circumstances.

I'd say it's basically impossible to construct a comprehensive theory of morality that would tell you how to act in any given situation. It's gotta be evaluated case-by-case.

I'd also say it's possible to appreciate the place a person or group has in a dialectical process without agreeing with all the stuff they do and say. That's my attitude towards most people whose politics are more radical than mine: "I may not agree with you on everything but I appreciate what you're doing anyway."

 

[Farm Boy]

Especially if you either haven't contacted law enforcement or have and they declined to act. I mean, we have more than a couple instances of guys on the phone with the cops and they're telling him to calm his **** down, and he goes and wastes some black guys for breaking into a garage/walking down the street. I get the general impression most posters here aren't exactly a fan of loose standards on this front. Are we getting a pass here because nobody died? Legit question. Not always one I get to ask in conjunction with the use of molotov cocktails(or other weaponry), either because of the cocktails or more likely, the state response to the cocktails.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Palpable irony

What's the irony Sommerswerd? It seems to me you want this to be a philosophical discussion about the very nature of belief or something like that, and you consider anything else to be "tangential". Whereas I see this is the very tangent to avoid.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I was merely making the point that things that sound good, like offering hospitality, are no more inherently virtuous than things which sound bad, like violence, are inherently bad. Context always matters.

Don't disagree with any of that. Not relevant to the subject at hand (which is brimming with context). Hence rabbit hole.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nice try, you basically took Lex's substantive response and are trying to pass it off as your own. If you thought of this at the time you would have said it instead of declaring that you were "done with this" and "The end" and all that other melodrama.

Anyway, that doesn't change that its a completely valid rebuttal to my point... which I realized and admitted when Lexicus pointed it out. So in response I will say that Lexicus is right and I guess that it goes back to behaving reasonably under the circumstances. And I think that if the circumstances are that you have a credible, reasonable belief that Milo is going to cuase your classmates harm, that it is moral to protest him to keep him away. And if the administration is not responding and you escalate the protest damaging some property in the process, that might be justified as well.

Yes of course Sommerswerd, that's exactly what I did. I absolutely definitely read his response first and then tried to pass it off as my own. I am incapable of forming my own thoughts. And it's not like I was just restating things I've already been saying or anything.

I can't be doing with you pulling crap like this. No point talking to you further. You pretend you want some actual honest debate, but it's just a smokescreen to wheel out a string of childish attacks like this. Go away you silly person.

Edit: God knows why I even feel the need to defend against unsubstantiated childishness like that, but compare these two quotes and tell me I'm not essentially saying the same thing I already said days ago. I even mentioned torches and pitchforks ffs:

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.

You're basically saying that people can act as horribly as they like to other people, as long as they hold a belief that justifies is. Even if that belief is unfounded, and they have wilfully avoided making any effort to verify it at all, they are still "morally covered"? If you watch an old Frankenstein film, do you thing the baying mob of villagers with the torches and the pitchforks are the heroes or something? The only thing I'm "stumped" by is how you can possibly hold that belief and how it would even be possible to try and reason with you on any related topic when you hold such a fundamentally immoral stance.

But yes, I definitely copied and pasted Lexicus because how else could I have formed on an opinion on such a complex moral conundrum as this. Jesus Christ...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd also like to say that it's basically impossible to construct a comprehensive theory of morality that would tell you how to act in any given situation. It's got to be evaluated case-by-case.

 

[Lexicus]

Especially if you either haven't contacted law enforcement or have and they declined to act. I mean, we have more than a couple instances of guys on the phone with the cops and they're telling him to calm his **** down, and he goes and wastes some black guys for breaking into a garage/walking down the street.

Yes, I thought of this as well as a potential reductio ad absurdum objection to Sommer's original formulation but decided to go with the SS example because it's clearer.

Are we getting a pass here because nobody died? Legit question. Not always one I get to ask in conjunction with the use of molotov cocktails(or other weaponry), either because of the cocktails or more likely, the state response to the cocktails.

To some degree, yes. Injuries that appear to have been minor and property destruction don't seem too unreasonable a price to pay for shutting down Milo. Also I'd consider the school administration to have a big share in the blame for what did happen due to their hamfisted handling of the situation ("yeah, we heard your concerns, this is happening anyway and if you don't like if what are you gonna do? Start a riot?")

 

[metalhead]

Don't disagree with any of that. Not relevant to the subject at hand (which is brimming with context). Hence rabbit hole.

But that contradicts your earlier statement that things like hospitality and trust don't require justification. That's clearly not true in many contexts. It's relevant to the discussion we're having because the argument here should be focused on the context of the protest/violence, and whether that justifies it.

 

[BvBPL]

This could also describe a lynching. That's, I guess, the ugly truth about American notions of folksy community justice.

You yourself advocated lynching as a means of justice earlier in this thread. This is the problem with accepting violence as a legitimate element of society; your acceptance of violence is of the same sort that paved the way for lynchings in the South. Acceptance of violence only enables more violence.

People knew that Yiannopoulos would harm people just like people knew that the black fellow raped the white girl.

 

[Hygro]

Well we already have 17 tangential discussions going on at once, what's one more? Neither of these statements are what I actually wanted to talk about, and they don't contradict each other, so what's the problem?

¿The problem is you saying there's a problem with talking about the things you bring up while defending that you brought them up

 

[Lexicus]

You yourself advocated lynching as a means of justice earlier in this thread.

More an emotional outburst than an 'advocation' of anything.

This is the problem with accepting violence as a legitimate element of society;

So again, are you an anarcho-pacifist in the mold of Tolstoy? If you support/accept the existence of a state you accept violence as a legitimate element of society.

People knew that Yiannopoulos would harm people just like people knew that the black fellow raped the white girl.

Nonsense, and a comparison guaranteed to simply piss people off and make them think you're either a white supremacist or a troll.

 

[Farm Boy]

You think people didn't believe? Oh, I think they believed. If not all, enough to look away. And that's from somebody who has no family fondness at all for dipweed hanghappy knights with golden circles. That it pisses you off means you should watch your jaw on that one.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes of course Sommerswerd, that's exactly what I did. I absolutely definitely read his response first and then tried to pass it off as my own. I am incapable of forming my own thoughts. And it's not like I was just restating things I've already been saying or anything. I can't be doing with you pulling crap like this. No point talking to you further. You pretend you want some actual honest debate, but it's just a smokescreen to wheel out a string of childish attacks like this. Go away you silly person. Edit: God knows why I even feel the need to defend against unsubstantiated childishness like that, but compare these two quotes and tell me I'm not essentially saying the same thing I already said days ago. I even mentioned torches and pitchforks ffs: But yes, I definitely copied and pasted Lexicus because how else could I have formed on an opinion on such a complex moral conundrum as this. Jesus Christ...

Reading the similarities between two comments you posted together definitely shows me I was incorrect to suggest that you hadn't brought up this concept earlier, so sorry about that. Still, I should add that there is a very important difference between the two quotes which makes your position that they are the same shaky (more on that later).

I did go on to say that it ultimately didn't matter who brought it up, because it was a legitimate rebuttal, so all this wailing you are doing over how I've insulted you seems a little melodramatic. I made the point, you declared "I'm out!", Lex made his point, I admitted Lex was right, then you jump back in to make the same point... I think my conclusion that you were piggybacking Lex was reasonable. I admit I didn't go back and read the whole thread to see if you had said anything related in the past. In any case, I said the point was valid, and rethought my position/argument as a result. In my own defense, I did hedge by saying "morally covered" rather than "morally correct." My intent there was to indicate that I wasn't completely sure that they would be acting appropriately, but that they would at least have some defense for their actions. Ultimately though, its a fig leaf, and I am willing to acknowledge it was a flawed position.

As far as you "not talking to me anymore"... It saddens me, truly. I will also point out that in response to that post I commended your "red-hat" analogy and discussed how I thought it applied to the situation, so its completely unfair for you to suggest that I'm not interested in honest debate with you on the issues. Frankly, I'll stand on my record in terms of my willingness to debate honestly with folks I disagree with. This is where credibility comes in again. Finally, the red-hat argument wasn't precisely on-point with the other argument, because as Tim so eloquently explained... credibility involves more than simple unsubstantiated belief. Your red-hat example presumes belief based simply on "friendship", which Tim handily debunks a few posts later. So again, all this grievance and melodrama you are displaying is somewhat misplaced and unjustified.